Schools, Shootings, Children and Adulthood

In reply to alfadriver :

better? sure. Versatile? no. You missed the part of me enjoying shooting sports as well. There isn't another rifle in that price range that is as good all around. Something I fought for years (always an AK over AR fan) is the ergonomics. It's, well, spot on. Everything falls right to hand, it's balance is great, accuaracy is phenomenal past 300 yards (I'm not that good, but I try) and it cost me under $500 several years ago. 

Besides, we don't NEED free press and we don't NEED huge churches not run by the gov't. 

barefootskater said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

The larger point here, is that moving the conversation away from simply firearm regulation/banning/ confiscation and delving into the root cause of this issue is more difficult, but ultimately more productive.  

The right questions are rarely the easy ones. What is the automotive analogy? "Better to cry once" or something like that, If building for reliability and performance it is usually wiser to just spend the big money up front and do it right... 

Without getting political. IBTL

truth. The underlying problem is hte lack of mental health in this country. Not just that, but the stigma that we have put on any mental health issues that prevent people from seeking the help they need. But no one wants to tackle this problem. I mean, its not like the increase in shootings have gone up as mental health facilities have been closed down and aid removed or anything. 

alfadriver said:

But that really doesn't mean guns like an AR15 is needed- you don't need 30 rounds at once to shoot an animal, and you don't need to fire them off as fast as your finger can pull.  You say you want 20-30 rounds, but do you really need them?  Are you going out and harvesting coyotes?  I bet you really only need 5 or so.  And if you need more than 5, the time between firing the 5th and 6th shot would be long enough to change the magazine.

Rosa Parks didn't "need" to sit in the front of the bus.  In a free nation, you do not have to show "need" to exercise a right.  We don't "need" to have rational conversations about things like this - none of us are voting on a bill in Congress tonight, but here we are, exercising our First Amendment right.  :)

So you're OK with sending a child to war (you can enlist at 18), but don't think they can purchase a hunting rifle?

Perhaps the issue isn't the children, but us?

mtn said:

Obviously it is a mental health problem, but I still haven't heard a convincing argument about why machine guns (and don't tell me that these bump stops and AR-15's and whatnot are not machine guns) are legal. They sure as hell aren't good for self defense--that'd be a shotgun or a handgun. 

 

IBTL. 

I agree, in part, that it is a mental health issue. The other and much larger part is an obviously mentally disturbed individual was easily able to acquire a civilian version of a  military firearm. 

I have another question for the 2A happy proponents (I have my CCL and own more than 1)..............I frequently read/hear that it's for defense against tyranny of the government.............so a bunch of middle-aged folks with Glocks and an AR are going to stop the most powerful military in the world?

I then 95% of the time get the response, "Well the military would never turn its guns on the people!"

Anyone else see the contradiction here?

To be fair, even soliders don't have free access to walk around with their rifle while on base. 

pheller said:

To be fair, even soliders don't have free access to walk around with their rifle while on base. 

I'm not sure if you read the question, or are being purposefully obtuse. 

The_Jed said:

mtn said:

Obviously it is a mental health problem, but I still haven't heard a convincing argument about why machine guns (and don't tell me that these bump stops and AR-15's and whatnot are not machine guns) are legal. They sure as hell aren't good for self defense--that'd be a shotgun or a handgun. 

 

IBTL. 

I agree, in part, that it is a mental health issue. The other and much larger part is an obviously mentally disturbed individual was easily able to acquire a civilian version of a  military firearm. 

 

 

ARs aren't auto. The only difference is they look different than a hunting rifle that can accept a magazine. 

Why is the wood one OK?

z31maniac said:

I have another question for the 2A happy proponents (I have my CCL and own more than 1)..............I frequently read/hear that it's for defense against tyranny of the government.............so a bunch of middle-aged folks with Glocks and an AR are going to stop the most powerful military in the world?

I then 95% of the time get the response, "Well the military would never turn its guns on the people!"

Anyone else see the contradiction here?

