Yet another shooting thread

[Loren Pechtel]

The focus on rifles strongly suggests the motive is something other than preventing murder.

No, Loren. The bulk of gun deaths are suicides and domestic disputes. But the ones that people fear, are the impersonal wiping out of lives. Suicides alone account for 56% of gun deaths. Tragic as that is, most people don’t live in fear that they might kill themselves.
They (I) do fear catching a bullet at the grocery store, concert or on the highway, fired by a crazy person just out there doing the random killing thing that crazy people do. That crazy person is using a .223 long gun in almost every case.
So yeah, banning assault l-type rifles isn’t going to make a huge dent in the overall body count but it will make people feel better, i.e. improve the social climate. I think that change would be significant.

As you say, feel good. That is, other than to the people who understand it's a camel's nose. And there are a lot of them.

Banning rifles will do basically nothing about suicide because a properly aimed handgun is just about as good--and it's a lot easier to aim.

Domestics also the weapon will rarely matter. They're less likely than the average murder to be with a gun at all.

And you're wrong on what the crazy person is using--handgun is more likely than long gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.

Suicide should be addressed by looking at the reasons people commit suicide, not by trying to deny them the means of doing so.

 

[bilby]

The focus on rifles strongly suggests the motive is something other than preventing murder.

No, Loren. The bulk of gun deaths are suicides and domestic disputes. But the ones that people fear, are the impersonal wiping out of lives. Suicides alone account for 56% of gun deaths. Tragic as that is, most people don’t live in fear that they might kill themselves.
They (I) do fear catching a bullet at the grocery store, concert or on the highway, fired by a crazy person just out there doing the random killing thing that crazy people do. That crazy person is using a .223 long gun in almost every case.
So yeah, banning assault l-type rifles isn’t going to make a huge dent in the overall body count but it will make people feel better, i.e. improve the social climate. I think that change would be significant.

As you say, feel good. That is, other than to the people who understand it's a camel's nose. And there are a lot of them.

Banning rifles will do basically nothing about suicide because a properly aimed handgun is just about as good--and it's a lot easier to aim.

Domestics also the weapon will rarely matter. They're less likely than the average murder to be with a gun at all.

And you're wrong on what the crazy person is using--handgun is more likely than long gun.

You're right. Handguns should be very tightly restricted, and probably shouldn't be allowed in domestic premises at all.

Long guns are less problematic, and might only need a license (issued only to those with a genuine [ie not "defense"] need, such as hunting or sport; And only to those with a squeaky clean criminal record) and proof of secure storage.

Neither handguns nor long guns need to be banned. They just need to be made scarce enough to end the pointless ongoing slaughter.

 

[Tigers!]

With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.

Suicide should be addressed by looking at the reasons people commit suicide, not by trying to deny them the means of doing so.

Do I read your reply as saying it does not matter if a suicidal person has a gun?

 

[Elixir]

With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.

Suicide should be addressed by looking at the reasons people commit suicide, not by trying to deny them the means of doing so.

Do I read your reply as saying it does not matter if a suicidal person has a gun?

I don’t think so … maybe more like “let’s not take away their gun until after they have demonstrated their willingness to commit suicide and their preference for a firearm as their means of doing so”.

 

[robnisch]

Buy stock of whoever makes bump stocks!

 

[ZiprHead]

That's okay, you don't freely admit that Sandy Hook was just the price that gets paid when it comes to the firearm protections you seek.

Because I understand that many small events can add up to more than one big one.

Wave a magic wand, all mass shootings go away but all self-defense shootings go away. Oops, the outcome is almost certainly worse.

You're assumng evidence not availble.

 

[ZiprHead]

With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.

Suicide should be addressed by looking at the reasons people commit suicide, not by trying to deny them the means of doing so.

Why can't we do both?

 

[Shadowy Man]

With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.

Suicide should be addressed by looking at the reasons people commit suicide, not by trying to deny them the means of doing so.

