The shootings at Texas A&M today come after a long line of this shit. Auorra, Cafe Racer. The list goes on and on. And those are only the ones that gain large scale attention. There are plenty of other acts of gun violence that don’t get reported, or don’t get reported outside the region where they happen.
Of course there are other reasons that these sorts of things happen. And we should work to deal with all of them. But one of those reasons, that we never deal with, that we’re going in the wrong direction on, is the country is awash in guns.
People will point to the Second Amendment when any attempt at gun control no matter how minimum is raised. Now, I think the Second Amendment was intended to be about well regulated militias, hence the first clause. But even if you think it’s about private ownership of all firearms, surely this wasn’t what Madison intended when he wrote it. Surely they didn’t mean that these sorts of shootings should be inevitable as they are common. I don’t know what the solution is, but I can’t imagine the Constitution makes it intractable.
We regulate the freedoms that more important amendments, like the First, protect. For instance, freedom of speech does not permit, among other things, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, slandering others, threats, conspiracy, etc. Surely, reasonable regulations of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, which amendment really was about well-regulated militias, can be adopted.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo......fpnewsfeed
Willard is standing tall!
Like Bo Swenson…
…or Charleton Heston!
“gun control” is just putting regulations on firearms. We have regulations on firearms and the Supreme Court has upheld our having regulations on firearms.
Carl, there is no solution now. There are so many weapons out there all we can do is hope this scourge of death does not cross our individual path.
Sadly, it shall continue to afflict our police more frequently.
Thank-you NRA members and supporters.
lets outlaw cars too…..
@5
Cars and their operators are heavily regulated because they’re dangerous.
“A well-regulated militia” refers specifically to weapons types and troop discipline. How to march, how to take military direction in battle, how to maintain and use the weapons in military fashion. It creates a requirement for the government to create specifications of calibers, barrel lengths and standardization of those calibers when kept within that context of a Militia. It creates a requirement for how soldiers are trained in terms of tactics.
The original Military Academy at West Point, and the Naval Academy at Annapolis were specifically created to maintain an officer corps, and the schools were kept very limited in size and scope for a reason. Those Officers were never intended to be lifetime military personnel and the Army was always a necessity-driven thing, never intended to stand as a permanent force. The Navy is different, it is specifically created as a standing force under the Constitution, and the Marine Corps is a branch of the Navy.
With this in mind, the Government has the absolute right to ban any non-military usable firearm and heavily regulate who is allowed to possess such weapons. That means we can ban the AK-47, AK-74, the Uzi, the Ingraham and any other non-US Military standard automatic weapon caliber not specifically issued by the Military and are therefore considered unsuitable for defensive combat. That includes all non-standard military-grade weapons not manufactured inside the contiguous United States.
Bolt action rifles and shotguns are a completely separate issue, and can be justifiable in private hands as being necessary for hunting.
Handguns are really what needs to be seriously cracked down on. 90% of the designs sold in the U.S. are non-military grade, are completely unreliable in function and are totally unsuitable for combat. Most handguns sold in the US are of non US-Standard military calibers. Such weapons can be banned completely, especially where the automatics are concerned. nearly all of the mass shootings and political assassinations that have occurred in the US have been done with handguns.
Its time to crack down on the private ownership of handguns and non-US military standard caliber autoloading rifles. Handguns especially are too easy to hide, too easy to transfer between owners and too easy for psychopaths to get their hands on.
5
Being a dumbfuck at your level takes something extra. Did you get great dumbfuck genes or do you just work really hard at your craft?
I wonder if more exposer to gun ranges is part of the answer. How many people know that, rather than buying a gun, they can go to a range choose from a wide selection of guns to rent and then leave the gun at the shop when you’re done? No $350+ gun to buy and you can shoot a different gun every time.
Also, some time at the range would dispel the “gun fetish” stuff and a lot of folks would get rather bored, rather quickly.
@ 9
I’ve been saying for thirty years that every high school should have an instructional shooting range, and specifically required instruction on the proper care and feeding of firearms. It wouldn’t have to be a requirement for graduation, but it should be a requirement for ownership.
@10
I was on a couple of shooting teams in high school. I’ve ALWAYS wanted firearms safety taught in schools. We teach sex ed, and drivers ed, why not firearms ed?
