Gun Control

Quote :

More Guns = More Killing

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: January 5, 2013

In the wake of the tragic shooting deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month, the National Rifle Association proposed that the best way to protect schoolchildren was to place a guard — a “good guy with a gun” — in every school, part of a so-called National School Shield Emergency Response Program.

Indeed, the N.R.A.’s solution to the expansion of gun violence in America has been generally to advocate for the more widespread deployment and carrying of guns.

http://now.msn.com/obama-daughters-attend-school-with-11-armed-guards

Sasha and Malia Obama have 11 armed guards at their school

12/24/2012

Sidwell Friends, a Washington, D.C. area private school, has 11 armed security guards and is apparently hiring an additional police officer. The reason that the not-at-all biased staff at Breitbart is bringing this to everyone's attention is because Sasha and Malia Obama attend Sidwell Friends, as did other First Kids like Chelsea Clinton, Tricia Nixon, and Archibald Roosevelt (where, presumably, he wasn't tormented for being named Archibald). "Shame on President Obama … for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own," Awr Hawkins wrote.





Hmmmm.
Whaddaya think, edge?
Armed guard in a school - good idea, or bad idea?
Are Sasha and Malia (along with the children of many other 'important' people) safer, or less safe, due to the presence of the guards?

I'm not sure. There were two armed guard at Columbine and we all know how that turnerd out.
Maybe a platoon of Marines at each school? I'm sure the NRA, the GOP, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner wouldn't mind paying for it. Or maybe the $12 billion-a-year gun industry could foot the bill.
Sidwell Friends is private school where it costs $32,000 to attend. About 1100 students attend the school. Something tells me they can afford 11 armed guards.

happy jack wrote:

If I had some guarantee that if I relinquished my guns and stopped going to the range that no more schoolchildren would ever die in a mass shooting, I would give up my guns and never go the range again. But we both know that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and we both know that I (along with the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners) am not the problem.

A) No one is talking about forcing you to relinquish all of your guns. If you'd pull you're head out of your ass for five minutes, stop being to childishly obstinate, you'd realize that we've been trying to discuss where to draw that line the entire time.
B) We have as good a guarantee as we can possibly get. It's been pointed out time and time again in my links, and demonstrated in study after study. Less access to guns = Less gun violence. Denialism blog pointed out in the article you didn't read that this isn't an all-or-nothing game :

Quote :

Creating obstacles to ownership probably decreases the frequency of such incidents, as the differences in gun violence between these countries demonstrate. We have had 4 mass shootings during Obama’s presidency, not to mention, our yearly toll of some 30,000 people a year killed by guns. Our per-capita death rate is about 4 times higher than our next door neighbor, Canada, or any of these countries mentioned with death rates in the tens or hundreds, rather than the tens of thousands.

When you make it harder to get guns, it makes it harder for people who are deranged, angry or otherwise dangerous to own them, and you’re going to decrease your rates of gun violence. Just because it isn’t perfect, and doesn’t prevent a highly-motivated individual from doing all the work, doesn’t mean that you can’t deter dozens of other would-be shooters from mass violence.

. . .

We’re not talking about perfection here. We’re talking about progress. Making it harder, making the violence rarer, will decrease the amount of gun violence, as almost every country besides the US demonstrates every year with their gun violence deaths at a tiny fraction of our own.

happy jack wrote:

we both know that I (along with the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners) am not the problem.

And if we were specifically talking about you and your guns, that would actually matter. But we're not. We're talking about law-abiding gun owners like John Holmes and the many, many others that kill wives, mothers, children, teenagers, fathers, brothers, etc., each and every year in numbers staggeringly higher than every other industrialized nation on the planet.

But fuck 'em, right? This is America! We're number one! No ones gonna ruin your afternoon playin' soldier!

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Sidwell Friends is private school where it costs $32,000 to attend. About 1100 students attend the school. Something tells me they can afford 11 armed guards.

So armed guards in a school is a good thing?

No, don't think so. Have not seen any evidence so far that it's a "good thing."
Wasn't a "good thing" at Columbine now was it?

Quote :

Lanza attacked Sandy Hook Elementary with high-powered, high-capacity weapons, including an assault rifle. He was protected with body armor. He was prepared to take on another shooter and might even have relished the opportunity. Will a retired policeman who, after two or three years on the job during which absolutely nothing has happened, be able to mount a defense against a well-armed and armored shooter?

The NRA imagines that no deranged killer would dare to enter a school protected by a retired police officer with a .38 revolver. Shooters may be insane, but they're not stupid. Often they have the courage that insanity, desperation, and hopelessness provide. Often they attack with a strategy and they're prepared to fight.

Two predictions: The lightly armed, surprised good guy with a gun will be no match for a determined bad guy with an assault weapon, and often he will be the killer's first casualty. And rather than a deterrent, the armed school guard will serve, for some shooters, as an attractive first target, the one that ratchets the killing frenzy up a notch or two.

http://www.caller.com/news/2013/jan/03/armed-guards-in-our-schools-may-do-more-harm/

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Sidwell Friends is private school where it costs $32,000 to attend. About 1100 students attend the school. Something tells me they can afford 11 armed guards.

