Paying $5k for something means you're rich? Really?
So you can't own one, but you can still find a legal way to use one end enjoy firing it. So what's the problem?
Cost. See we are back to only the rich get to do it. Yes paying five grand for a small lump of metal that shoots bullets faster than a much cheaper lump of metal for your hobby puts you in the "rich hobby" category. Sure maybe you saved up, maybe you make a fuckton of money. I do not know a lot of poor people who can afford a 5k lump sum on a hobby item, that will cost around 30 bucks to hold a trigger down for 2 seconds. Or I can spend 50-100 bucks to do that at a range that rents machine guns.
That is pretty expensive as far as hobbies go.
But there is no problem here. Go spend the $100 to fire off a machine gun then. And being able to spend $5k on a machine gun doesn't make someone rich. Not poor != rich.
One thing that actually can be done is for movie theaters to ban weapons on their premises and set up metal detectors at the entrance. But then you have the movie theater on the hook for the metal detector and an armed guard to man it during hours of operation.
That's the only thing I can think of that would rationally have affected the outcome in this particular case.
didn't he prop the back door open and go get his weapons though?
edit: i mean, if the back door he opened had triggered a fire alarm we might have a very different outcome here
Gooey on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Here's something that trouble me:
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
Where is a gun range going to securely store tens of thousand of dollars of my equiptment and that of, say, the 1000 regular competitors in my local area? What about the casual competitors? What about when I travel to other states? What about practice? What about ranges that don't have buildings or staff?
This seems to work in countries where shooting is a sport confined to a fraction of the super-rich. I think Greece does it this way. This just wouldn't work in the US, from logistics alone. I don't this you have any concept of the scale of gun ownership in the United States, nor that for every gun, there's probably 5 or 6 of these scary big magazines (depending on what you define as 'big').
EDIT: I'm not even saying this is bad idea. I'm saying you'd need a public-works project the size of the interstate highway system to implement it.
Really? Hundred round drums are tens of thousands of dollars? And what I'm saying is that it isn't your equipment. You should not be allowed to own a hundred round drum, because with the exception of that sport which is a hobby, you have zero need for it. You would not ever use a public-works project to implement this, because the vast majority of the country does not care to fund your personal hobby, nor does it cost much for a range to have a box they throw the big drums in in their regular lockup area. I'm very confused as to what you think I'm suggesting. I'm not saying they need to store your guns, I'm saying if you require something that would make killing people much much easier to use for your sport, you can get it from the arena, rather than keep it at your house, or in your car.
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
I think it's possible to strenuously defend gun ownership without adopting all the other opinions of a stereotypical Fox News Republican.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
I don't think you'll find many here that disagree that this is terrible.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
Exactly. What I've been saying 3 pages ago. You can go and buy a tactical nuke for all I care, but keep it locked away at the shooting range and only fire it there. People who do target shooting for a sport can be organized so that the ammo is transported to the event by a ref or that the ammo is kept on the ranges at all times.
Uh, what? So I need to go find a shooting range that is a mile long? What the fuck?
I do long range precision and have participated in competitions. I used to practice at my uncle's farm before I moved north. I have yet to see any kind of range, indoor or outdoor, that does longer than 1000 meters. The notion that long range precision needs to be capped is ridiculous.
I...don't think anyone said that? At least I didn't. I don't care if you have some ammo at your house. Hell, give whatever long range weapon you're using a five round clip or something. You can fire single shots to practice long range. You don't need a hundred round drum to practice that, do you?
I was responding to the notion that guns should be locked away at gun ranges and only used at gun ranges.
Center fires in Canada can not have more than, I believe, 6 rounds in the magazine. Any mags that are larger have plastic fillers to prevent loading more rounds (If they're legal, that is). It's a ridiculous limitation as far as I'm concerned, but it's the law (Same with the assault weapons ban. I am not allowed to make my Ruger 10/22 look like an assault rifle because all the government cared about was does it look dangerous. How dangerous it actually is seems to be immaterial to gun laws).
Pistols in Canada are restricted to gun ranges. They have to be transported in a lock box and you have to notify the RCMP if you're taking it anywhere other than your house or the gun range that you have a membership to.
As far as I'm concerned, that makes owning a pistol mostly pointless as I'm not spending $2k on something so heavily restricted. My dad has a .22 revolver that he will never use because he's not going to pay a yearly fee to belong to a gun club to shoot his pistol a couple times a year.
