Shooting discussion devolves

[CaptHawkeye]

I don't see an argument here. Just a poor executed ad hominem. I'm not sure how having the position that we should focus on the things that will have much greater gain for work put in is somehow cowardice. I call it efficiency. Perhaps you could explain why it is cowardly?

I call it god damn yellow bellied pants shitting cowardice. Because that's exactly what it is and it's a totally legitimate means of discrediting your not-at-all relevant whimpering. You're acting like it's so stupid that anyone would dare want to fix the problems with America's social philosophies because...oops you don't have a reason that isn't just "it won't work because I say so". Yeah sure, Martin Luther King got told that all the time too. So I guess you're just wrong then.

"Greater gain for work". Yeah sure. If you look at social issues from a cost:benefit analysis alone i'm sure that makes a lot of sense. Except that it also makes you an asshole.

Like Stark said, you are a net contributor to the problem.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I could see how having armed teachers could be culturally appropriate. It would work in Israel, for instance, where some of them already are armed. Nobody would complain about it and people would handle it responsibly, because the society inoculates a sense of broad-based military service so that it appears both innocuous to children and normative to adults.

I am less sure it would work in the US where we do have a very sizeable population that simply mindlessly panics at anything they perceive as potentially "dangerous". And also, of course, where most people are very divorced from military culture rather than it being a universe occurrence for men and women alike.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the American ethos and defines a great deal of who we are as a unique people. You may not like the fact that it does, but it does. That much is indisputable.

Finally, consider that these events have gotten more common as gun controls became more onerous. They did not occur before gun control began. Clearly something changed socially in the 1940s - 1960s to clear the way the for mass shootings as an event and it would be really useful to find out what. The technical capability for them has existed since at least 1900, but the first one took place in the 1960s. What happened? Isn't that a useful question to ask?

I will remind everyone that gun violence in the US is an intensely racial problem, as I did the last time one of these threads came up. A hundred young black men have died in this country for each one of these kids who died, literally, and all in the inner city, where gangsters like in Philadelphia hold gun battles next to schools and riddle them with a thousand rounds--and nobody reports it in the media at all.


Mass shootings, on the other hand, as a cultural phenomenon, are very recent, and coincide with gun control beginning in the US in a serious way, not with a lack of it. Gun control in the 1970s and 1980s was stricter, and still didn't prevent these occurrences.

So clearly these mass shootings are happening without regard to it.

Again, why? Can we answer that question? Or is the only objective of this thread to create a grand moral superiority for gun grabbing that you can use to feel good about yourselves?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

because the other guy might be bigger, is probably armed, is probably way more experienced at hurting people, and I don't like pushing the odds. A gun gives me the ability to fight back no matter what the skill level, chemical state, and physicality of my attacker is. No other device can do the same.

And how much firearms training have you had, cupcake? How much time have you spent at the range firing at realistic human-shaped targets to overcome your hindbrain aversion to harming other human beings? How much training do you get under stressful circumstances that seek to exercise your skills under realistic scenarios? How much training do you put into drawing, presenting, and dry-firing your weapons at home? How much time do you spend reviewing the relevant laws, and non-lethal methods of de-escalation? How much time do you spend honing your situational awareness?

Here's a hint . . . if your answer is a value less-than-or-equal to the amount of training recieved by your local law-enforcement, then congratuations, I wouldn't trust you defending yourself with a child's cap gun, let alone a gun that can actually hurt people. As far as I trust police with guns . . . let's just say that I'm glad I wasn't born a black dude or Latino. I mean, they're more trustworthy than any open-carry nut, any concealed-carry nut, and the security guards who patrol my workplace . . . but that really isn't saying much.

I'm all for guns. I own, collect, and shoot guns. But I do not believe in right to carry . . . the only time I ever carry is deep in the backwoods, where it's there as an absolute last-resort against any legitimately-dangerous wild animals that I was so stupid that I let myself blunder into them; and where it has other uses as a survival tool.