It's a military of citizens. There will always be those that follow orders. But it's much harder to make your citizen soldiers turn their guns on their fellow citizens. What makes this hard to compare is the general dynamic of your country. You can't compare us to Europe because guns have been part of our culture since its inception. We have a different health care system. We have a different military/police etc. We're similar, but too many differences to make real apples to apples comparisons. 

What makes us unique is the ability to have a coup without ever firing a shot every few years.

In reply to z31maniac :

It's actually not the age that bothers me. I'm just not entirely sure that the general populace should have access to military-esque rifle. It has nothing to do with capabilities, it has to do with "culture". The culture of the AR15/AR10 is that of a military, that of killing people.  And not just killing people who may threaten us, but killing people at a distance. 

We banned the Thompson Machine gun and Sawed-Off Shotgun due to their association with gangster violence. Why can't we ban a gun based on it's association as a weapon of war? 

Yes, people will still have access to weapons that are essentially the same thing. They'll still have access to semi-automatic handguns, semi-auto rifles and shotguns, but those a guns associated with self-defense and hunting, not war. 

z31maniac said:

The_Jed said:

mtn said:

Obviously it is a mental health problem, but I still haven't heard a convincing argument about why machine guns (and don't tell me that these bump stops and AR-15's and whatnot are not machine guns) are legal. They sure as hell aren't good for self defense--that'd be a shotgun or a handgun. 

 

IBTL. 

I agree, in part, that it is a mental health issue. The other and much larger part is an obviously mentally disturbed individual was easily able to acquire a civilian version of a  military firearm. 

 

 

ARs aren't auto. The only difference is they look different than a hunting rifle that can accept a magazine. 

Why is the wood one OK?

What hunting rifle can shoot 30 rounds in less than a min?

AR's are very much not like a hunting rifle that can accept a magazine.  Especially a hunting rifle that is set up to be used for normal hunting, not harvesting.

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

z31maniac said:

I have another question for the 2A happy proponents (I have my CCL and own more than 1)..............I frequently read/hear that it's for defense against tyranny of the government.............so a bunch of middle-aged folks with Glocks and an AR are going to stop the most powerful military in the world?

I then 95% of the time get the response, "Well the military would never turn its guns on the people!"

Anyone else see the contradiction here?

It's a military of citizens. There will always be those that follow orders. But it's much harder to make your citizen soldiers turn their guns on their fellow citizens. What makes this hard to compare is the general dynamic of your country. You can't compare us to Europe because guns have been part of our culture since its inception. We have a different health care system. We have a different military/police etc. We're similar, but too many differences to make real apples to apples comparisons. 

What makes us unique is the ability to have a coup without ever firing a shot every few years.

You completely ignored what I asked. Voting is violent? Or did you not mean to use the word "coup?"

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

z31maniac said:

I have another question for the 2A happy proponents (I have my CCL and own more than 1)..............I frequently read/hear that it's for defense against tyranny of the government.............so a bunch of middle-aged folks with Glocks and an AR are going to stop the most powerful military in the world?

I then 95% of the time get the response, "Well the military would never turn its guns on the people!"

Anyone else see the contradiction here?

It's a military of citizens. There will always be those that follow orders. But it's much harder to make your citizen soldiers turn their guns on their fellow citizens.

These days I have only one thing to say about these arguments: Look at the Syrian civil war. Citizens turned against their own, and a modern military went to war against a well-armed populace. It's a very instructive example.

alfadriver said:

z31maniac said:

The_Jed said:

mtn said:

Obviously it is a mental health problem, but I still haven't heard a convincing argument about why machine guns (and don't tell me that these bump stops and AR-15's and whatnot are not machine guns) are legal. They sure as hell aren't good for self defense--that'd be a shotgun or a handgun. 

 

IBTL. 

I agree, in part, that it is a mental health issue. The other and much larger part is an obviously mentally disturbed individual was easily able to acquire a civilian version of a  military firearm. 

 

 

ARs aren't auto. The only difference is they look different than a hunting rifle that can accept a magazine. 

Why is the wood one OK?

What hunting rifle can shoot 30 rounds in less than a min?