So casual shooters are effectively restricted from buying pistols since it's so expensive to belong to a gun club.
But I guess that's the point, really.
On the other hand, homicides by gangs with pistols is unaffected by all this since that's the most common form of gun homicide in Canada.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
I think it's possible to strenuously defend gun ownership without adopting all the other opinions of a stereotypical Fox News Republican.
I'm not attacking anyone in here, I'm looking for an honest answer to why we think that is a thing people think.
Because yeah, it's a stereotype but the same people who post shit like this:
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
Well, not so much since bribery became legal due to "freedom of speech" (/spit). Playing Devil's Advocate, voting did not start out as something people had a right to, and we've really had to fight as a nation to get it where it is, and we still have a ways to go.
I do wonder about them leaving out the part of the militia. Forcing gun owners into militias seems like a bad idea though.
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
Honestly? I'm ok with that. There's plenty of other things to shoot with.
Understand that the fact that *you* wouldn't be bothered by such a ban doesn't resonate as an argument for those of us who use large magazines in the shooting sports.
There are plenty of video games to play that arn't violent, books that arn't offensive, or cars that don't go fast, but that's not an argument for banning those, either.
Anything you need for a shooting sport can easily be kept at the sporting arena and dolled out when you need it. No need for you to keep 100 round drum at your house.
Where is a gun range going to securely store tens of thousand of dollars of my equiptment and that of, say, the 1000 regular competitors in my local area? What about the casual competitors? What about when I travel to other states? What about practice? What about ranges that don't have buildings or staff?
This seems to work in countries where shooting is a sport confined to a fraction of the super-rich. I think Greece does it this way. This just wouldn't work in the US, from logistics alone. I don't this you have any concept of the scale of gun ownership in the United States, nor that for every gun, there's probably 5 or 6 of these scary big magazines (depending on what you define as 'big').
EDIT: I'm not even saying this is bad idea. I'm saying you'd need a public-works project the size of the interstate highway system to implement it.
Really? Hundred round drums are tens of thousands of dollars? And what I'm saying is that it isn't your equipment. You should not be allowed to own a hundred round drum, because with the exception of that sport which is a hobby, you have zero need for it. You would not ever use a public-works project to implement this, because the vast majority of the country does not care to fund your personal hobby, nor does it cost much for a range to have a box they throw the big drums in in their regular lockup area. I'm very confused as to what you think I'm suggesting. I'm not saying they need to store your guns, I'm saying if you require something that would make killing people much much easier to use for your sport, you can get it from the arena, rather than keep it at your house, or in your car.
So, do you only want to lock away my drum mags (which I don't actually own, and cost 300$ or so)? Are my regular old 30-round AR mags OK (which are standard rifle mags these days). How about my regular 17-round pistol mags (which are factory standard)?
That was not what I thought you were suggesting.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
Well, not so much since bribery became legal due to "freedom of speech" (/spit). Playing Devil's Advocate, voting did not start out as something people had a right to, and we've really had to fight as a nation to get it where it is, and we still have a ways to go.
I do wonder about them leaving out the part of the militia. Forcing gun owners into militias seems like a bad idea though.
It's my understanding that the current legal understanding is that the militia part was an explanation, not a requirement. Like, "Because citizens need to be able to quickly raise a militia, we will not infringe the right to bear arms."
I don't actually think that's unreasonable, but then I'm one of those people who thinks we should be trying to address systemic cultural and socioeconomic problems instead of banning bayonet lugs.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
Well, not so much since bribery became legal due to "freedom of speech" (/spit). Playing Devil's Advocate, voting did not start out as something people had a right to, and we've really had to fight as a nation to get it where it is, and we still have a ways to go.
I do wonder about them leaving out the part of the militia. Forcing gun owners into militias seems like a bad idea though.
@TheZK Well if you go back through the quote tree, we were pretty specifically discussing 100 round magazines. Specifically, Raynaga said
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
SniperGuy on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
Well, not so much since bribery became legal due to "freedom of speech" (/spit). Playing Devil's Advocate, voting did not start out as something people had a right to, and we've really had to fight as a nation to get it where it is, and we still have a ways to go.
I do wonder about them leaving out the part of the militia. Forcing gun owners into militias seems like a bad idea though.