So armed guards in a school is a good thing?

No, don't think so.

So why would Barack Obama, a.k.a. the Smartest Man in the World, (along with the elite of Washington, presumably the next smartest people in the world, in no particular descending order), send his own children into a facility where he knows that there are at least 11 weapons?

Probably because Barack Obama, a.k.a. the Smartest Man in the World, knows that his children would be an inviting target for terrorists or some gun nut that has ODS.

Quote :

Do you believe that the lives of Barack Obama's children hold more value than the children of others?

No, but I do believe that Barack Obama's children are at greater risk than the children of others.

Oh no, Wayne LaPierre and the pimps for the billion dollar gun industry at the NRA will not like this.

Quote :

Stanley McChrystal: Gun Control Requires 'Serious Action'

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal came out in favor of gun control restrictions in a Tuesday morning appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine," he said. "And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It's designed to do that. That's what our soldiers ought to carry."

Said McChrystal, "I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

McChrystal, though he resigned in disgrace in 2010 after a Rolling Stone article, is still revered by many as a top general, and his comments are significant for a former member of the military. If he does continue to advocate for gun control, he could be a significant voice in a movement whose opposition appeals to machismo.

"I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don't think that's enough," he said.

Asked what his message was to the National Rifle Association and the House Judiciary Committee, he said, "I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don't think we're a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a co-founder and backer of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, praised McChrystal later in the program. "Stanley McChrystal is a guy who has more crediblity than I ever will have in terms of guns and the damage that guns can do," he said. "He's devoted his life to public service. But Stanley McChrystal can be as good a spokesman as can the five of us."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html

happy jack wrote:

Events prove that, apparently, they are not.

No, they do not. The odds of getting a royal flush do not change upon getting one.

jack, are you aware that McChrystal voted for "Vice-President Bite Me"?

Here you go, fellow posters.
This will give you something to whine about before it even hits the market!!!!
Ban it now.
As Barney says, "Nip it. Nip it in the bud."


http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/gadgetbox/futuristic-rifle-turns-novice-sharpshooter-1B7916613?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Wilson Rothman, NBC News

Futuristic rifle turns novice into sharpshooter

It all goes back to "Top Gun." In the heads-up display on Maverick's Tomcat, you can see a computer compensate for human aim with precision laser guidance and careful calculations. How long before that technology made its way to to a conventional hunting rifle? It's here now, with a price tag of $17,000 to $21,000.
We came to Las Vegas the first week of January, the way we always do, for the Consumer Electronics Show. The vast trade show features over 3,300 exhibitors, and covers 1.9 million square feet. But there are no shooting ranges at CES. To check out TrackingPoint, we had to drive out to the hills outside of town.

As someone who not only isn't a marksman but pretty much avoids guns altogether, I approached the TrackingPoint rifle a bit gingerly. However, when the company's president, Jason Schauble, walked me through it, I realized that as long as I paid attention (and observed the basic safety rules of firearms), I would be able to hit that target without trouble. Not 15 minutes later, I did — at a distance of nearly seven football fields.
How does it work? A laser rangefinder identifies the target, and tells the gun where to aim to hit it, given conditions such as humidity, wind, and the typical ballistic drop you'd expect from a bullet shot from a gun at such a distance.
You pick your target by dropping a pin on it using the camcorder-like zoom lens. When you want to shoot that target, you line up crosshairs inside the scope with the pin you dropped. The weirdest thing is, when you squeeze the trigger, it doesn't fire. You have to squeeze the trigger and line up the crosshairs with your mark. When you do, the gun goes boom, and the target takes a bullet.
No matter where you are on the gun debate, the technology used is an impressive system. The rifle will be available soon from TrackingPoint. Watch the video above for the whole story.

So jack, did you notice that the TrackingPoint rifles in the video are bolt action and not semi-auto rifles?

Not exactly the optimum weapon for killing a classroom full of 6 year olds, now is it?

happy jack wrote:

Can you think of one teeny, tiny difference between Sidwell Friends School, a high-profile, target-rich environment, and most other schools?
One little thing that makes the children of that school considerably safer than the children of most other schools?

Choose the answer that best finishes this sentence:

The students at Sidwell Friends School are less likely to be massacred than are children at most other schools because the Sidwell Friends students are protected by:

A.) Crossing guards
B.) Point guards
C.) Armed guards
D.) Right Guard

Try and fix it however you wish, but your point was mathematically wrong. The probability of past events do not become 100% upon their occurrence.

I really do not understand why conservatives like happy are completely incapable of having an honest discussion about this.

Quote :

Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)

. . .

The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners among civilians per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all.

And also this:

Quote :

The per capita mortality from handguns in the USA is 4.6 times that of its closest contender, Israel; 23 times that of Canada, and 265 times that of Great Britain. Are Americans 23 times as homicidal by nature as Canadians, or 265 times as homicidal as Brits?