If your party wants to ban guns, then do it now and run on that platform. Not only will you lose, but you will lose big. A Madman can use a car, a hatchet, axe, pipe bomb, roadside bomb, anything a madman can dream up to do their damage. Only an armed population can put that madman down. Without it we are lost!
While I do tend to vote for Democrats, I’m not one and would happily vote for some other party or an independent if I had the chance.
“Banning guns?” Hell, Deathfrogg and I are talking about teaching gun safety in schools.
Yep, but mostly they’re doing their damage with legally purchased guns.
So far it’s been cops and self inflicted gun shot wounds, not an armed population that’s been doing that.
“If your party wants to ban guns, then do it now and run on that platform.”
Followed by helicopters much?
So if that’s the Democrat’s position, then run on it. Make it part of your Platform. Sign the UN agreement now, don’t put it off till after the election. Hillary and Obama have been hell bent to sign gun control. So Run on what you believe should happen! That’s all I am saying.
@12 “Only an armed population can put that madman down.”
How many madmen has the “armed population” put down lately?
I wish you humans the best in dealing with your problem, but I can’t say I’m optimistic that you’ll stop slaughtering each other, so I have a fallback plan — to wit, if you succeed in wiping out your own species, we rabbits will be ready to fill your niche and then we’re gonna run this place.
@12 “If your party wants to ban guns, then do it now and run on that platform.”
That actually might not be a bad idea. At the rate we’re going there’ll be 20 or 30 more mass shootings between now and Election Day; and by then, the voters may be thoroughly fed up with the gun nut crowd who think everyone should have easy access to guns.
And anyone who owns, or wants to own an assault rifle – a fucking submachinegun – is either a paranoid conspiracy theorist, or really, really compensating for something. Or wanting to make money off of the above mentioned.
But here’s an idea: Want to buy an assault rifle? Fine – but you’re automatically joining the National Guard or the Reserves if you do. Since the Second Amendment is about a ‘well-regulated militia’, then ownership of a military-grade weapon should imply membership in the military.
My Brother left the Navy with an honorable discharge, and was always a gun collector. He had an AK47 as well as many other guns. He was a collector. He is in a retirement center now and his son has his collection as it was handed down to his son. My father left me a rifle, my father in law gave me a rifle, and I own a few other guns. My son has a collection and is an Eagle Scout. We both have concealed permits. It may not be your thing, but if he wanted to shoot an empty beer can or a bunny rabit with an AK47 or a 22 long rifle, it was and is legal and should be.
See my statement again
A Madman can use a car, a hatchet, axe, pipe bomb, roadside bomb, anything a madman can dream up to do their damage.
You will never be able to disarm a madman, they will find what they need to carry out their cowardly deeds.
Just Saying
“A Madman can use a car, a hatchet, axe, pipe bomb, roadside bomb”
Right….but it’s a helluva lot easier with an AR-15 or a 9mm, and it seems a lot of our madmen are a bit on the lazy side.
How many of you have actually pondered the implications of the term “assault rifle”?
Shootings like this are high profile and uncommon. Both parties will use it to rally their base and neither will accomplish any meaningful reform. They’ll hem and haw about machine guns and large capacity magazines and hunters rights, but they’ll never focus on the gun that causes the vast majority of deaths.
The vast majority of shooting deaths are from cheap, low capacity, small caliber pistols. Partly this is because they’re accessible in poorer areas where gang violence is common, but mostly it’s because so many people have one sitting loaded in their nightstand. These are the guns that need to be heavily regulated. Crazies are few and far between, but pissed off spouses and curious kids are an every day thing.
Heck a .22 revolver with a 6 – 500 shell clip is an assult weapon. So where do you stop?
It isn’t going to end no matter what limitations or “assult” term you use or place.
There are crazy people out there, and especially I might add more with 4 years of 8%-15% unemployment. They will find what ever they need to do whatever dastardly deed they desire.
The laws being proposed make no sense. Ban new sales of clips over ten rounds, except for 22 clips. What sense does that make. I can buy a 500 shell 22 clip. Or carry 10 10 round 9mm or 45 clips. It takes nothing but a file and a little knowledge to turn any semi automatic into an automatic.
If you really want to see how stupid these bans are I will give you a show
This H&R handy gun is illegal now. It shoots ONE 4/10 shell, yet you must have a federal firearms license to own one.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/948.....dy_Gun.htm
But you can purchase a Judge or Governor, which shoot 5 to 6 4/10 shells
http://www.gunsamerica.com/965....._SKU_2.htm
http://www.gunsamerica.com/937.....p_410g.htm
Without a federal license, and I will guarantee you the later two will kill more rabbits than the first.