We have militias. It's called the National Guard.
Yup.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Also, those "Stereotypical Fox News Republicans" include the Supreme Court of the United States. So, obviously it's not as much of a strawman as we might want to believe.
We don't restrict gun ownership to only members though, nor do we pull the Guard from the general populace with their personal weapons when a disaster strikes. I suppose we technically could with a draft, but that would be stretching reality quite a bit.
@TheZK Well if you go back through the quote tree, we were pretty specifically discussing 100 round magazines. Specifically, Raynaga said
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
You could get through a 99-round limit on magazines without significant opposition from people like me. Multi-gun competitions see use of 30, 40, 50, and maybe 60-round magazines. After that, it just gets too heavy.
But I've never really seen someone advocate for only banning drums or 99+ round magazines before. I'm not sure what it would accomplish.
@TheZK Well if you go back through the quote tree, we were pretty specifically discussing 100 round magazines. Specifically, Raynaga said
So as far as I can tell, at this point I am going with there not being a practical reason things like the 100 round magazines should be commercially available, beyond that them not being so infringes on a person's right to enjoy shooting with them at a gun range?
The point is that you want to enact sweeping regulations to restrict an item that's used in a vanishingly tiny percentage of violent crimes. This is what I mean when I say that gun control laws in this country are non-pragmatic. The overwhelming majority of violent gun crime is gang-related (meaning drug-related) shooting with an ordinary low-capacity handgun, common enough to not even make the fucking local news. Mediagenic shooting sprees like this one are a statistical blip, but they're the stuff that drives regulation. The people enacting gun control laws will enact them on the basis of what feels scary rather than actual data-driven statistics on what would cause less homicide.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
We don't restrict gun ownership to only members though, nor do we pull the Guard from the general populace with their personal weapons when a disaster strikes. I suppose we technically could with a draft, but that would be stretching reality quite a bit.
Yes but the NatGuard system has replaced the old militia system because, surprise of all surprises, it no longer worked for the threats we faced.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited July 2012
trying to control proximate cause is always the most immediate reaction and probably not the most helpful
greater emphasis on or availability of free help for the mentally ill is probably vastly more helpful than screening for guns at specifically cinemas...
surrealitycheck on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
trying to control proximate cause is always the most immediate reaction and probably not the most helpful
greater emphasis on or availability of free help for the mentally ill is probably vastly more helpful than screening for guns at specifically cinemas...
I think we all agree on this point, but response to the Aurora atrocity is not the only purview of this thread.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
trying to control proximate cause is always the most immediate reaction and probably not the most helpful
greater emphasis on or availability of free help for the mentally ill is probably vastly more helpful than screening for guns at specifically cinemas...
this guy was mentally unwell, and he flew under the radar.
He should have been screened before gun ownership. And we need a better support network for the mentally unwell in this country.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
trying to control proximate cause is always the most immediate reaction and probably not the most helpful
greater emphasis on or availability of free help for the mentally ill is probably vastly more helpful than screening for guns at specifically cinemas...
I think we all agree on this point, but response to the Aurora atrocity is not the only purview of this thread.
But the fact that the NRA and other right-wing groups agree on this point might be interesting for real prospects for mental-health reform. Whereas prospects for more gun control seems to be quite poor (at least if I have my way :-) ).
We don't restrict gun ownership to only members though, nor do we pull the Guard from the general populace with their personal weapons when a disaster strikes. I suppose we technically could with a draft, but that would be stretching reality quite a bit.
Yes but the NatGuard system has replaced the old militia system because, surprise of all surprises, it no longer worked for the threats we faced.
But by that logic, if we no longer need a militia, then we no longer need protection against infringement of gun rights.
We don't restrict gun ownership to only members though, nor do we pull the Guard from the general populace with their personal weapons when a disaster strikes. I suppose we technically could with a draft, but that would be stretching reality quite a bit.
Yes but the NatGuard system has replaced the old militia system because, surprise of all surprises, it no longer worked for the threats we faced.
But by that logic, if we no longer need a militia, then we no longer need protection against infringement of gun rights.
Well yeah, of course you don't. Logically the only reason you had them in the first place was to keep the red coats invading. It's pretty much the same as if the government expected me to put a few hours of longbow training in each week in case the French invade again. Now I think we can all agree these days that's pretty unlikely, but unfortunately over the last couple of centuries people have grown attached to having those gun rights, they've become culturally entrenched. That's what you're fighting against, not the issue of proving to people that the legislation allowing them guns is hilariously outdated.
