Guns, race, religion, terror, wingnut thread

[billy.pilgrim]

No one is seriously proposing a "ban on firearms", and it won't ever be enacted and wouldn't survive the courts if it was. That's just gunhugger fear mongering.

True true, although some people legitimately want that to happen. It won't, you're right.

In the case of this Orlando massacre, I don't think there was a way to have prevented it. The guy passed background checks, obtained his weapons legally. The only way to have prevented this massacre was an outright ban.

For the record: I do agree with strict background checks.

What background checks did he pass?

[JTA]

I agree with most of your points, but I vehemently disagree with having show an explicit "need" before being granted permission by the government to own a firearm.

[JTA]

No one is seriously proposing a "ban on firearms", and it won't ever be enacted and wouldn't survive the courts if it was. That's just gunhugger fear mongering.

True true, although some people legitimately want that to happen. It won't, you're right.

In the case of this Orlando massacre, I don't think there was a way to have prevented it. The guy passed background checks, obtained his weapons legally. The only way to have prevented this massacre was an outright ban.

For the record: I do agree with strict background checks.

What background checks did he pass?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... d-nothing/

And I'm assuming the background checks he passed to purchase his guns, unless he bought them illegally, in which case he would've done anyway had there been some kind of ban in place.

[Vrede too]

... The only way to have prevented this massacre was an outright ban....

An outright ban on assault-style weapons and possibly restrictions on clip size and numbers of clips one can own (not sure what he had), both of which are constitutional, would have likely reduced the body count. There's a reason that they are the weapons of choice for mass murderers.

Other ideas:

Psych testing.
Family, coworker and friend interviews. Sounds like many people knew he was seriously off beforehand.
Making background checks more comprehensive than just looking at felony convictions and mental health commitment. Maybe his existing FBI file contained enough damning but not criminal info. to reasonably justify denying the purchase.
Requiring a demonstration of need.
Closing the "gun show loophole". If he would have failed a background check, he still could have gotten the same gun.

These things won't stop all shooters, especially in our uber-armed short term, but they will make it more difficult for them. This is why states and comparable nations with stronger controls have less gun violence.

I agree with most of your points, but I vehemently disagree with having show an explicit "need" before being granted permission by the government to own a firearm.

It works for Switzerland and has to be renewed every 6 months or so. I don't know the details of what's involved but even if it's as simple as physically showing up and articulating a reason, some flakes will fail the effort and others won't bother trying. Say we never ban assault-style guns, what's the harm in making people describe why they need one? If they can't even come up with something, anything, plausible, maybe they shouldn't have one.

[JTA]

I don't live on a farm. I don't have to combat zombies because they don't exist. And I don't really need an AR 15 for home defense because I've got a shot gun and a few pistols that will do the trick well enough. But I still planning on purchasing one because I really enjoy shooting guns at targets at my friend's farm.

In this scenario I'd likely be denied because I've got no explicit need other then recreation.

I would prefer to own my own so I can grab it whenever I want on a whim and go out target shooting.

[Vrede too]

I don't know that it would disqualify you, that would depend on how the law was written. Maybe it would merely trigger further scrutiny (don't mention being a headbanger ). Also, if your only "need" is target practice, that can be easily satisfied with a rented or always stored gun at a licensed range.

Here's what I know about Switzerland:

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

Israel also requires demonstration of need, rejecting "40 percent of its applications for a gun, the highest rate of rejection of any country in the world."

[billy.pilgrim]

No one is seriously proposing a "ban on firearms", and it won't ever be enacted and wouldn't survive the courts if it was. That's just gunhugger fear mongering.

True true, although some people legitimately want that to happen. It won't, you're right.

In the case of this Orlando massacre, I don't think there was a way to have prevented it. The guy passed background checks, obtained his weapons legally. The only way to have prevented this massacre was an outright ban.

For the record: I do agree with strict background checks.

What background checks did he pass?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... d-nothing/

And I'm assuming the background checks he passed to purchase his guns, unless he bought them illegally, in which case he would've done anyway had there been some kind of ban in place.

I can't get the link to work

[Vrede too]

It works for me. You can search WaPo for or just google "Orlando shooter’s firm ran two background checks on him, it said, and found nothing".

[billy.pilgrim]

It works for me. You can search WaPo for or just google "Orlando shooter’s firm ran two background checks on him, it said, and found nothing".

Works for me now. I should have waited before whining.

[Vrede too]

... I should have waited before whining.

That's a good motto for life.

[JTA]

... I should have waited before whining.

That's a good motto for life.