I also don't believe in using guns in "castle doctrine," or "home defense" situations. Yeah, you hear about home invasions in the news . . . but imagine what happens if both parties in a home invasion have guns? Instead of the nice masked men holding you at gunpoint while they take everything you own, you get a shootout where the nice masked men end up waxing your ass, because they enjoy a substantial advantage being the attacking party that came prepared to perpetrate violence upon you and yours.

This is retarded bullshit. The average criminal, even armed, will just RUN when confronted with a gun because he's never used it before. He relies on intimidation!

The average cop fires dozens of rounds while usually missing, and their training has NONE of the extremity you describe unless they've been through tactical SWAT training.

In a typical gunfire involving a private citizen, it is fought at close range, with fisticuffs also being an element, and frequently the gun is retrieved in the middle of being beaten or knifed and then fired--and yes, most people have time to fight their way out to shoot.

You have a completely wrong-headed, ridiculous, hilarious view of firearms and how they're used, and the fact you possess it while owning them just makes you a target of gun theft.

Oh, one final note, it's actually very psychologically easy to kill, which is why the world over, violence is pretty much the norm. And though I disapprove of what they teach about stand your ground, you can easily find a tactical course which deals with overcoming the mental blocks we have to it, if you're concerned with your ability to defend your castle.

But generally if your home is invaded by armed men -- well, my favourite story is of the friend of a friend of mine. A man broke into her home, overcame her, tied her up. Just like you'd let happen to you. He found the guns, just like what you'd let happen to you.

Her husband came home.

He got to the guy before he fired a shot, beat him, took the gun from his hands, and then in the ensuing struggle managed to shoot, which led to the man fleeing.

Obviously if the woman had had the gun out and accessible in the first place, it would have been over and done with, that's that. And that's how it normally happens. You are so timid, with such a ridiculous view of human violence where everyone is competent and capable in the movies, whereas real fighting is both terrifying and ridiculous at some level of how much effort is expended even by the very best for jack shit in terms of injury to your opponents, that your views simply have no bearing on reality at all.

The simple fact is, sorry, criminals aren't that l33t, and cops aren't that l33t, and even trained special forces operators frequently put their first group into the wall next to Osama bin Laden's head before they succeed in pasting him. Your view of violence is completely wrong.


Oh, and this whole bystander thing? The cops regularly shoot off 200 rounds in busy urban areas at someone, missing with 190 of them, and maybe one out of every three hundred or five hundred times they do it do they hit some bystander. If you've got fourteen rounds between two guns for home defence--the bullets just stop being lethal after a certain distance, and the square rule is even more ruthless when your object travels in a straight line and is less than 10mm in diameter. Grow up. You are just terrifically unlikely to hit a bystander; you are not firing that much munitions, you are doing it at at utterly point-blank range (almost all self-defence shootings are resolved at less than 20 feet, period) and there are plenty of inanimate objects to be hit first, and the rest of space is not filled with passive people all lined up for bullets to fly through them.

[His Divine Shadow]

Trying to enact sweeping regulation would be a knock down drag out fight in many states with lenient gun control. See Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 for example. The bill would require all owners of handguns and semiautomatic firearms to register for a federal firearms license. All sales of the subject firearms would have to go through a licensed dealer. It would also make it a criminal act not to register as an owner of a firearm. This bill died.

In fact it seems that a majority of federal bills which attempt to modernize firearms in the United States just die. Source

If they are similar to that one, might as well. What good is it going to do to have a list of guns or who owns them after the damage is already done. No as I said earlier, control the people instead. Strict examinations of people before being cleared to buy guns should be a simpler system, you could then use the NICS check to see if the buyer has completed the required seriest or tests, along with checking any other potential hurdles. In the long run I'd like to see some gun safe requirements or at least ways to encourage people to buy them.

Sadly that's a pipe dream I think, if anything will come out of it it'll probably just be some godawful mess of red tape and bans of certain features like magazine capacity that's easily bypassed by a chimp with a dremel.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I call it god damn yellow bellied pants shitting cowardice. Because that's exactly what it is and it's a totally legitimate means of discrediting your not-at-all relevant whimpering.