AR's are very much not like a hunting rifle that can accept a magazine.  Especially a hunting rifle that is set up to be used for normal hunting, not harvesting.

Again, ignoring the blunt question to try and move the goalposts. 

So if I have two .223 rifles, one looks like a hunting rifle (wood stock) and one looks like something from the military (black composite stock). 

How are the different? You nor pheller explained that, just "what they are associated with?"

A truck ran over how many people in Nice? Let's ban them for what they are associated with.


I'm all for more stringent gun regulation and training, but I don't hear any good ideas other than "appeals to emotion" from the other side.

GameboyRMH said:

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

z31maniac said:

I have another question for the 2A happy proponents (I have my CCL and own more than 1)..............I frequently read/hear that it's for defense against tyranny of the government.............so a bunch of middle-aged folks with Glocks and an AR are going to stop the most powerful military in the world?

I then 95% of the time get the response, "Well the military would never turn its guns on the people!"

Anyone else see the contradiction here?

It's a military of citizens. There will always be those that follow orders. But it's much harder to make your citizen soldiers turn their guns on their fellow citizens.

These days I have only one thing to say about these arguments: Look at the Syrian civil war. Citizens turned against their own, and a modern military went to war against a well-armed populace. It's a very instructive example.

Yes, and there are no other countries like the US and Russia, participating in it, right? The hundreds of millions from those countries obviously have no impact. 

Yes, but Syrians also acquired military grade weaponry from outside sources. They didn't so much "buy" this stuff, it was given to them. Also, I think the per-capita gun ownership in Syria prior the civil war was pretty darn low.

If we banned all gun sales today, we'd still have the world's most well-armed populace, and we still wouldn't stand a chance against our own military, hell, probably not even a chance against our own police forces. 

z31maniac said:

I have another question for the 2A happy proponents (I have my CCL and own more than 1)..............I frequently read/hear that it's for defense against tyranny of the government.............so a bunch of middle-aged folks with Glocks and an AR are going to stop the most powerful military in the world?

I then 95% of the time get the response, "Well the military would never turn its guns on the people!"

Anyone else see the contradiction here?

The military is not the government, the military is part of the government. And a large part of the military would not go along with what you're saying.

You can't patrol the streets with an F22 or an Abrams. You need manpower for that, not tech, and that manpower is going to be a hell of a lot more scarce if the chances of them getting popped through the door they just knocked on is higher. And unless you're in dire straits ala syria a government generally isn't going to bomb the E36 M3 out of their own infrastructure or level a city block to take out a few guerillas and they're certainly not going to win brownie points with anyone else looking in from the outside. Especially in a country like the US.

Hell for that matter the government would be hard pressed to even keep track of most of the people they're fighting against, you'd have former and current military, police, stolen equipment, sabotaged equipment, it would be a clusterberkeley of a ridiculous order of magnitude.

Added point, the last 20 years reinforces the lesson from vietnam. Our military is still not set up well to deal with insurgents instead of an actual army. They stomped the piss out of saddams army but a bunch of goat herders with AKs in some mountains in Afghanistan have held them up for 17 years

Back to the topic at hand (STFU about guns before the thread gets locked)

z31maniac said:

A truck ran over how many people in Nice? Let's ban them for what they are associated with.

The thing is, that attack was done as an act of terrorism by those who actively are trying to kill innocent people in whatever way they can. They probably could have obtained guns to do the job, but they wanted a more sadistic method. I'm sure many mass-shooters would say "I'd never use a truck, that's horrible, I'd rather use a gun." 

We don't have vehicle attacks in the USA very often, why? Because guns are the preferred method. Is that a good thing? I'm not sure. 

Look at what the restrictions on bombs making material has done. There is something unique about using a gun that mass-shooters prefer over many other options. When a potential bomb-maker starts collecting materials, it raises red flags. When an angry kid purchases an AR15, nobody blinks an eye. 

Grizz said:

military is not the government, the military is part of the government. And a large part of the military would not go along with what you're saying.

