Gun Control - Now Discussing Tucson Shooting

Lowbacca

I think the suggestion was he could quickly switch guns, rather than reload a single gun.

Right, but John Woo?s movies usually have guys fire two guns at once, or at least carry a few weapons at a time yes? Perhaps I?m thinking of someone else. My point was that even quickly switching guns is more cumbersome than firing a gun with a high-capacity magazine...or a flamethrower.

Actually, at least based on how you described it, he DID lose his right to a firearm according to existing law. Federal law states that one of the categories that disqualifies someone from being able to own a firearm is anyone that is "subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner". (Brady Act, 922(g))

Good point, and I think this is the crux of the problem that needs to be solved...communication between, say, the armed forces, the court and the FBI/NCIS.


Mr44

DS, FID, I don't know what you guys are asking with your posts. I just think they're the type of reactionary replies that a couple of people warned against earlier in the thread. The simple answer to all the above is that no one knows.

Frankly, I find your dismissive response troublesome. They?re not any more ?reactionary? than yours or anyone elses are. They simply present the opposite ?what ifs?. Your most recent post seems to suggest ?violence happens, so no point banning, or even having much of a layer of regulation, on any type of weaponry. Anyone who disagrees is being reactionary?.

I thought I was clearly being sarcastic when I used flamethrowers as an example. I also thought I was clear when I said banning certain magazines/guns was not the most pressing problem. I also think it?s obvious that I don?t believe that it will prevent all violence.

But again, I?m going to go back to my overall point that you didn?t address...that we all agree that there is a line to be drawn yes? No one is advocating allowing any and all guns to be legal. And we agree that no law is going to 100% stop every crime. But why make it so easy to obtain such weaponry, aside from ?well, crime happens so screw it.?

 

But you're missing why none of that really matters. I'd wager that for some people, immediately calling for a ban of "X offending topic" fulfills some psychological need that helps deal with the shock and tragedy of the event itself. This also fits into the brief discussion earlier in the thread about rational vs irrational solutions.

This rally was conducted at a public shopping mall, and I applaud Giffords for holding it this way.

But what if Loughner didn't use a pistol at all, and used a rifle from atop the Safeway where this was held? The results would have been the same. Except instead of of calling for a ban on the number of bullets in a pistol magazine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the call would focused on "evil high power rifles," despite the fact that "high power rifle" is a meaningless term on its own.

What if Loughner pulled into the parking lot with the trunk of his 1960 Chevy Nova filled with a fertilizer bomb? Again, the results would have been just as horrible, except people would be looking to put the blame on fertilizer, or at least calling for a ban on having such information available on the internet, and guns would never even be mentioned.

In fact, Loughner was pulled over for running a red light just hours before he carried out his attack. By all accounts, he probably had his duffle bag with his murder weapon in the car with him. But without reason to think that anything was amiss, the officer let him go with a warning. That's the way our system is set up. Should police be allowed to search every motorist who has a duffle bag on the off chance that they might be going to murder a public figure?

You're even correct in pointing out that Loughner could have used an old military flamethrower because anything is possible. Ok, so what does that realization mean?

Because Loughner's actions weren't dependent on if he had 10 bullets in his pistol or 20. They weren't dependent on whether or not he used a pistol or a rifle or a flamethrower. They weren't dependent on him being stopped for a traffic violation earlier in the day and not searched. Loughner's actions were the result of choices he made because his unrestrained anger was ignored by his family and friends, who not-so-ironically all came out after this and told how they weren't surprised it happened.

 

But what if Loughner didn't use a pistol at all, and used a rifle from atop the Safeway where this was held? The results would have been the same. Except instead of of calling for a ban on the number of bullets in a pistol magazine, you can bet your bottom dollar that the call would focused on "evil high power rifles," despite the fact that "high power rifle" is a meaningless term on its own.

That's true, if he had used an assault rifle then we would definitely be talking about assault rifles. But I've also been hearing that if Loughner hadn't had a 30-shot magazine, people could have subdued him sooner while he attempted to reload. But even if you consider 30 shots to be reasonable, why are military-grade assault weapons allowed? That's just even more killing power that doesn't need to be on the streets.