LMAO. So, for the first time in history CaptHawkeye has used a personal attack to logically discredit what his opponent is saying. You're hilarious. I'll tell you what I think cowardice is. It is when your only response is a personal attack. That's cowardice.

You're acting like it's so stupid that anyone would dare want to fix the problems with America's social philosophies because...oops you don't have a reason that isn't just "it won't work because I say so". Yeah sure, Martin Luther King got told that all the time too. So I guess you're just wrong then.

Now you're acting like I didn't post a reason. Stop fucking lying, mother fucker. In the post you quoted and the posts prior to your initial post I explained my reasoning. Now for the second time you've failed to address them and instead have attempted to reduce it to just "it won't work because I say so" when that is not what I said.

"Greater gain for work". Yeah sure. If you look at social issues from a cost:benefit analysis alone i'm sure that makes a lot of sense. Except that it also makes you an asshole.

Like Stark said, you are a net contributor to the problem.

Maybe you should suck Stark off?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It is now of course emerging that the guy at the Clackamas Town Center mall shot himself immediately after being confronted by someone with a CCW:

So, we can see a genuine benefit here.

This hasn't yet been confirmed by the final report on the event,

PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.
"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.
The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.
"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.
"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli. "It just bothers me."

But I find it very interesting to observe the cops themselves now know that these pathetic excuses of humanity tend to crumple when facing opposition. They are bullies living fantasies of their own importance, like the Herostratus of the modern age, and when seriously confronted with resistance they tend to collapse. The guy's gun jammed, and on seeing someone there with another firearm, rather than resume his rampage when he had finished clearing the jam, he just shot himself. The gun of the CCW holder served to pin the attacker in place even though it wasn't used; he couldn't risk moving because it clear an open line of sight for the guy to shoot. So his game was up, and he shot himself.

[ryacko]

Finally, consider that these events have gotten more common as gun controls became more onerous. They did not occur before gun control began. Clearly something changed socially in the 1940s - 1960s to clear the way the for mass shootings as an event and it would be really useful to find out what. The technical capability for them has existed since at least 1900, but the first one took place in the 1960s. What happened? Isn't that a useful question to ask?

Availability of machine guns?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ra ... _massacres Kehoe has the most killed... in 1927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sho ... ted_States

If they are similar to that one, might as well. What good is it going to do to have a list of guns or who owns them after the damage is already done. No as I said earlier, control the people instead. Strict examinations of people before being cleared to buy guns should be a simpler system, you could then use the NICS check to see if the buyer has completed the required seriest or tests, along with checking any other potential hurdles. In the long run I'd like to see some gun safe requirements or at least ways to encourage people to buy them.

I've been under the impression that US gun laws are currently aimed towards preventing gang violence, as opposed to preventing mass murders.
Statistically, the majority of people killed by guns are by their own hand.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Kehoe used a bomb, and virtually all of the pre-1960 examples involve a single fatality because it was a targeted dispute between someone at the school and the shooter, which is a very different thing than this kind of spree killing where the objective is death, rather than to strike particular targets.

[CaptHawkeye]

LMAO. So, for the first time in history CaptHawkeye has used a personal attack to logically discredit what his opponent is saying. You're hilarious. I'll tell you what I think cowardice is. It is when your only response is a personal attack. That's cowardice.

It won't be the last either. Because their are too many assholes and downright abnormal people on this god damn forum who are absolutely sure they're smarter than everyone else just because they're convinced of the superiority (IE: Circular logic) of their ruthless attitudes.

I have little patience for people who can't fathom the way social progress has moved throughout history and today because they can't be assed to understand that real progress doesn't come from half measures, cow towing, and surrendering.

So I reiterate, get fucked.

Now you're acting like I didn't post a reason. Stop fucking lying, mother fucker. In the post you quoted and the posts prior to your initial post I explained my reasoning. Now for the second time you've failed to address them and instead have attempted to reduce it to just "it won't work because I say so" when that is not what I said.