Always wait to post until after you've had your morning coffee. That's my rule.

[Seth Milner]

... The only way to have prevented this massacre was an outright ban....

An outright ban on assault-style weapons and possibly restrictions on clip size and numbers of clips one can own (not sure what he had), both of which are constitutional, would have likely reduced the body count. There's a reason that they are the weapons of choice for mass murderers.

Other ideas:

Psych testing.
Family, coworker and friend interviews. Sounds like many people knew he was seriously off beforehand.
Making background checks more comprehensive than just looking at felony convictions and mental health commitment. Maybe his existing FBI file contained enough damning but not criminal info. to reasonably justify denying the purchase.
Requiring a demonstration of need.
Closing the "gun show loophole". If he would have failed a background check, he still could have gotten the same gun.

These things won't stop all shooters, especially in our uber-armed short term, but they will make it more difficult for them. This is why states and comparable nations with stronger controls have less gun violence.

I agree that a ban on assault-style weapons should be implemented. They don't work that well on zombies anyway, which would really be the only reason an individual would need one, because we have a large capable military in the event this country is invaded.

You've listed ideas for gun ownership, but I'm with JTA; why I should prove need for a gun is no body's business. I'm not the sniveling coward you portrayed me as in earlier posts for wanting to carry a weapon . If I'm ever in a venue where a real sniveling coward starts shooting randomly, you'd better believe if I get an opportunity, I'm going to sling some lead back. If you happen to be there and you don't want me to make an attempt to save your life, stand up and frantically wave your arms to let me know who you are. I'm not a "Floridian bubba", homophobe, racist, misogynist, radical Muslim or radical Christian, but I carry just because an incident like this can happen anywhere.

Say we never ban assault-style guns, what's the harm in making people describe why they need one? If they can't even come up with something, anything, plausible, maybe they shouldn't have one.

That too, is flawed. Have you ever heard of Democrats and Republicans? Or maybe Liberals and Conservatives? What if an overly-zealous con was taking the applications? Or an ultra-whiney liberal? Maybe you've never heard of the word "bribe" . . . you know, $$$$$ .

Here's the bottom line: We live in a violent world. Until our number is up; until we're planted, resurrected, scattered, eaten, or whatever, violence will remain. Men will kill each other, whether it be over religious ideologies, money, an iPhone, a lover, or whatever in hell someone wants that someone else has. All we can do is be cautious where we go, what we say, what ideas or lifestyles we want to force others to accept, don't expect others to readily submit to our personal ideologies . . . the list is long. While there are many who legally carry, there are many, many, more who are not legal. The ONLY way guns are going to be controlled is prohibit their manufacture, and we know that ain't gonna happen.

[JTA]

This also begs the question what is an assault weapon? Friend lived in a rural area in NM and would use his AR to pick off coyotes. Are they guns that look scary?



These fire the same rounds as an AR.

[Seth Milner]

This also begs the question what is an assault weapon?

From Wikipedia: The original three types of "assault rifles"

The StG 44, an early German assault rifle, was adopted by the Wehrmacht in 1944. It fires the 7.92×33mm Kurz round



Currently the most used assault rifle in the world along with its variant, the AKM, the AK-47 was first adopted in 1949 by the Soviet Army. It fires the 7.62×39mm M43 round.


The M16 was first introduced into service in 1964 with the United States Armed Forces. It fires the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge.

Definition:

The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word "Sturmgewehr" (which translates to "assault rifle"), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44. (above) Other sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order. The StG 44 is generally considered the first selective fire military rifle to popularize the assault rifle concept. Today, the term assault rifle is used to define firearms sharing the same basic characteristics as the StG 44.

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be an individual weapon
It must be capable of selective fire
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine
And it should have an effective range of at least 330 yards

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:
Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.
Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
Semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges

[O Really]

A lot of people knowledgeable in firearms say the same thing - the AR-15 may look scary, but it's no more dangerous than other firearms. Maybe, but then the question arises, so why does it look the way it does. What did the designer of the M-16 have in mind to make, for example, a longer hand grip, a short butt, etc." Why was that design issued to the military instead of the old M-1? One could probably guess that it was designed for military warriors to kill more people faster and easier than older rifles. So sure, the AR-15 doesn't come off the shelf with automatic fire, but otherwise has all the attributes of a well-designed killing machine. So yeah, maybe it's just looks, but those looks are due to its function. I've got a 12-gauge cruiser that I could do major damage with, and it definitely looks scary. But it doesn't reload as quickly at the AR-15. Good home defense weapon, but not designed for mass killing. Find out why the AR-15 looks like it does and then you'll know why it shouldn't be easily available on the civilian market.