Where’s the logic?
As exemplified @20 and @21 above, the political problem of gun violence in the US is driven by not understanding the situation.
This is no accident. The
firearmsdeath industry has spread its propaganda for years, and it has taken root. Nothing new in this approach. The tobacco industry did this too.Go read The Geography of Gun Violence in full, but let’s see what it says about two common misconceptions spewed above.
@20 this is because they’re accessible in poorer areas where gang violence is common,
@21 There are crazy people out there, and especially I might add more with 4 years of 8%-15% unemployment. They will find what ever they need to do whatever dastardly deed they desire.
Again, if you are interested in knowing what a scientific examination shows, go read the whole thing.
I’ll leave you all with the conclusion
they are? LOL…have you seen some of today’s drivers? have you been to the DOL lately?
I take after you, Proud Communist
Texas shooting suspect Thomas Alton Caffall’s family “distraught” after he, 2 others killed
cbsnews.com
Police say Thomas Alton Caffall, 35, opened fire on Brazos County Constable Brian Bachmann just after noon as the lawman brought an eviction notice. Both men were later pronounced dead at a hospital.
I’m sure if Thomas had not had a gun, he would have used his car instead.
@25, and like so many law enforcement people the fact that the constable was armed and expert in the use of the weapon he carried, he was shot dead by the legally gun toting sniper.
If that were true they would have done it by now.
@20 “if he wanted to shoot … a bunny rabit with an AK47 or a 22 long rifle, it was and is legal”
Wrong. It’s legal only at certain times and places if you have a hunting license. It’s never legal in Green Lake Park, or anywhere else within the city limits.
@22 “Shootings like this are high profile and uncommon.”
Yeah, these high profile shootings happen in the USA only 2 or 3 times a week. It’s not an everyday thing. We haven’t had one today yet.
@23 “Heck a .22 revolver with a 6 – 500 shell clip is an assult weapon.”
Bullshit.
Sure, you can kill someone with a .22 — he’ll bleed to death if you put enough bullets in him — but not fast enough to keep him from killing you. One of my law school classmates got killed defending herself against a burglar with a .22 pistol. He shot her between the eyes with a .38 after she shot him in the chest with a .22, then he walked into the Harborview ER upright on his feet. I don’t know anyone who would go into military combat with a .22. I knew some crazy gung-ho MFs, but none of them were that crazy.
@23 “It takes nothing but a file and a little knowledge to turn any semi automatic into an automatic.”
Yeah, but if you do, you’re looking at 5 years in a federal pen.
Btw, if you feel an urge to hunt rabbits, come see me at my burrow under the big tree on the east side of Green Lake Park, and bring a gun with you so I can claim self-defense.*
* I’m not a pacifist.
For home defense, a 12 gauge shotgun is far better than a .38 or .22. Even loaded with #4 bird shot it will make a mess of a perp at 10 to 20 feet. Best of all, your neighbors across the street won’t have to worry so much about bleeding out from a stray round.
On the plus side, it would be really hard to conceal a 500 shot revolver in your coat pocket.
@ RR
Well the M-16 and its later variants are essentially a pointy .22. the .223 is twice as long at almost the same weight. The fastest .22 commercially available is 30 gr @ 1750 fps, while the slowest .223 is 77 gr @ 2,750 fps. The only practical difference is velocity.
When the .223 was introduced as a military caliber in the late 1950s, the Geneva Convention had to turn itself into a pretzel contorting itself into allowing it to be used in combat as they considered it a dumdum round. My uncle said it was worthless in a jungle firefight (Nam) and my buddy who was at the “BlackHawk Down” firefight in Somalia said that it was useless against a bunch of crazy, totally untrained natives who had pumped themselves up on massive doses of morphine and methamphetamine. He told me about hitting them dead square with a full clip and they were still running at him. It was headshots that finally won that battle.
The only rationale for switching to the lighter caliber at the time was the fact that the soldier could carry more ammunition. Grampa said the M-1 that he used in the Pacific War would knock a soldier down nearly instantly, and that was 30.06. Hits like a ton of mules.
LOL @ “only” – thats a huge difference in energy.
true that….not many people are getting up after being tagged by a 30.06