And if gun-owners were really so responsible, how do these things end up in the hands of criminals so often? For that matter, we Americans don't seem very responsible period; we don't take care of our health, we don't take care of our environment, we do drugs, drive drunk....what makes us think we can handle firearms? Even if you yourself own a gun and know you're responsible, you have to admit that our track record is lousy. We have the most lax gun laws among industrialized nations, and the most gun-related killings and accidents. Irresponsible gun owners should not be able to claim that they are responsible, and we should be setting the bar higher.

 

Mr44

I hear all of what you are saying, and it's not without merit, but it still falls under the "can't stop it, so let's not do anything at all about it, least of all discuss it".

Yes, no matter what was used, there would be people calling for it's ban, a fair point. But I don't see what's so wrong even discussing it. And I certainly wasn't suggesting that police search every motorist, or even something remotely comparable, so I'm not sure where you get that. My guess is you're using a 'slippery slope' argument, or perhaps a Chewbacca defense.

His actions may not depend on what weapon he used, but the result may very well depend on the type of weapon/ammo used. We all seem to agree that the problem, more than anything, was that this person had serious mental problems. So I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility to speculate that he still would've gone through with it even if he couldn't obtain the extended magazine. The result could've very well been the same, but again, I don't see why we should make it any easier.

When the airport scanners became a big issue, you (IMO rightly) asked everyone to look at the actual policy being proposed here, and a good discussion followed. Even a Republican is offering up a law that would restrict people from carrying guns within 1000 feet of a Congressman, and that is being resisted. Is that also irrational?

And if we are going to talk about 'psychological need', then lets start with the gun fetishists of whom Freud would've had a field day with...or at least, The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/homoerotic-overtones-enliven-nra-meeting,544/

AR

But even if you consider 30 shots to be reasonable, why are military-grade assault weapons allowed?

'Military-grade assault weapon' is a vague term. I'd be willing to bet you are going to be asked to elaborate. Some weapons that 'look' like an assault weapon as opposed to a 'hunting' rifle perform the same function.

 

Military-style rifles are much more in line with the spirit of the 2nd Amendment than personal defense weapons. I'd rather have a military-style rifle suitable for militia use than in a concealed carry-type pistol. And 30 round magazines are normal for military rifles.

 

Loughner had at least 3 33-round magazines. After finishing the first, he loaded the second without being stopped. However, as is actually fairly common with extended magazines, the second one jammed. It was while he was trying to switch to the third and clear the jam that he was tackled.

If he had been carrying standard sized magazines (such as the 15-round magazines that come with the Glock 19 by default), he would have been less likely to get a jam like he did, and could potentially have shot many more people.

According to this study, summarized by Dave Kopel here:

The sources of criminal guns were:

* Purchased from a retail store, 8.3 percent.
* Purchased at a pawnshop, 3.8 percent.
* Purchased at a flea market, 1.0 percent.
* Purchased in a gun show, 0.7 percent.
* Obtained from friends or family, 39.6 percent.
* Got on the street/illegal source, 39.2 percent.

By and large, the top sources for criminals to get guns come from either friends and family (often without their knowledge or as a "straw" sale, which is already illegal) and on the street. Only 13.8% of criminals got their guns from other sources. (Please also note that the gun show category includes purchases from registered dealers at gun shows, which are the vast majority of gun show sales. Pawn shops that sell guns are also required to be registered dealers.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, I meant more the crazy types who seem to get a power trip out of it. If you treat it as a toy, you're going to screw up. And the holding the gun to the side is its own meme in the inner city.

I really don't like where the Tucson shooting might go. I mean, I really don't want to see them start looking at political views (in this case, national socialism; I am now convinced that this was a crime of a Nazi trying to kill a Jew) as a place to start when denying people constitutional rights. That's a bad precedent. Especially since civil rights groups are often lumped in with the racist groups on the grounds that groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens and the European American Issues Forum and (yes, they went there) the National Association for the Advancement of White People claim to be "civil rights groups".

Of course, the bigger concern to me has never been the lone nut. The militia movement ultimately jumped the shark because of OKC, and I have no doubt that these racist and antisemitic attacks will ultimately do in its resurgence. I'm more concerned about groups like the Pioneer Fund. No less than the New York Times has supported books that cited the Pioneer Fund frequently in the 90s.