The US in kind of unique in their paranoia that their diligence and their guns is the only thing keeping their government from overthrowing them. It's why I'm not entirely opposed to people arguing for 'smaller government' but when the why becomes 'or else they'll take away everything you have' to be so poisonous to political discourse.
People need their guns because they've been convinced that if they don't, they're going to inevitably become victims.
FYI, reloading a gun is extremely quick because it's largely designed to be. If you have the magazine ready, it takes all of a couple of seconds.
I actually considered what I would do if, as someone with a concealed carry permit, I had my gun on me in this situation (I hardly ever bring my gun to any kind of large gathering of people like a movie though.) The reality is, I'd probably just attempt to get as low as possible. Handguns don't really do much to people body armored and drugged up. The North Hollywood shootout showed that pretty clearly.
I love the idea that there are people who think owning a few handguns keeps them safe from a $700 billion/yr military. Newsflash tinfoil hat wearers, this isn't 1786, if your government decided to turn on you they aren't going to send a phalanx of musket men to advance on your house. They have smart bombs.
I'm not saying there are no good reasons to keep guns, but if that's your justification for having no gun control at all, I'm surprised you don't accidentally put your pants on your head each morning.
I love the idea that there are people who think owning a few handguns keeps them safe from a $700 billion/yr military. Newsflash tinfoil hat wearers, this isn't 1786, if your government decided to turn on you they aren't going to send a phalanx of musket men to advance on your house. They have smart bombs.
I'm not saying there are no good reasons to keep guns, but if that's your justification for having no gun control at all, I'm surprised you don't accidentally put your pants on your head each morning.
The argument to counter that is typically pointing out insurgent movements in the middle east and such.
FYI, reloading a gun is extremely quick because it's largely designed to be. If you have the magazine ready, it takes all of a couple of seconds.
I actually considered what I would do if, as someone with a concealed carry permit, I had my gun on me in this situation (I hardly ever bring my gun to any kind of large gathering of people like a movie though.) The reality is, I'd probably just attempt to get as low as possible. Handguns don't really do much to people body armored and drugged up. The North Hollywood shootout showed that pretty clearly.
Yeah, chances of a CCW holder being able to stop this situation is pretty much 0. Armor piercing handgun rounds are illegal, and the chances of getting a lethal hit on a target that was armored like him, in a PERFECT target environment is highly unlikely. We are talking 3+ hits in the same location to defeat the body armor, unless he had a trauma plate as well, then forget it. In that theater? No way, no how.
Cop, armed guard, CCW holders, nothing would have mattered. Unless the cop was toting his AR in with him...
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
The US in kind of unique in their paranoia that their diligence and their guns is the only thing keeping their government from overthrowing them. It's why I'm not entirely opposed to people arguing for 'smaller government' but when the why becomes 'or else they'll take away everything you have' to be so poisonous to political discourse.
People need their guns because they've been convinced that if they don't, they're going to inevitably become victims.
Think the US is definitely a few generations out of being able to revisit gun control, but I can certainly imagine that there are wider reasons that'd you would want to reduce gun ownership. For a start it would mean you would be able to disarm a significant majority of the police, which would certainly change the relationship between citizens and state.
FYI, reloading a gun is extremely quick because it's largely designed to be. If you have the magazine ready, it takes all of a couple of seconds.
I actually considered what I would do if, as someone with a concealed carry permit, I had my gun on me in this situation (I hardly ever bring my gun to any kind of large gathering of people like a movie though.) The reality is, I'd probably just attempt to get as low as possible. Handguns don't really do much to people body armored and drugged up. The North Hollywood shootout showed that pretty clearly.
Yeah, chances of a CCW holder being able to stop this situation is pretty much 0. Armor piercing handgun rounds are illegal, and the chances of getting a lethal hit on a target that was armored like him, in a PERFECT target environment is highly unlikely. We are talking 3+ hits in the same location to defeat the body armor, unless he had a trauma plate as well, then forget it. In that theater? No way, no how.
Cop, armed guard, CCW holders, nothing would have mattered. Unless the cop was toting his AR in with him...