[JTA]

A lot of people knowledgeable in firearms say the same thing - the AR-15 may look scary, but it's no more dangerous than other firearms. Maybe, but then the question arises, so why does it look the way it does. What did the designer of the M-16 have in mind to make, for example, a longer hand grip, a short butt, etc." Why was that design issued to the military instead of the old M-1? One could probably guess that it was designed for military warriors to kill more people faster and easier than older rifles. So sure, the AR-15 doesn't come off the shelf with automatic fire, but otherwise has all the attributes of a well-designed killing machine. So yeah, maybe it's just looks, but those looks are due to its function. I've got a 12-gauge cruiser that I could do major damage with, and it definitely looks scary. But it doesn't reload as quickly at the AR-15. Good home defense weapon, but not designed for mass killing. Find out why the AR-15 looks like it does and then you'll know why it shouldn't be easily available on the civilian market.

I'll concede this is a really good point.

[Vrede too]

A lot of people knowledgeable in firearms say the same thing - the AR-15 may look scary, but it's no more dangerous than other firearms. Maybe, but then the question arises ...

Why is it so often the choice of mass murderers?

[rstrong]

I've got a 12-gauge cruiser that I could do major damage with, and it definitely looks scary. But it doesn't reload as quickly at the AR-15. Good home defense weapon, but not designed for mass killing.

Just so. A skilled gunman might reload other weapons quickly, but the AR-15 brings mass killing to unskilled idiots.

Saying that "the AR-15 may look scary, but it's no more dangerous than other firearms." doesn't hold water. A typical police .45 handgun will fire its round at 825 ft/s (251 m/s). The AR-15 fires its much heavier round at 3,200 ft/s (975 m/s). At that speed - thanks to hydrostatic shock, the pressure wave through the liquid in your body - you'll get injuries distant from where the bullet hit you.

(Wikipedia: Hydrostatic shock: Autopsy Findings in Iraq)

That's including brain injuries. You could be shot in the thigh and suffer serious brain damage.

[Vrede too]

So, find just about any discussion of Orlando and these questions arise:

What is wrong with Islam that some become so radicalized?
What can be done to keep them from becoming so radicalized or stop them from engaging in terror attacks if they are radicalized?

These are legit questions as long as the discussion is accurate and honest. Often, though, the answer from the bigots is "Deport Muslims" or "Prevent Muslims from entering the country".

In contrast, when the shooter is a con or Christian most of the discussion is about his (it's almost always a male) mental health and personal characteristics. Why don't we see:

What is wrong with Christianity that some become so radicalized?
What can be done to keep them from becoming so radicalized or stop them from engaging in terror attacks if they are radicalized?
"Deport Christians" or "Prevent Christians from entering the country".

What is wrong with rightwingers that some become so radicalized?
What can be done to keep them from becoming so radicalized or stop them from engaging in terror attacks if they are radicalized?
"Deport rightwingers" or "Prevent rightwingers from entering the country".

Similarly:

What is wrong with homophobes that some become so radicalized?
What can be done to keep them from becoming so radicalized or stop them from engaging in terror attacks if they are radicalized?
"Deport homophobes" or "Prevent homophobes from entering the country".

Or, for shooters of any religion why don't we see:

What is wrong with gunhuggers that some become so radicalized?
What can be done to keep them from becoming so radicalized or stop them from engaging in terror attacks if they are radicalized?
"Deport gunhuggers " or "Prevent gunhuggers from entering the country".

[JTA]

Yeah good points.

Me personally, I think Islam is garbage. At this point in time, if it were up to chance on where I could be born, a majority Christian country or majority Muslim, I'd take my chances with Christianity, even though I could end up in some shit hole like Uganda, but at least my chances of ending up in Europe or North America are reasonable.

You know what else I think is garbage though? Christianity. Any organized religion for that matter.

Do I think people should be able to choose their vices? Yeah, hence I don't have a problem with people being Muslims or Christians. Go worship some con job hatched by a child rapist. Go worship some hippy that liked to hang out with prostitutes and thieves, who was probably also a con job. Just don't push it down other peoples throats.

My favorite part of the new testament: render into caesar. Yeah, hear that Christians? Separation of church and state. Hey Muslims, what about that filth you guys keep peddling? Anything similar?

I guess at least in most post Christian western countries influenced by enlightenment values I won't be thrown in jail for being an athiest, despite what some of the less educated hillbilly would like.

Maybe it's just that western values are better, I don't know.