^ Not really fix’d.
In this particular case, I don’t believe what you’re saying holds up. If this guy’s mom hadn’t had a gun, he wouldn’t have shot anyone.
I sincerely doubt he would have gotten a gun off the black market.
And I think the same probably holds up for most of these incidences.
EX-FUCKING-ACTLY
People say, “Well, stricter gun control won’t keep criminals from getting guns illegally.” Maybe not, but it’s not fucking criminals shooting up schools. It’s private citizens who have access to assault weapons waaaaaaaaaaay too easily.
Assault weapons, not to mention shit like high-capacity drum magazines.
In short, weapons of war. Citizens do no need weapons of war. If they want them, it should not be easy and it should be under strict conditions.
Other kinds of firearms are debatable I guess.
I hate to sound condescending, but let’s clear the air on this term people have been throwing about: “Assault weapons” is a very nebulous term used by ill informed people and willfully misinforming anti-gun activists to describe guns that look scary. (I.E. look like military arms).
A few points on this-
Military weapons have always gotten civvy-ized. I could cite a lot of examples, but the M1 Garand, the M14, and the M16 have all been sporterized and rendered semi-automatic to be sold on the civilian market. (For instance, the Springfield M1A, a sporterized civilian variant of the M14, and the many derivatives of the M16 platform modified to fire semi-automatic, meaning one shot each time the trigger is pulled.)
California’s peculiar gun laws (and the former 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban) basically prohibit “assault weapons” as being a weapon that has more than two of the following features:
- A pistol grip, or a collapsible stock.
- A box magazine, as opposed to something like a stripper clip-fed integral magazine.
- Attachment points or Piccatany style rails. This can be anything from a bayonet lug to a scope mount.
Here’s the kicker about all this- you can still buy the parts aftermarket and modify it to work around the ban regardless. So the ban A. doesn’t do anything and B. as a result is rather pointless.
California also has a ban in place on magazines that hold more than ten rounds, which means some smaller cartridges such as the 9mm are basically useless because you only get ten if you are in compliance. So not only does the ban NOT affect how the gun operates, it also increases the odds that the weapon in question is going to be higher caliber.
On the whole, the assault weapons ban is a failure, as it just makes weapons look different. They still function more or less the same.
Additionally, “assault weapons” aren’t often used in most crimes.
Take for example the Columbine massacre, where the killers simply modified weapons that were already street legal. The 9mm Savage carbine used thirteen ten round pistol magazines.
The shooter at Virginia Tech used two handguns, a .22 Walther and a 9mm Glock 19. (Incidentally, the Glock 19 is in Black Mesa as the default handgun.)
High capacity magazines may only be somewhat defensible against banning, if only because high cap magazines would potentially be useful in a pistol or shotgun for home defense. Other features in the ban are features that make weapons much easier to use for home defense or easier to handle for hunting. Going through brush is a lot easier if you have a rifle with a collapsible stock, and hunting is obviously easier if you have the ability to mount scopes and rangefinders on a Picattany rail.
There are plenty of valid reasons to customize weapons in certain ways, they aren’t just for murderous rampages by psychopaths who stole weapons from law abiding owners or slipped through the cracks of existing background checks.
That’s a nice etymology lesson, but that doesn’t really address any problems with the state of affairs in the US. The fact still remains that weapons are way too easily acquired, by almost anyone.
That post raises some more questions to me:
Why would you need a high capacity magazine for home defense?
Would you put the “importance” of customizing your weapon to be more dangerous about the safety of children and other citizens?
Why do citizens need semi-automatic versions of military weaponry other than to look cool to their beer-swilling hillbilly friends?
Fine, I shouldn’t have said “assault weapons.” These crimes are being perpetrated with weapons that are easily purchasable by damn near anyone (or stolen from people who purchased them with ease or fenced through people who purchased them with ease). That’s worse.
High capacity magazines can be utilized for a variety of purposes with regards to home defense. It allows a shooter to sustain an engagement for a longer period of time without pausing to reload. As for why this would be valuable in a home defense situation, consider how troops in combat in the sandbox spend ungodly amounts of ammunition to kill insurgents. Accuracy can really go to shit under stress, and even without the additional rate of fire increases from fully automatic weapons, it’s tough to put down a hostile in just a few shots unless you are absolutely calm.
Your second point is more of an extrapolation and a philosophical question than a practical question that can be answered with hard data. My overall point was that just because some nut jobs decided to stage mass shootings doesn’t mean we have to give up the ability to mate a proper scope to a hunting weapon. Just about everything uses Picattany rails these days, as it began as a military standard, and since I previously outlined how military weapons become sporterized for the civilian market it is a matter of convenience.
Consider my previous statement about accuracy. Many of our troops in Iraq have the additional advantage of optics on their firearms. Now consider the home defense scenario. You are confronted with an intruder and a firefight begins. About the best thing you could have on your pistol at the moment would be some kind of laser sight, because taking the time to aim with your iron sights is unfeasible. Some laser sights are built into grips and activated by pressure, but many consumer laser sights are built to work with Picattany rails on the bottom of the weapon. Obviously, not a lot of people are going to have that much money to blow on either luxury, because attachments like that cost money anyway.