Except that your reasons suck. Because when you seriously try to emphasize historic trends you clearly don't understand or ripped out of context no one can take you seriously. Even less so when everyone tells you you're wrong about those reasons and are STILL trying to come off as some super-pragmatic realist. Yes yes dear you're a real tough guy. So while you keep bitching about my tone just try to think about which side of "style vs. substance" you're on.

Maybe you should suck Stark off?

LAWL. This from the same guy who was just whinging like a little bitch about *my* personal attacks. If only you grasped the difference between my bad attitude and yours stems from my dislike of cowardly pragmatism vs your apparent dislike of change. But I agree with Stark in this thread (as I usually do, as if sharing views with someone frequently is so strange.) so I must just be out to kiss his ass. Sure man. Whatever you need to pretend i'm the bad guy.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It won't be the last either. Because their are too many assholes and downright abnormal people on this god damn forum who are absolutely sure they're smarter than everyone else just because they're convinced of the superiority (IE: Circular logic) of their ruthless attitudes.

Ah so that reasoning is your excuse for lowering your standards of debate. Interesting. What other excuses do you use to justify your reason for sucking?

I have little patience for people who can't fathom the way social progress has moved throughout history and today because they can't be assed to understand that real progress doesn't come from half measures, cow towing, and surrendering.

Yes, I understand. You look for reasons to lower your debating standards so you don't have to do any work.

Since you shared your opinion allow me to share mine. I have a little patience for people that are not only lazy but are so righteous that they become offended at a difference of opinion. The thing is I don't have a personal love for firearms. In another thread I advocated increased gun control but evidence was presented to me, that I couldn't refute, that showed that gun control in the US was ineffective. So I changed my position. But can the mother fuckers in this thread be bothered to do the same? No. You, Stark, and Havok have all shared your opinions. Thank you. Now back that shit up with some god damn evidence and stop being lazy. If you're not going to do that then stop being righteous assholes.

So I reiterate, get fucked.

Yes yes. You're a lazy cunt.

Except that your reasons suck. Because when you seriously try to emphasize historic trends you clearly don't understand or ripped out of context no one can take you seriously. Even less so when everyone tells you you're wrong about those reasons and are STILL trying to come off as some super-pragmatic realist. Yes yes dear you're a real tough guy. So while you keep bitching about my tone just try to think about which side of "style vs. substance" you're on.

Blah blah blah. Is that seriously your rebuttal? If you were making a claim and I posted "you clearly don't understand what you're talking about" and "everyone else says you're wrong" would that be an acceptable retort to you?

LAWL. This from the same guy who was just whinging like a little bitch about *my* personal attacks. If only you grasped the difference between my bad attitude and yours stems from my dislike of cowardly pragmatism vs your apparent dislike of change. But I agree with Stark in this thread (as I usually do, as if sharing views with someone frequently is so strange.) so I must just be out to kiss his ass. Sure man. Whatever you need to pretend i'm the bad guy.

Actually, I'm whining about your lack of an argument. If you actually posted a quality rebutal and called me a coward then we wouldn't have an issue. But you're not actually interested in discussion. You're being emotional cunt. So offended that someone thinks what you want is a waste of time and resources that you can't address their argument properly. You're just as bad as a creationist.

EDIT - By the way. I don't have a problem with change. Like I said before my position on gun control has changed but that doesn't mean I'm married to it or have a personal stake in it - which you, Stark, and Havok have falsely attributed to me. Probably because you have a personal stake in your position and assume that I must have the same. If you are able to change my mind in this thread it won't be a personal defeat for me but a growing experience. You won't do that though with lazy replies and assumptions about my character.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

This is retarded bullshit. The average criminal, even armed, will just RUN when confronted with a gun because he's never used it before. He relies on intimidation!

Which suggests that one could just as easily bluff an armed criminal without the use of a firearm. Or, possibly, use non-lethal means of self-defense.

Or, you know, make it harder for the criminal to gain access to a firearm in the first place. Yes, the typical criminal gets his gun off the black market, but that black market is fueled by guns sold by disreputable FFL holders who take advantage of the ease with which guns can be legally obtained in the US to funnel them into the black market. There are also the guns gained from thefts from homes where they were obtained legally.

