planetf1.com

At least the White house turned down a death star

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20997144

very nice touch the shooting training app for age 4+

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/01/14/t ... or-ages-4/

so let me make a short conclusion of some 'pro-gun' guys:
1. give same guns (assault rifles) to teachers
2. buy bullet proof jackets and rucksacks for kids
3. train kids on iphone how to shoot, so if the teacher is useless kids can shoot the intruder themselves.

very nice.

Denorth wrote:very nice touch the shooting training app for age 4+

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/01/14/t ... or-ages-4/

so let me make a short conclusion of some 'pro-gun' guys:
1. give same guns (assault rifles) to teachers
2. buy bullet proof jackets and rucksacks for kids
3. train kids on iphone how to shoot, so if the teacher is useless kids can shoot the intruder themselves.

very nice.

This app is actually part of the NRA's narrative that videogames are to blame. By creating the app they are lending support to the idea that shooting in a computer game is some how similar to shooting in real life. Despite the fact that you are either using a game pad or a touch screen/accelerometer to aim in a computer game with no physical feedback or realism in the simulation.

If people cause an outcry over the game they can then turn it back and say "so you do admit computer games are like real life"

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Denorth wrote:very nice touch the shooting training app for age 4+

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/01/14/t ... or-ages-4/

so let me make a short conclusion of some 'pro-gun' guys:
1. give same guns (assault rifles) to teachers
2. buy bullet proof jackets and rucksacks for kids
3. train kids on iphone how to shoot, so if the teacher is useless kids can shoot the intruder themselves.

very nice.

This app is actually part of the NRA's narrative that videogames are to blame. By creating the app they are lending support to the idea that shooting in a computer game is some how similar to shooting in real life. Despite the fact that you are either using a game pad or a touch screen/accelerometer to aim in a computer game with no physical feedback or realism in the simulation.

If people cause an outcry over the game they can then turn it back and say "so you do admit computer games are like real life"

i think what you're forgetting Alien, is the physiological effort needed to shoot another living thing compared to a target or pretend person in video games.

minchy wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Denorth wrote:very nice touch the shooting training app for age 4+

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/01/14/t ... or-ages-4/

so let me make a short conclusion of some 'pro-gun' guys:
1. give same guns (assault rifles) to teachers
2. buy bullet proof jackets and rucksacks for kids
3. train kids on iphone how to shoot, so if the teacher is useless kids can shoot the intruder themselves.

very nice.

This app is actually part of the NRA's narrative that videogames are to blame. By creating the app they are lending support to the idea that shooting in a computer game is some how similar to shooting in real life. Despite the fact that you are either using a game pad or a touch screen/accelerometer to aim in a computer game with no physical feedback or realism in the simulation.

If people cause an outcry over the game they can then turn it back and say "so you do admit computer games are like real life"

i think what you're forgetting Alien, is the physiological effort needed to shoot another living thing compared to a target or pretend person in video games.

Oh, of course, I agree completely. However, their argument is that videogames desensitize people to the idea of killing (even though killing pretend people consequence-free in cartoonish representations of a totally fake reality is totally different to the real world) - so I was just presenting a case that is indisputable: firing weapons in a video game is nothing like firing a weapon in the real world. I fired hand guns when I was in America (video here, I'm in the striped top) and not only was it a completely different physical experience, but a completely different one emotionally. Even after I had fired the last bullet in the gun I was still very apprehensive about it. I remember the beretta jammed a couple of times and I had to put it down with bullets still in it for my friend to sort out and it terrified me.

I've played shooting games since I was a kid and I have never been scared of guns in the video game world. My emotions towards getting harmed or killed in a shooting game aren't fear, they're frustration. If video games had desensitised me to the idea of violence and guns then I would have had a totally different reaction to them when I used them for the first (And only) time in the real world.

There are similar examples to this in popular culture. Penn and Teller took at 10 year old kid who played a lot of Call of Duty to an outdoor shooting range and got him to fire an assault rifle. After shooting it once they asked him if he wanted another go and he said he didn't and then broke down in tears in his mother's arms.

A video game blogger/reviewer called Jim Sterling did a video on his show "The Jimquisition" on the Escapist where he showed real footage where a US politican committed suicide at a press conference by shooting himself in the head. He then pointed out that in order to get the Escapist to allow him to show the footage took a lot of persuasion on his part, when he had never needed to persuade them to show any video game violence, bad language etc etc... and when he had shown the footage before to gamers it had provoked a massive outcry - that being his point. Gamers hated real violence, they found it uncomfortable. If truly desensitised as claimed by people like the NRA, Fox News and the Daily Mail then that would not be their reaction.

Of course, both these examples are slightly sensationalised in that they are for entertainment shows. However, the FBI, whose job it is to investigate and respond to mass shootings have stated they have found no link between playing videogames and violence. Yes, these people who commit this acts often have played videogames - but a LOT of people now play computer games, and computer game addiction is actually a symptom of social isolation rather than a cause and it is people in social isolation, who are mentally ill and feel the world is not noticing them who go out and do things like this.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

minchy wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Denorth wrote:very nice touch the shooting training app for age 4+

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/01/14/t ... or-ages-4/

so let me make a short conclusion of some 'pro-gun' guys:
1. give same guns (assault rifles) to teachers
2. buy bullet proof jackets and rucksacks for kids
3. train kids on iphone how to shoot, so if the teacher is useless kids can shoot the intruder themselves.

very nice.