I'm totally down with gun-rights but every time something like this happens there come a bunch of idiots who think that what this kind of stuff really needs is more people carrying guns. And then I am less sympathetic to any pro-gun advocates.
The gun-debate in the US almost always descends into claims that there are either too many weapons or not enough. The US has an astonishing amount of gun-deaths, but it's clear that guns are neither the problem nor the solution.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
The gun-debate in the US almost always descends into claims that there are either too many weapons or not enough. The US has an astonishing amount of gun-deaths, but it's clear that guns are neither the problem nor the solution.
We love our moral superiority and proximate causes though.
Of course not many people buy AR-15s for target shooting.
Literally every person I know who has owned an AR-15 bought it for target shooting. What the fuck else are you gonna do with it, wait for the Zombie Apocalypse?
EDIT: I guess crazy survivalist nut may be a secondary use, but even those guys target shoot with them.
In any case, he bought 6 thousand fucking rounds of ammunition. SIX THOUSAND. In 2 months.
I mean, what kind of personal protection or hunting application does that have?
Stocking up. Ever seen Spaghetti-O's on sale for super-cheap, so you bought ten cans even though you eat like one can every month or two because they bring back warm memories from when you were a kid? You do that because you will eat them, and Spaghetti-O's don't go bad, right?
Neither does ammo, not if you store it properly. So if you see a good deal on ammo, and with rising prices pretty much any deal is a good deal, you might be inclined to stock up. Sure, maybe you only shoot 100 rounds here and 500 rounds there at the range. But saving 20% on 6,000 rounds (which at that point may only be like a year or two of supply) can be real money.
Hey it's this thread again, the same argument that happened last time there was a shooting and the same argument that will come up at the next one.
This discussion is pointless on all levels. The last dozen shootings did nothing to advance gun control, the majority of Americans do not want more gun control. The odd massacre every year or two is a price most Americans are willing to pay to have guns.
Pretty much, yeah.
As for having all ammunition stored at a range, are we considering that in some areas the population can barely support shooting ranges, and that your nearest shooting range may be like a hundred miles away? Or are we all assuming everybody lives in Seattle and Boston? I lived in Montana, and even in that gun-happy state the nearest shooting range to me was like 70 miles away (for anything but trap shooting with shotguns...and that had a school downrange so nothing else was even physically viable). And it was always on the edge of going under. So is the government going to step in and ensure that there is a properly licensed range, even if it must be subsidized, to ensure that everybody has a local facility to store their ammo?
Ignoring, of course, that it doesn't take 6,000 rounds to do what this guy did. How many rounds did he have on him, anyway? Has anybody here actually carried 6,000 rounds? It's heavy. Well, honestly I don't know how much it weighs, because I've never carried nearly that much at one time. More like 400 or so. You can kill and/or injure a ton of people with just a hundred rounds. Less than 300 were fired, IIRC, at Virginia Tech.
trying to control proximate cause is always the most immediate reaction and probably not the most helpful
greater emphasis on or availability of free help for the mentally ill is probably vastly more helpful than screening for guns at specifically cinemas...
Not to mention having plenty of positive knock on effects, more people statistically kill themselves in the US every single day than were even injured, much less killed in the Colorado attacks.
Posts
But there is no problem here. Go spend the $100 to fire off a machine gun then. And being able to spend $5k on a machine gun doesn't make someone rich. Not poor != rich.
didn't he prop the back door open and go get his weapons though?
edit: i mean, if the back door he opened had triggered a fire alarm we might have a very different outcome here
Why is it that gun ownership is apparently the only inalienable right that conservatives believe in anymore?
We limit freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression on a daily basis but even sneeze at a gun and you're a communist.
If the state has the power to mandate that each citizen has to have a certain kind of ID to vote surely the state can mandate safety classes or permits or even liability coverage in exchange for gun ownership.
Really? Hundred round drums are tens of thousands of dollars? And what I'm saying is that it isn't your equipment. You should not be allowed to own a hundred round drum, because with the exception of that sport which is a hobby, you have zero need for it. You would not ever use a public-works project to implement this, because the vast majority of the country does not care to fund your personal hobby, nor does it cost much for a range to have a box they throw the big drums in in their regular lockup area. I'm very confused as to what you think I'm suggesting. I'm not saying they need to store your guns, I'm saying if you require something that would make killing people much much easier to use for your sport, you can get it from the arena, rather than keep it at your house, or in your car.