As for the beer swilling hillbillies argument, I rather resent that you have to fall back on tired stereotypes of Americans to make points about how weapons ought to be constructed and sold. Do you live here? Have you ever fired a weapon yourself? Having fired high capacity weapons myself, I can say with some authority that sure, they may be unnecessary, but to a responsible gun owner they are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. (Before you ask about my experience firing the high cap- I couldn’t hit shit with it. The extra weight on the weapon from all of the ammunition can actually make your aim shakier. Additionally, high cap magazines also tend to be built by third parties and therefore less reliable in a given weapon, as the Aurora shooter found out when his beta C jammed after less than thirty rounds.)
Also: with regards to the purported “ease” of acquiring weapons in this country, in CA you get background checked, a ten day waiting period, and in many municipalities, to get a CCW permit you must have “serious and compelling reasons” to carry a weapon concealed (meaning know someone in the local government). Time travel back a few decades and you were basically able to buy guns in department stores and gas stations. Weren’t a lot of mass shootings back then, were there?
I live in Colorado. It is a state within the United States of America. I have fired a menagerie of guns, including military weapons downgraded to semi-automatic fire for civilian purposes. Seeing as I live in a state with pretty passionate gun owners, I have a lot of exposure to it. A lot of close friends and family own guns. I have my fair share of anecdotes about accidental injury and death related to improper gun ownership. Anecdotal evidence isn’t valid though so I’ll keep it to myself.
It would be kinda hypocritical of me to say that I believe no citizens should own guns. I know for a fact that many gun owners are responsible with their weapons, instruct their children on gun safety, would never allow their weapons to be in a position where they can be used for murder, etc. I’ve made three points consistently through the thread (with a touch of hyperbole to distinguish myself from the other side): 1. To eliminate gun violence, you must eliminate guns. Obviously, it’s not that simple. It’s never going to happen. However, it is so profoundly incorrect to state that the answer to gun violence is throwing more guns into the equation. 2. Guns should be harder to purchase and should be regulated much more stringently. This is where we get the, “Why should I be punished for the actions of others?” argument we’re all quite familiar with. 3. Mental health treatment should be a priority. No one’s gonna argue with that.
I still take exception to extended mags being necessary to home defense. I just don’t think it’s comparable at all to military situations.
Sorry about the “stereotype,” but understand that where I live we get a lot of the “shit yeah, 'Merica, fire our guns on the fourth of July, the South will rise again, guns and God in school” types around here.
I live in California, so I have to put up with people constantly spouting ignorant biases on guns being inherently evil and so they MUST BE BANNED around here, so I very much understand where you’re coming from. My girlfriend even somehow thinks Obama is for gun rights. Ha!
I respect your opinion on extended mags, as I was basically trying to construct a valid scenario for their usage.
I have a few anecdotes of my own on the ridiculous state of affairs with regards to this state’s annoyingly complex web of legal restrictions on firearms ownership and usage. (Hell, people write books about the laws here because of how crazy complicated they are.) I just get my dander up because I’ve had to grow up with people constantly repeating vast reams of misconceptions and slander against law abiding gun owners at me.
And yes, mental health care leaves much to be desired. But that’s another topic. Thanks for the debate, I like it when people keep it civil and backed up by facts. 
I also feel really stupid now- it says right under your name that you live in Colorado. Epic fail on my part, sorry.
No worries, comrade. Thanks for the discussion.
On the other side of the argument, there are a lot of misconceptions and vitriol thrown at people that just want to have a discussion including, but not limited to, being called Nazis or whatever.
I, myself, have been called “fearful that a gun will suddenly jump up and fire at a bunch of schoolkids all by itself” and that I must be the dumbest person on Earth to believe such a thing…even though I’ve never said anything like that in my life nor do I believe that.
What should be done about this kind of argument?
https://8minutesoffame.com/america-freedom-vs-freedom/
About half way down the article, he goes into discussing the term “Assault Rifle” that the media keeps throwing around. I for one am rather thankful for the indepth ‘dumming down’ of the explanation.
Hm. The gun nuts are here.
In any case, wouldn’t be simple enough to ban anything above a certain capacity, rate of fire, and stopping power?
And I agree as well. You really find this kind of thing in Republican culture/states. What made me respond the way I did was that your post generalized the whole culture, not just the Republican culture, which bugged me.
I can agree that, but it’s something that you find again, in the Republican culture/states. The White House and a good part of the Senate are currently made up of people who oppose this kind of culture.
I would start laughing as loud as I could and start to walk away from the person, saying something under my breath like, “Fuckin’…” and then start laughing louder.
Good article. Made a lot of sense. Of course, something like this probably won’t make it to the nightly news…
I second that emotion
Speaking of the news, I really think that the mass media handled the event exceptionally poorly. So much misinformation. Zero fact checking. All in the name of getting the latest scoop before the other news channels do.
They’re like vultures, literally feeding off of the dead. It’s disgusting.