The average cop fires dozens of rounds while usually missing, and their training has NONE of the extremity you describe unless they've been through tactical SWAT training.

And this is why I barely trust police with guns, let alone an armed private citizen who doesn't even get the level of training that your average beat cop does. This is an argument supporting the notion of tighter controls on guns in the hands of private citizenry.

In a typical gunfire involving a private citizen, it is fought at close range, with fisticuffs also being an element, and frequently the gun is retrieved in the middle of being beaten or knifed and then fired--and yes, most people have time to fight their way out to shoot.

You have a completely wrong-headed, ridiculous, hilarious view of firearms and how they're used, and the fact you possess it while owning them just makes you a target of gun theft.

And I say the exact same thing about people who believe in using them for home defense, or self-defense. Got a gun you keep around the house for defense against nice masked men? Got a gun you're open-carrying in public? Telling me about your fancy IWB rig, or that you have a CCW license? Fantastic! Thanks for telling me. Now I know who to club over the head first in the event of the zombie Mayan nerd-ocalypse. I am firmly of the belief that the best place for a gun in the home is locked up; and not brandished out in public in some bullshit fantasy of reliving the goddamned 19th century. Yes, a gun is a tool. As I said, it's a useful survival tool in the wild. When procuring meat for the freezer, or fending off dangerous animals in the backcountry, a gun beats a pointy stick. A gun can also be a useful vehicle for investment, or education. But life isn't a computer game. The solution to public safety isn't "more gun."

But generally if your home is invaded by armed men -- well, my favourite story is of the friend of a friend of mine. A man broke into her home, overcame her, tied her up. Just like you'd let happen to you. He found the guns, just like what you'd let happen to you.

Can we not make the hundred meter leap to judgement? I know that I'm making the sacred cow squeal like a stuck pig, but that's no reason to make assumptions about how I lock my own shit up.

Her husband came home.

He got to the guy before he fired a shot, beat him, took the gun from his hands, and then in the ensuing struggle managed to shoot, which led to the man fleeing.

I got my own favorite anecdote. There was a man who lived in the southern portions of the city who was ex-military, and kept guns for home defense. One day, armed men knocked on his door, and he came out shooting. Turns out, the armed men were cops investigating a call. Turned into a SWAT situation that resulted in the man's death, and his wife being left a widow.

There's also the one about how an armed man "defending" his own house shot and killed an unarmed drunk that he thought was behaving in a threatening manner. And there's also the one about how a man shot someone he thought was an intruder . . . who turned out to be his own son who had the misfortune of coming home late. Or the one where a man comes home to the scene you just describes, shoots the intruder dead, but gets his wife in the crossfire.

Needless to say: Anecdotes != data.

Obviously if the woman had had the gun out and accessible in the first place, it would have been over and done with, that's that. And that's how it normally happens. You are so timid, with such a ridiculous view of human violence where everyone is competent and capable in the movies, whereas real fighting is both terrifying and ridiculous at some level of how much effort is expended even by the very best for jack shit in terms of injury to your opponents, that your views simply have no bearing on reality at all.

Do you have anything to contribute, other than ad-hominems, cupcake? Look, I'm not going to go out on the Internet, and pretend I'm a Dirty Harry-type badass who's going to take my gun and kill some home invader five times before he hits the floor. I leave that to people who, apparently, like to imbue their guns with mystical, romantic, powers that they simply don't have. I know fights are bad enough without throwing firearms into the mix. We're all read the anecdotes . . . one guy on <insert drugs here> takes grave wounds with a handgun and continues to function until blood loss takes away his say on the matter. Another guy, shot and missed with a gun, falls over and goes into shock due to social conditioning. Yes, it's all nasty business but . . . how someone can, with a straight face, suggest that the solution to violence is "more gun," is baffling.

The simple fact is, sorry, criminals aren't that l33t, and cops aren't that l33t, and even trained special forces operators frequently put their first group into the wall next to Osama bin Laden's head before they succeed in pasting him. Your view of violence is completely wrong.