I think it's possible to strenuously defend gun ownership without adopting all the other opinions of a stereotypical Fox News Republican.
I don't think you'll find many here that disagree that this is terrible.
I was responding to the notion that guns should be locked away at gun ranges and only used at gun ranges.
Center fires in Canada can not have more than, I believe, 6 rounds in the magazine. Any mags that are larger have plastic fillers to prevent loading more rounds (If they're legal, that is). It's a ridiculous limitation as far as I'm concerned, but it's the law (Same with the assault weapons ban. I am not allowed to make my Ruger 10/22 look like an assault rifle because all the government cared about was does it look dangerous. How dangerous it actually is seems to be immaterial to gun laws).
Pistols in Canada are restricted to gun ranges. They have to be transported in a lock box and you have to notify the RCMP if you're taking it anywhere other than your house or the gun range that you have a membership to.
As far as I'm concerned, that makes owning a pistol mostly pointless as I'm not spending $2k on something so heavily restricted. My dad has a .22 revolver that he will never use because he's not going to pay a yearly fee to belong to a gun club to shoot his pistol a couple times a year.
So casual shooters are effectively restricted from buying pistols since it's so expensive to belong to a gun club.
But I guess that's the point, really.
On the other hand, homicides by gangs with pistols is unaffected by all this since that's the most common form of gun homicide in Canada.
I'm not attacking anyone in here, I'm looking for an honest answer to why we think that is a thing people think.
Because yeah, it's a stereotype but the same people who post shit like this:
are the ones voting for people like Rick Scott.
Well, not so much since bribery became legal due to "freedom of speech" (/spit). Playing Devil's Advocate, voting did not start out as something people had a right to, and we've really had to fight as a nation to get it where it is, and we still have a ways to go.
I do wonder about them leaving out the part of the militia. Forcing gun owners into militias seems like a bad idea though.
So, do you only want to lock away my drum mags (which I don't actually own, and cost 300$ or so)? Are my regular old 30-round AR mags OK (which are standard rifle mags these days). How about my regular 17-round pistol mags (which are factory standard)?
That was not what I thought you were suggesting.
It's my understanding that the current legal understanding is that the militia part was an explanation, not a requirement. Like, "Because citizens need to be able to quickly raise a militia, we will not infringe the right to bear arms."
I don't actually think that's unreasonable, but then I'm one of those people who thinks we should be trying to address systemic cultural and socioeconomic problems instead of banning bayonet lugs.
We have militias. It's called the National Guard.
Yup.
We don't restrict gun ownership to only members though, nor do we pull the Guard from the general populace with their personal weapons when a disaster strikes. I suppose we technically could with a draft, but that would be stretching reality quite a bit.
You could get through a 99-round limit on magazines without significant opposition from people like me. Multi-gun competitions see use of 30, 40, 50, and maybe 60-round magazines. After that, it just gets too heavy.
But I've never really seen someone advocate for only banning drums or 99+ round magazines before. I'm not sure what it would accomplish.
The point is that you want to enact sweeping regulations to restrict an item that's used in a vanishingly tiny percentage of violent crimes. This is what I mean when I say that gun control laws in this country are non-pragmatic. The overwhelming majority of violent gun crime is gang-related (meaning drug-related) shooting with an ordinary low-capacity handgun, common enough to not even make the fucking local news. Mediagenic shooting sprees like this one are a statistical blip, but they're the stuff that drives regulation. The people enacting gun control laws will enact them on the basis of what feels scary rather than actual data-driven statistics on what would cause less homicide.
Yes but the NatGuard system has replaced the old militia system because, surprise of all surprises, it no longer worked for the threats we faced.
greater emphasis on or availability of free help for the mentally ill is probably vastly more helpful than screening for guns at specifically cinemas...
I think we all agree on this point, but response to the Aurora atrocity is not the only purview of this thread.
He should have been screened before gun ownership. And we need a better support network for the mentally unwell in this country.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But the fact that the NRA and other right-wing groups agree on this point might be interesting for real prospects for mental-health reform. Whereas prospects for more gun control seems to be quite poor (at least if I have my way :-) ).