 

When the airport scanners became a big issue, you (IMO rightly) asked everyone to look at the actual policy being proposed here, and a good discussion followed. Even a Republican is offering up a law that would restrict people from carrying guns within 1000 feet of a Congressman, and that is being resisted. Is that also irrational?

Sure, but for my part, the key is rational. Eh, I'd still say the entire airport thing was made to be much more than it needed to be. Go spend seconds in a scanner, or get a pat-down. People can have rational objections, but the entire "OMG, it's worse than rape!!!" and such was silly.

It's the same with this issue. At first, the media was obessively calling Laughner's magazine a "modified device," because that's a loaded term that provokes a reaction. Early in this thread, there were those who even repeated that, for as much as it was incorrect.

To me, this strange new idea that "The public will just tackle any gunman while he reloads" justification is the same thing, because historically, it just doesn't happen. The majority of the population wouldn't even know what a magazine change looks like in order to react to it, they would literally have seconds to do so, and due to "fight or flight" reflex, most people move away from harmful stimuli. Can it ever happen? sure. Weapons jam, magazines bind. But to suggest overall legislation that is based on such an assumption is folly.

Even look at AR's most recent posts. As you rightly pointed out, what in the world are "military-grade" rifles? It's a meaningless term. Even "assault rifle" has a specific term within the military. It's magazine fed with a either automatic or burst capability that fires an intermediate-sized bullet, in order to differentiate such a weapon from the longer-case and heavier battle rifle. (named so from the original Nazi StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44, which literally means "storm rifle," which in widespread translation became "assault," due to its role) But I digress.. Ordinary citizens can't simply purchase "assault rifles," except for exceedingly narrow circumstances.

But yet, even when people rationally accept this, in every thread someone will ask "why does anyone need a military-grade weapon?" Without defining the term, or even recognizing what it means themselves. Or they will triumphantly point out "let's just ban everything but standard magazines, so people can go around tackling gunmen.."done and done..Except what in the world is a standard magazine? That's why I called it the "Godwin of guns," because whenever the actual meaning of these are examined and dissected, someone always throws out an "oh yeah, why do you need a flamethrower or "military weapon," and the only reply is ummmm.... (tumbleweeds lightly cross the screen...)

Someone might as well ask "Why does anyone need a Flufferjammer 2.0? Because apparently, there is a huge issue with both the original and improved versions of the Flufferjammer somewhere in the country.

So let's work together and get the Flufferjammer ban passed in Congress 2011!


and BTW, without seeing the proposal, or reading what it contains-simply taking your post at face value, I'd say the "1000 feet Congressman rule" is pretty silly as well.

 

Lets have some statistics. all of these can be found at www.gunfacts.info.
We have the most lax gun laws among industrialized nations, and the most gun-related killings and accidents.We have the most lax gun laws among industrialized nations, and the most gun-related killings and accidents.
The top 10 countries for homicide do not include the U.S.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 ? 2000.

The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. Indeed, the number of shots from revolvers (all within 6-8 round capacity) and semi-automatics were about the same ? 2.04 vs. 2.53.382 In a crime or gun battle, there is seldom time or need to shoot more.
Urban firearm deaths: A five-year perspective, Michael McGonigal, John Cole, William Schwab, Donald Kauder, Michael Rotondo, Peter Angood, Journal of Trauma, 1993.


Myth: High capacity, semi-automatics are preferred by criminals
Fact: The use of semi-automatic handguns used in crimes is slightly less than the ratio of semi-automatic handguns owned by private citizens. Any increase in style and capacity simply reflects the overall supply of the various types of firearms.
Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997


Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates.
Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.

According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America.
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005

?... the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.?
Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003.

Indeed, the Swiss basically have a military rifle in nearly every closest. ?Everybody who has served in the army is allowed to keep their personal weapon, even after the end of their military service.?
Army rifles remain racked at home, Swiss Defense Ministry statement, May 15, 2004, http://www.swissinfo.org .

In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada?s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate ? a significant increase. 40 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).
Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online.

Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.
Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, Dutch Ministry of Justice, 2001.

Ironically, firearm use in crimes [in England] has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned.
Weapons sell for just £50 as suspects and victims grow ever younger, The Times, August 24, 2007.

In 1919, before they had any gun control, the U.K. had a homicide rate that was 8% of the

 

KK

Loughner had at least 3 33-round magazines. After finishing the first, he loaded the second without being stopped. However, as is actually fairly common with extended magazines, the second one jammed. It was while he was trying to switch to the third and clear the jam that he was tackled.