I'm just listing the qualifications that one ought to have before I'm willing to trust them with a gun to defend themselves, or their homes with. If you say my qualifications are unrealistically high, then I say "No shit, Sherlock. That was kindof the point." I know that cops aren't the best. Allow me to repeat what I said, since you somehow missed this when responding to my post ... maybe I should start posting in crayon.

As far as I trust police with guns . . . let's just say that I'm glad I wasn't born a black dude or Latino. I mean, they're more trustworthy than any open-carry nut, any concealed-carry nut, and the security guards who patrol my workplace . . . but that really isn't saying much.

Emphasis mine. Again, I repeat, I don't really trust cops with guns. In more metropolitan areas than makes me comfortable to think about, giving every cop a gun just makes them trigger-happy. That whole "when all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" kind of thinking. If I am mistrustful of law-enforcement with that kind of power, then it must follow that I trust the competence of random jackasses on the street even less.

When presented with evidence that the average person shouldn't be trusted with a gun in a self-defense situation, the rational person ought to conclude that . . . well, maybe it shouldn't be so easy for them to get guns, right? Not "ZOMG! Silly brainwashed victim-sheep, the solution is obviously more gun!"

Oh, and this whole bystander thing? The cops regularly shoot off 200 rounds in busy urban areas at someone, missing with 190 of them, and maybe one out of every three hundred or five hundred times they do it do they hit some bystander. If you've got fourteen rounds between two guns for home defence--the bullets just stop being lethal after a certain distance,

This distance being up to a couple of miles, in the case of bullets on high-arcing trajectories. And just because a bullet stops being lethal doesn't mean it stops being harmful. The only safe bullet is one that isn't moving.

and the square rule is even more ruthless when your object travels in a straight line and is less than 10mm in diameter. Grow up. You are just terrifically unlikely to hit a bystander; you are not firing that much munitions,

But what if one of your bullets strikes something much larger that I'm fond of; like, say, my house or my car? Say you blow out one of my windows while I've got guests over, and they all suffer emotional distress? Or one of my pets cuts themselves up on the glass shards on the floor? If I can link those bullets to your gun, I then proceed to sue your ass to the point where you'll think being mugged was absolutely pleasant in comparison. Just because a tiny fraction of your backstop happens to be people does not mean that it doesn't contain other things that people might value.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You have your facts on this subject and I have mine. Nothing you say will ever change my mind on this issue, and I am absolutely sure that I am correct and you are wrong. I am also absolutely sure that I will NEVER convince you, or Havok, or WMA, and that despite the fact that my evidence is concrete, posting it here would be an atrocious waste of time for a busy person, because it would result in absolutely nothing. Short of a very radical change in evidence which provides conclusive proof one way or another, nothing will ever change.

I'm just going to say it now-- The only real solution to this is a moratorium on gun control debates on the board, the same as there has been one on Israel versus Palestine debates.

I also think we should lift the moratorium on Israel vs. Palestine debates, because for that matter, that issue really has changed to one where there is enough concurrence that it is possible to have a rational debate over the issue.


But it isn't possible to have a rational debate over this issue, so we should substitute moratoriums, because this subject has just become a way for people to provoke flamewars for no good reason.

[Flagg]

You have your facts on this subject and I have mine. Nothing you say will ever change my mind on this issue, and I am absolutely sure that I am correct and you are wrong. I am also absolutely sure that I will NEVER convince you, or Havok, or WMA, and that despite the fact that my evidence is concrete, posting it here would be an atrocious waste of time for a busy person, because it would result in absolutely nothing. Short of a very radical change in evidence which provides conclusive proof one way or another, nothing will ever change.

I'm just going to say it now-- The only real solution to this is a moratorium on gun control debates on the board, the same as there has been one on Israel versus Palestine debates.

I also think we should lift the moratorium on Israel vs. Palestine debates, because for that matter, that issue really has changed to one where there is enough concurrence that it is possible to have a rational debate over the issue.


But it isn't possible to have a rational debate over this issue, so we should substitute moratoriums, because this subject has just become a way for people to provoke flamewars for no good reason.