If "guns don’t kill people, people kill people" then the only answer is a resounding yes. If the easy access to quick and effective killing machines have nothing to do with it, I do not see any other explanation for the disparity. But I cannot figure out how the hell that is supposed to be an argument against gun control.

And if its all about the people, why so little concern how they end up in the hands of the criminals who use them? This makes sense:

Quote :

There is no good reason that every time a gun is used in a crime, that we shouldn't be able to track that weapon back to it’s original purchaser. It wouldn't even require some scary national gun registry that would have every gun nut crying 1984. It’s simple. Manufacturers sell a given firearm to a distributor or dealer. They know which weapons go to which dealer by a serial number which should be on multiple parts of each weapon, internally, (there also needs to be significant improvement in technology to prevent easy defacement of serial numbers, or other mechanisms of unique gun identification – this is possible with multiple existing technologies). One could even conceive of a system in which accessing an interior serial number results in permanent damage to the weapon rendering it useless if so disassembled. Whenever a gun is then used in a crime by someone who has no legal right to own or carry such a weapon (felons, minors, etc.), the police should send the serial number to the manufacturer, who identifies the dealer. The dealer will then have a record of the sale, and who the entry point into the criminal market is.

If a given dealer has a large proportion of weapons they sell entering the criminal market, they should undergo additional scrutiny, or possibly even lose their license. And this should be international. If Mexican drug cartels are found with weapons supplied by american distributors (which they are), those distributors should lose their ability to sell weapons. We have to stop acting as if we aren't also enabling crime in other countries by the careless dumping of military hardware into other countries as well.

Like I said previously, weapons don't end up in a criminal's hand by magic; they come from legal owners and dealers through theft or sale. If it's all about the person, gun owners should have absolutely no problem with rallying behind this, since their guns are not the problem.

Quote :

Ranting CEO threatens to 'start killing people' if President Obama uses executive powers to introduce tighter gun controls
By Daily Mail Reporter

January 11 2013 |
The CEO of a company that teaches people how to use guns has posted a ranting video online in which he claims he will 'start killing people' if President Obama uses his executive powers to introduce tighter gun controls.

James Yeager runs Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills. In a video posted on YouTube and Facebook, Yeager describes President Obama as a ‘dictator’ and claims that tighter gun control measures will result in ‘civil war.’

The video is Yeager’s angry response to Vice President Joe Biden's comment on Wednesday that President Obama might use executive action if Congress takes no action on gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260806/James-Yeager-threatens-start-killing-people-Obama-introduces-tighter-gun-controls.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

happy jack wrote:

I believe most of these procedures are already in place...

Are they? Was the dealer required to do so? Regardless, there are significant barriers in place preventing law enforcement from using such data to stop the flow of weapons in to the hands of criminals. He explains further in the comments:

Quote :

I don’t think that the majority of law-abiding owners would willingly sell into the black market, it’s likely a subset of dealers that are responsible for the black market. Interestingly, our congress has specifically forbidden the ATF from aggregating data on which dealers are responsible for the black market purchases, and while this data was initially public, they eliminated public access to prevent people from collecting data to determine where the source of the problem is. We essentially have members of congress protecting a criminal enterprise because it benefits this industry. And their names are Inhofe and the now retired Todd Tiahrt, who made it impossible to research and study where the problem dealers are. You can read about the Tiahrt amendments here, they’ve been revised to be a bit better in 2010, but still work needs to be done to allow law enforcement to truly be able to make criminal dealers responsible for illegal gun sales. These restrictions need to be completely eliminated so that law enforcement has no restrictions on its ability to tie guns in crimes to sales from “legitimate” dealers. This is how we fight shooters like the Webster shooter.

And another adds:

Quote :

The problem here is several fold. 1) While not every part is marked, they do already have serials. 2) The original “end point” sale does have a record, as does the manufacturer. *BUT*, 3) these are stored in multiple different ways, including old filing cabinets, the ATF has been denied, nearly every congressional session, the right to standardize this information in their own database, and companies, even manufacturers, never mind stores, go out of business. This means that, if you are lucky, the gun is registered, the company it was purchased from is still in business, and the data is accessible, because the point of sale is cooperating with police. The existence of the information becomes completely meaningless when a) the store no longer exists, b) the information was never put into a state DB, so the call has to be fielded up to the federal level, c) the gun was sold/traded without going through a store, and/or d) it wasn’t registered. And.. the same lobby has done everything it can to make sure that the sale of a gun, by a private citizen, to another, isn’t illegal, even if no registration takes place, as long as its done in some manner that bypasses a store. If you tried that with, say, a car… you would have a much more serious problem on your hands, for some stupid reason.

Like I said previously, weapons don't end up in a criminal's hand by magic; they come from legal owners and dealers through theft or sale. Stemming the flow should be a primary concern to everyone, responsible gun owners included.