Why can't we do both?

Because denying guns to people who would kill themselves with them would also deny guns to those who would kill other people with them. And that’s just not fair.

 

[TomC]

Because denying guns to people who would kill themselves with them would also deny guns to those who would kill other people with them. And that’s just not fair.

Honestly, to me it's more like "If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have them."
The elephant in that room is that the people who you really don't want to have access to a gun can always find a way if they are determined to do so. From suicides to murderers, it won't become impossible any time soon.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.

Suicide should be addressed by looking at the reasons people commit suicide, not by trying to deny them the means of doing so.

Do I read your reply as saying it does not matter if a suicidal person has a gun?

If someone's willing to use a gun for suicide and you take it away they'll probably do something else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because denying guns to people who would kill themselves with them would also deny guns to those who would kill other people with them. And that’s just not fair.

Honestly, to me it's more like "If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have them."
The elephant in that room is that the people who you really don't want to have access to a gun can always find a way if they are determined to do so. From suicides to murderers, it won't become impossible any time soon.
Tom

Exactly. Gun "control" will only disarm those where the guns aren't a big deal in the first place.

 

[TomC]

Exactly. Gun "control" will only disarm those where the guns aren't a big deal in the first place.

Chicago has learned that the hard way.

Gun violence was a huge problem. So the Chicago government created a whole pile of laws preventing Chicagoans from owning guns legally.
The Chicago metropolitan area is huge, stretching way into Indiana. Here in Indiana, you can buy guns out of vending machines. (almost, not quite)

End result, law abiding citizens were disarmed and the criminals willing to drive a whole 30 minutes to northern Indiana had all the guns that they wanted. Guns so cheap they could just chuck them in the river when they didn't want them anymore and could well afford a new (old) one.

Yeah, that is what gun control means to me. Keep guns out of the reach of law abiding citizens and keep delivering them to the criminals. That'll make everything better.
Tom

 

[bilby]

With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.

Suicide should be addressed by looking at the reasons people commit suicide, not by trying to deny them the means of doing so.

Do I read your reply as saying it does not matter if a suicidal person has a gun?

If someone's willing to use a gun for suicide and you take it away they'll probably do something else.

Yeah. We should probably just kill them ourselves, and get it over with.

Certainly there's no point in making it even one iota more difficult for them.

 

[ZiprHead]

With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.

Suicide should be addressed by looking at the reasons people commit suicide, not by trying to deny them the means of doing so.

Do I read your reply as saying it does not matter if a suicidal person has a gun?

If someone's willing to use a gun for suicide and you take it away they'll probably do something else.

Other methods aren't as quick and sure as a gun.

 

[ZiprHead]

Exactly. Gun "control" will only disarm those where the guns aren't a big deal in the first place.

Chicago has learned that the hard way.

Gun violence was a huge problem. So the Chicago government created a whole pile of laws preventing Chicagoans from owning guns legally.
The Chicago metropolitan area is huge, stretching way into Indiana. Here in Indiana, you can buy guns out of vending machines. (almost, not quite)

End result, law abiding citizens were disarmed and the criminals willing to drive a whole 30 minutes to northern Indiana had all the guns that they wanted. Guns so cheap they could just chuck them in the river when they didn't want them anymore and could well afford a new (old) one.

Yeah, that is what gun control means to me. Keep guns out of the reach of law abiding citizens and keep delivering them to the criminals. That'll make everything better.
Tom

Of course in that situation guns are easy to get. I bet a lot of law abiding Chicagoans did the same.

The laws have to be nationwide like Australia or Britain.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Exactly. Gun "control" will only disarm those where the guns aren't a big deal in the first place.

Chicago has learned that the hard way.