Translation: Waaaa, they are saying things I don't like make them shut up!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, yes, believe whatever you want. I already know I am not changing your mind, which implies an acceptance of the fact that you think horrible things of me, and I don't give a shit. The simple fact is that I'm making a reasoned judgement call that I don't think the stress of this argument is productive for ANYONE in it, not just me.

[Aaron MkII]

But it isn't possible to have a rational debate over this issue, so we should substitute moratoriums, because this subject has just become a way for people to provoke flamewars for no good reason.

We were actually having a civil and productive discussion yesterday. But I'd like to thank you, KS, Hav and anyone else I missed for proving my point better then I ever could.

[Meest]

It is now of course emerging that the guy at the Clackamas Town Center mall shot himself immediately after being confronted by someone with a CCW:

So, we can see a genuine benefit here.

Did you even read the whole story? The shooter's gun jamming/reloading seems to be a common theme where action takes place, and in this case the guy didn't shoot and went into more cover. He killed himself because an armed citizen who we still don't know if it's true almost aimed at him, or he realized his time was done because his gun is jamming and he ran into a store cleared it and killed himself. Could have also mistaken him as law enforcement, either way all it does is shows that most of these guys are cowards. What do you think would have happened if he tried drawing when the shooter's rifle was working, light cover pistol vs rifle. The guy's own account said there was someone in the background that stopped him from taking a shot, and this seems to be after the initial shots fired, imagine if he tried to get a shot off during the chaos and not the lull. Still looking for concrete examples of your average joe with a CCW stopping the tragedies before or during them happening, clearly didn't deter this guy from deciding to do this.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But it isn't possible to have a rational debate over this issue, so we should substitute moratoriums, because this subject has just become a way for people to provoke flamewars for no good reason.

We were actually having a civil and productive discussion yesterday. But I'd like to thank you, KS, Hav and anyone else I missed for proving my point better then I ever could.

*shrug* I am willing to agree to sensible gun control, as I have said on repeated occasions before, the problem is that there are people in this thread who want essentially a total ban on firearms and deny their use as a means of self-defence, and against those people my response is to say that nothing should change, because I'm only prepared to compromise with people who are themselves prepared to recognize that an extremist viewpoint is not acceptable. Sensible gun control cannot, of course, compromise with people who deny the validity of firearms for self-defence, Aaron. I would be driven off most gunowner forums for being an evil gun-grabbing leftist simply for agreeing with a large-capacity magazine ban, and you know it. My position IS moderate in the US.

[Aaron MkII]

It is, yes. And the gun community has won, gun control is a total non starter now, I just wish that as a community we could be magnanimous in victory.

And I do actually agree with you in regards to self defence.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It is, yes. And the gun community has won, gun control is a total non starter now, I just wish that as a community we could be magnanimous in victory.

And I do actually agree with you in regards to self defence.

Well, I would really like to see a proactive mental health standard where instead of relying on old mental health records we require preemptive mental health clearances every five years, because someone with a childhood mood disorder in school that led to hospitalization at age 13 may be perfectly safe in their 30s, and someone with a simmering problem that was never diagnosed because they never went to a therapist could explode at 25 with no warning--preemptive mental health clearances for purchase would fix that problem, because it would require anyone who wants to buy a gun to see a therapist or social worker at least once, so we could at least screen obvious cases, and it's fairer to people like yourself with a past history of mental problems who have successfully controlled them. Mental function changes over time, so going after people with a past history of mental problems is like closing the chicken coop after the fox. They should be subject to long waiting periods and heightened scrutiny, but basically, the main objective should be just getting the people with no history in front of someone with some degree of training every five years.

Since requiring it for gun ownership would be politically impossible, I'd say, since medical records are normally kept for 5 - 7 years by MHPs in the US, require a new certificate of clean mental health every 5 - 7 years. I'd also recommend a safety course be required to purchase, but other than that, let's be realistic, registering guns or requiring recertification of gun owners are both total non-starters in the US. Point-of-sale checks on purchase at least have some support, and the high capacity magazine ban at least forces the guy to reload often in this kind of shooting, given more chances for someone to intervene. The AWB has broad based support, but because it doesn't actually do anything in terms of preventing this kind of shooting because it's based purely on cosmetic features, not actual lethality, why bother wasting political capital to re-institute it?