But by that logic, if we no longer need a militia, then we no longer need protection against infringement of gun rights.
anecdotal but:
we had a guy who cracked in grad school
as in, seriously scary, "my parents are trying to kill me" crazy
it was pretty plainly obvious to everyone around him
guess what - people told the administration, who got him the help he needed, and he didn't hurt anyone else or himself
Well yeah, of course you don't. Logically the only reason you had them in the first place was to keep the red coats invading. It's pretty much the same as if the government expected me to put a few hours of longbow training in each week in case the French invade again. Now I think we can all agree these days that's pretty unlikely, but unfortunately over the last couple of centuries people have grown attached to having those gun rights, they've become culturally entrenched. That's what you're fighting against, not the issue of proving to people that the legislation allowing them guns is hilariously outdated.
People need their guns because they've been convinced that if they don't, they're going to inevitably become victims.
I actually considered what I would do if, as someone with a concealed carry permit, I had my gun on me in this situation (I hardly ever bring my gun to any kind of large gathering of people like a movie though.) The reality is, I'd probably just attempt to get as low as possible. Handguns don't really do much to people body armored and drugged up. The North Hollywood shootout showed that pretty clearly.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
I'm not saying there are no good reasons to keep guns, but if that's your justification for having no gun control at all, I'm surprised you don't accidentally put your pants on your head each morning.
The argument to counter that is typically pointing out insurgent movements in the middle east and such.
Yeah, chances of a CCW holder being able to stop this situation is pretty much 0. Armor piercing handgun rounds are illegal, and the chances of getting a lethal hit on a target that was armored like him, in a PERFECT target environment is highly unlikely. We are talking 3+ hits in the same location to defeat the body armor, unless he had a trauma plate as well, then forget it. In that theater? No way, no how.
Cop, armed guard, CCW holders, nothing would have mattered. Unless the cop was toting his AR in with him...
Think the US is definitely a few generations out of being able to revisit gun control, but I can certainly imagine that there are wider reasons that'd you would want to reduce gun ownership. For a start it would mean you would be able to disarm a significant majority of the police, which would certainly change the relationship between citizens and state.
I'm totally down with gun-rights but every time something like this happens there come a bunch of idiots who think that what this kind of stuff really needs is more people carrying guns. And then I am less sympathetic to any pro-gun advocates.
The gun-debate in the US almost always descends into claims that there are either too many weapons or not enough. The US has an astonishing amount of gun-deaths, but it's clear that guns are neither the problem nor the solution.
We love our moral superiority and proximate causes though.
Going beyond that is hard so why bother.
Literally every person I know who has owned an AR-15 bought it for target shooting. What the fuck else are you gonna do with it, wait for the Zombie Apocalypse?
EDIT: I guess crazy survivalist nut may be a secondary use, but even those guys target shoot with them.
Stocking up. Ever seen Spaghetti-O's on sale for super-cheap, so you bought ten cans even though you eat like one can every month or two because they bring back warm memories from when you were a kid? You do that because you will eat them, and Spaghetti-O's don't go bad, right?
Neither does ammo, not if you store it properly. So if you see a good deal on ammo, and with rising prices pretty much any deal is a good deal, you might be inclined to stock up. Sure, maybe you only shoot 100 rounds here and 500 rounds there at the range. But saving 20% on 6,000 rounds (which at that point may only be like a year or two of supply) can be real money.
Pretty much, yeah.
As for having all ammunition stored at a range, are we considering that in some areas the population can barely support shooting ranges, and that your nearest shooting range may be like a hundred miles away? Or are we all assuming everybody lives in Seattle and Boston? I lived in Montana, and even in that gun-happy state the nearest shooting range to me was like 70 miles away (for anything but trap shooting with shotguns...and that had a school downrange so nothing else was even physically viable). And it was always on the edge of going under. So is the government going to step in and ensure that there is a properly licensed range, even if it must be subsidized, to ensure that everybody has a local facility to store their ammo?
Ignoring, of course, that it doesn't take 6,000 rounds to do what this guy did. How many rounds did he have on him, anyway? Has anybody here actually carried 6,000 rounds? It's heavy. Well, honestly I don't know how much it weighs, because I've never carried nearly that much at one time. More like 400 or so. You can kill and/or injure a ton of people with just a hundred rounds. Less than 300 were fired, IIRC, at Virginia Tech.
Not to mention having plenty of positive knock on effects, more people statistically kill themselves in the US every single day than were even injured, much less killed in the Colorado attacks.