Gun violence was a huge problem. So the Chicago government created a whole pile of laws preventing Chicagoans from owning guns legally.
The Chicago metropolitan area is huge, stretching way into Indiana. Here in Indiana, you can buy guns out of vending machines. (almost, not quite)

End result, law abiding citizens were disarmed and the criminals willing to drive a whole 30 minutes to northern Indiana had all the guns that they wanted. Guns so cheap they could just chuck them in the river when they didn't want them anymore and could well afford a new (old) one.

Yeah, that is what gun control means to me. Keep guns out of the reach of law abiding citizens and keep delivering them to the criminals. That'll make everything better.
Tom

Of course in that situation guns are easy to get. I bet a lot of law abiding Chicagoans did the same.

The laws have to be nationwide like Australia or Britain.

But they must have gotten to the problem at an earlier stage. uSA is in terminal stage. No chemo will work for us anymore — the cancer has metastasized through the entire system — for us, just hospice.

 

[ZiprHead]

Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on rapid-fire rifle bump stocks, reopening political fight

A Texas gun shop owner challenged the ban, arguing the Justice Department wrongly classified the accessories as illegal machine guns.

apnews.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessories used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, in a ruling that threw firearms back into the nation’s political spotlight.

The high court’s conservative majority found that the Trump administration overstepped when it changed course from predecessors and banned bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns. The decision came after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with semiautomatic rifles equipped with the accessories.

The gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror as hundreds were wounded and dozens killed.

The ruling thrust guns back into the center of the political conversation with an unusual twist as Democrats decried the reversal of a GOP administration’s action and many Republicans backed the ruling.

The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas found the Justice Department was wrong to declare that bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because, he wrote, each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot.

Okay, Clarence is just fucking with us now.

 

[bilby]

Exactly. Gun "control" will only disarm those where the guns aren't a big deal in the first place.

Chicago has learned that the hard way.

Gun violence was a huge problem. So the Chicago government created a whole pile of laws preventing Chicagoans from owning guns legally.
The Chicago metropolitan area is huge, stretching way into Indiana. Here in Indiana, you can buy guns out of vending machines. (almost, not quite)

End result, law abiding citizens were disarmed and the criminals willing to drive a whole 30 minutes to northern Indiana had all the guns that they wanted. Guns so cheap they could just chuck them in the river when they didn't want them anymore and could well afford a new (old) one.

Yeah, that is what gun control means to me. Keep guns out of the reach of law abiding citizens and keep delivering them to the criminals. That'll make everything better.
Tom

Of course in that situation guns are easy to get. I bet a lot of law abiding Chicagoans did the same.

The laws have to be nationwide like Australia or Britain.

But they must have gotten to the problem at an earlier stage. uSA is in terminal stage. No chemo will work for us anymore — the cancer has metastasized through the entire system — for us, just hospice.

In fact, you can use the piss of any farmyard animal to make gunpowder, not just hosses.

Joseph LeConte called this the "Swiss Method":

SWISS METHOD.​

The method practiced by the small farmers in Switzerland is very simple, requires little or no care, and is admirably adapted to the hilly portions of our State.

A stable with a board floor is built on the slope of a hill (a northern slope is best), with one end resting on the ground, while the other is elevated, several feet, thus allowing the air to circulate freely below. Beneath the stable a pit, two or three feet deep, and conforming to the slope of the hill, is dug and filled with porous sand, mixed with ashes or old mortar. The urine of the animals is absorbed by the porous sand, becomes nitrified, and is fit for leaching in about two years. The exhausted earth is returned to the pit, to undergo the same process again. This leached earth induces nitrification much more rapidly than fresh earth; so that after the first crop the earth may be leached regularly every year. A moderate-sized stable yields with every leaching about one thousand pounds of saltpetre.

(Source)

 

[marc]

Honestly, to me it's more like "If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have them."
The elephant in that room is that the people who you really don't want to have access to a gun can always find a way if they are determined to do so.

Then do me a favor…. Never lock your car again, and never lock your front door again. Because someone can always find a way to rob you if they are determined to do so.