I'd suggest implementing this as part of a grand bargain that includes a federally mandated set of concealed carry standards required for all states to implement with more extensive training and background checks, but on a shall-issue basis (present the training, the rigorous background check comes up clean, then you must issue) with total reciprocity and the right to carry anywhere except an airport or courthouse. The NRA has wanted that for a long time, so it would at least raise the possibility of a compromise.

[Darwin]

Seriously, if a person is going to commit a gun-related crime, they're going to be prepared to do it and have the element of surprise.
If you're just shopping for groceries or in a movie theater, what makes you think you're going to turn around all cowboy style, and save a crowded room full of people?

That's hilarious. Seriously. To think that most crime is planned out well ahead of time and not spur of the moment. No, you'll be approached at the gas station by someone asking for money to get home, and they're actually scoping you out, or they'll try to strongarm you first. Criminals and other cowards quickly learn to pick their targets carefully. Sure if they're just going to blast you from behind they're going to do that, but that's rare in comparison.

As for the active shooter situation, why not have some options? In every case I've seen this year, there were times when the shooter was not paying attention to people nearly within arms reach, There were times when the shooter was fiddling with a jammed weapon. It's about having an option of that opportunity arises.

[His Divine Shadow]

High capacity bans are some of the most easily evaded ideas and is precisely one of those things that's only hurt sensible gun control suggestions (which is people control).

[Flagg]

Yes, yes, believe whatever you want. I already know I am not changing your mind, which implies an acceptance of the fact that you think horrible things of me, and I don't give a shit. The simple fact is that I'm making a reasoned judgement call that I don't think the stress of this argument is productive for ANYONE in it, not just me.

It has nothing to do with changing minds, and everything to do whith whiny people who just cannot stand to hear arguments they disagree with on certain subjects and then procede to lose their shit. I'm against moratoriums on any subject because as far as I'm concerned if you have no self control and engage in arguments where you already know you're going to start breaking board rules to try and make your point, then you should be allowed to hang yourself.

[Nephtys]

Seriously, if a person is going to commit a gun-related crime, they're going to be prepared to do it and have the element of surprise.
If you're just shopping for groceries or in a movie theater, what makes you think you're going to turn around all cowboy style, and save a crowded room full of people?

That's hilarious. Seriously. To think that most crime is planned out well ahead of time and not spur of the moment. No, you'll be approached at the gas station by someone asking for money to get home, and they're actually scoping you out, or they'll try to strongarm you first. Criminals and other cowards quickly learn to pick their targets carefully. Sure if they're just going to blast you from behind they're going to do that, but that's rare in comparison.

As for the active shooter situation, why not have some options? In every case I've seen this year, there were times when the shooter was not paying attention to people nearly within arms reach, There were times when the shooter was fiddling with a jammed weapon. It's about having an option of that opportunity arises.

So you're saying that 30 seconds of a criminal going 'I'm going to walk up and rob that person at gunpoint and shoot them if they try anything' isn't planning? It's still 30 seconds more than you have when you're busy filling up a car at a gas station or whatever you're doing. That's spur of the moment, and plenty of planning to get mentally ready. And again, if you're getting your morning coffee and a guy comes in with a gun pointed at you, you're not going to spin around, cooly draw your gun, probably quip a one-liner and shoot them before they hurt you or some innocent nearby.

[Aaron MkII]

High capacity bans are some of the most easily evaded ideas and is precisely one of those things that's only hurt sensible gun control suggestions (which is people control).

Aye, it's absurdly easy to smuggle high caps into Canada. And and an hour with a file and pliers and my SKS would be back to ten rounds.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

High capacity bans are some of the most easily evaded ideas and is precisely one of those things that's only hurt sensible gun control suggestions (which is people control).

No, they're not. Yes, someone can manufacture new detachable magazines very easily--but spree killers, who are the target of such legislation, just usually don't do things like that.