So what you're saying is that the likelihood of our government waging war on us is pretty slim, because there would be people within the military who would object. There would be people within police forces would object. By in large, a popular uprising or civil war would be one of ideas, of votes, of boycotts and technological sabotage, hacking etc. 

I'm far more worried about the militarization of police forces and the viewing of many police forces that protests are rebellions that need to be quelled. That's a bigger threat than the risk of an oppressive Federal Government. 

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

Back to the topic at hand (STFU about guns before the thread gets locked)

 

The OP proposed regulations on reproduction and voting age. He was trolling.

Have any of you actually talked to a teenager about their thoughts on the subject?

Last night I had some father-son time with mini-me who just turned 16 and his thoughts ran along the lines of people (mostly young people) feeling hopeless in an increasingly anonymous world.  They realize that for the vast majority, they are going to live their lives, do all the things expected of them, and when they die, be forgotten withing a few days. 

The desire to stand out from the sea of anonymity is strong.  Combined with a variety of factors things go bad.  Just off the top of my head some factors might include but neither require or are limited to:

Broken homes

Adderal/Paxil/Ritalin/etc

Bullying

Societal pressure (choose that career now!!)

Video games

Permissive parenting

FD&C yellow #5

Abusive parenting

Easy access to firearms (most school shooters use mom/dads gun)

So while there are many and varied causes I'd hope that we can all agree that the solution must also be multi-layered and nuanced.  There is no magic pill for this and spiraling off into an argument about nuances of a firearm is counterproductive to the issue at hand.

Grizz said:

z31maniac said:

I have another question for the 2A happy proponents (I have my CCL and own more than 1)..............I frequently read/hear that it's for defense against tyranny of the government.............so a bunch of middle-aged folks with Glocks and an AR are going to stop the most powerful military in the world?

I then 95% of the time get the response, "Well the military would never turn its guns on the people!"

Anyone else see the contradiction here?

The military is not the government, the military is part of the government. And a large part of the military would not go along with what you're saying.

You can't patrol the streets with an F22 or an Abrams. You need manpower for that, not tech, and that manpower is going to be a hell of a lot more scarce if the chances of them getting popped through the door they just knocked on is higher. And unless you're in dire straits ala syria a government generally isn't going to bomb the E36 M3 out of their own infrastructure or level a city block to take out a few guerillas and they're certainly not going to win brownie points with anyone else looking in from the outside. Especially in a country like the US.

Hell for that matter the government would be hard pressed to even keep track of most of the people they're fighting against, you'd have former and current military, police, stolen equipment, sabotaged equipment, it would be a clusterberkeley of a ridiculous order of magnitude.

Added point, the last 20 years reinforces the lesson from vietnam. Our military is still not set up well to deal with insurgents instead of an actual army. They stomped the piss out of saddams army but a bunch of goat herders with AKs in some mountains in Afghanistan have held them up for 17 years

So you think if told, they would give up their privileged class? Regardless, our speculation either way, is just that, speculation/hyperbole, etc. 

Our military is plenty well equipped to handle any threat. When you send 100 people to do the job of 10,000.......what happens? Afghanistan. 

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

Have any of you actually talked to a teenager about their thoughts on the subject?

Last night I had some father-son time with mini-me who just turned 16 and his thoughts ran along the lines of people (mostly young people) feeling hopeless in an increasingly anonymous world.  They realize that for the vast majority, they are going to live their lives, do all the things expected of them, and when they die , be forgotten withing a few days.  The desire to stand out from the sea of anonymity is strong.  Combined with a variety of factors things go bad.  Just off the top of my head some factors might include but neither require or are limited to:

Broken homes

Adderal/Paxil/Ritalin/etc

Bullying

Societal pressure (choose that career now!!)

Video games

Permissive parenting

FD&C yellow #5

Abusive parenting

Easy access to firearms (most school shooters use mom/dads gun)

 

So while there are many and varied causes I'd hope that we can all agree that the solution must also be multi-layered and nuanced.  There is no magic pill for this and spiraling off into an argument about nuances of a firearm is counterproductive to the issue at hand.

I'd agree, but life has always been that way. People just get tied up in social media.