Are you sure? I read this on wiki:

After the gunman ran out of ammunition in the first magazine, he stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[26] A bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair.[27] The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired colonel Bill Badger,[28] who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio.

Mr44

Fair enough, here's Peter King's proposal:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/congressman-pete-king-introduce-gun-safety-arizona-shooting/

I wholeheartedly agree that the way guns are portrayed in the media, particularly films as you have pointed out, is absurd.  Guns are far more difficult to obtain and there are more laws put into place then we are led to believe.  As you know, I am well aware of this.
 
But I also think the media/Hollywood makes it seem like guns are easy to use.  Hold two of them sideways, jumping backwards out of a window, and one can easily hit their target.  Run out of ammo?  Just flick your wrists, the magazine pops out and two new ones load from your belt.  Or maybe I've seen the Matrix too many times.
 
Point being, sure more people are going to run than try to tackle the shooter.   But even if they don't, as I mentioned earlier, unless we live in a John Woo movie or the Matrix, a few seconds can make a difference in terms of being able to escape danger, or at least lessen the chance of getting hurt, or worse. 
 
Clearly we're not going to agree on this, but I stand by my point, and find it to be at least rational. 
 

 

 

from Jan 9 story

 

I think that any new legislation now would be a knee jerk reaction. The gov't should make an in depth study of what gun laws they aim to change, what effect it will have, effects similar legislation has had in other countries, and how much it will cost. To my knowledge, there is no correlation between gun and handgun supply and violence. I think that any motion of congress would be emotional and there should be some time between now and whatever legislation congress proposes. Also, as noted in my previous post, there is no correlation between criminals and high capacity magazines. therefore, banning high capacity mags will hurt those with good intentions with little effect on crime. Ex. before the assault weapons ban, .026 % of crimes were committed with assault weapons. ?Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ?assault weapons? are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.? Ibid
Also, there should be strict definitions of assault weapons and extended magazines. To me, an assault weapon fires fully automatically or in a burst. Extended magazines vary because the standard magazine in a M9 Beretta (which i believe can be bought by civilians) has a standard capacity of 13 rounds while an FN five-seven has a standard capacity of 20 rounds, and an M1911 has a capacity of 8 rounds.
So as it can be seen from various other countries and legislation, a knee jerk reaction to limit to arbitrarily limit magazine capacity could do as much harm as good. We need to look at this shooting in perspective and not characterize all shootings by one madman.
Again, I recomend everyone read the informaion at http://gunfacts.info/

 

Just to be clear-"assault weapon" is an invented term. It suggests the military, when the only military weapon described as an "assault weapon" is the SMAWS anti-tank rocket. "Assault rifle" is the proper term-kind of, as that refers to rifles chambered for intermediate cartridges, such as the AK-47, M-16, and G-36. The Assault Weapon ban used terminology that covered what were and are basically cosmetic in nature-folding stocks, flash hiders, pistol grips, and the like-none of which actually directly affect a weapon's innate lethality.

As a great example of how silly American gun control laws are-alot of Europe does not have restrictions on the ownership of suppressed firearms; it's viewed as hearing protection (which it is) and also as a way of minimizing the impact of loud noise (ie gunshots) on the neighbors. However, here you need to register for a "Class III" license, pay a tax, and go through a background check before purchasing a suppressor.

Finland, I think, is a good example of logical gun laws (unlike the American ones, which mainly seem to be inspired by someone mistaking Commando for reality). You need to register to buy a firearm, but there a wide range of justifications for owning firearms, including sports, hobby shooting, hunting, and others.

 

Ye'up, that's if your local Sheriff will sign off on the paper work, and the "tax" is a $200.00 Tax Stamp that you must have on your person whenever you are in possession of the suppressed firearm.

Shooting a suppressed firearm is still loud in most cases anyways, "Hollywood silent" is almost impossible unless you are using
sub-sonic ammo and a large top dollar suppressor.

Game wardens don't depend on hearing gunshots much these days, we have digital cameras, FLIR, helicopters, and many other tools that no one really expected when the NFA was passed back in the good 'ole days.
Since it's just a law and regulation I'd say it's time to repeal it.