This app is actually part of the NRA's narrative that videogames are to blame. By creating the app they are lending support to the idea that shooting in a computer game is some how similar to shooting in real life. Despite the fact that you are either using a game pad or a touch screen/accelerometer to aim in a computer game with no physical feedback or realism in the simulation.

If people cause an outcry over the game they can then turn it back and say "so you do admit computer games are like real life"

i think what you're forgetting Alien, is the physiological effort needed to shoot another living thing compared to a target or pretend person in video games.

Oh, of course, I agree completely. However, their argument is that videogames desensitize people to the idea of killing (even though killing pretend people consequence-free in cartoonish representations of a totally fake reality is totally different to the real world) - so I was just presenting a case that is indisputable: firing weapons in a video game is nothing like firing a weapon in the real world. I fired hand guns when I was in America (video here, I'm in the striped top) and not only was it a completely different physical experience, but a completely different one emotionally. Even after I had fired the last bullet in the gun I was still very apprehensive about it. I remember the beretta jammed a couple of times and I had to put it down with bullets still in it for my friend to sort out and it terrified me.

I've played shooting games since I was a kid and I have never been scared of guns in the video game world. My emotions towards getting harmed or killed in a shooting game aren't fear, they're frustration. If video games had desensitised me to the idea of violence and guns then I would have had a totally different reaction to them when I used them for the first (And only) time in the real world.

There are similar examples to this in popular culture. Penn and Teller took at 10 year old kid who played a lot of Call of Duty to an outdoor shooting range and got him to fire an assault rifle. After shooting it once they asked him if he wanted another go and he said he didn't and then broke down in tears in his mother's arms.

A video game blogger/reviewer called Jim Sterling did a video on his show "The Jimquisition" on the Escapist where he showed real footage where a US politican committed suicide at a press conference by shooting himself in the head. He then pointed out that in order to get the Escapist to allow him to show the footage took a lot of persuasion on his part, when he had never needed to persuade them to show any video game violence, bad language etc etc... and when he had shown the footage before to gamers it had provoked a massive outcry - that being his point. Gamers hated real violence, they found it uncomfortable. If truly desensitised as claimed by people like the NRA, Fox News and the Daily Mail then that would not be their reaction.

Of course, both these examples are slightly sensationalised in that they are for entertainment shows. However, the FBI, whose job it is to investigate and respond to mass shootings have stated they have found no link between playing videogames and violence. Yes, these people who commit this acts often have played videogames - but a LOT of people now play computer games, and computer game addiction is actually a symptom of social isolation rather than a cause and it is people in social isolation, who are mentally ill and feel the world is not noticing them who go out and do things like this.

Great episode of "Bullshit".

The whole series really, but this episode was great

Anyone know anything about this radio interview thingy that says the whole sandy hook thing was faked?

Excerpt from Muad'Dib's January 7th, 2013 Critical Mass Radio interview:

...They used a poster child for this to get everybody's sympathy and to get everybody's emotions up so that they could hopefully bring in a gun ban. They used a little poster child, a little blonde-haired blue-eyed six year old girl. She was the face, the poster child. She was supposedly killed along with the other 19 six year olds and seven year olds at Sandy Hook. Three days later Obama was there doing a photo op and she's sitting on his knee. She's supposed to be dead, used as a poster child, this little girl died - she's sitting on Obama's knee three days later. The same little girl.

And then they have her parents interviewed. It shows that they're all actors. It never really happened, because the guy that was supposedly her dad, is shown in the video where he's to the side and he's laughing and joking with other people and then he's called up in front of the camera. He's off to the left. Then he's called to the center, to the focus of the camera to be interviewed and to give his speech about Sandy Hook and about his daughter. And he goes from on the side from laughing and joking with everybody, he comes up to the center and ... he takes the joking, smiling face off and you can see him physically trying to force his face to look sad and then he starts talking about how his daughter's been killed. They're actors. There were no bodies.

It was a made for TV drama to try to ram through the gun control laws, because they want to kill the American people and they can't kill armed people. That's why Hitler disarmed the Germans, it's why Stalin disarmed the Russians, it's why chairman Mao disarmed the Chinese and they killed between them something like 120 million of their own people. And that's what they want to do in America and they can't do it because the people have the Second Amendment and they have guns. So they have to do all of this, and they'll keep doing it. There will be more incidents like this, which are made for television, until they manage to persuade the American people to give up their guns. And then they'll start killing the Americans. Because the Americans are the only people stopping them from doing what they want to do already. They know they can't put their next phase, which is reducing the world's population, they can't put that phase into operation whilst the Americans have got millions of guns.

Is it a bona Fide radio thing or just internet bull?

Johnston wrote:Anyone know anything about this radio interview thingy that says the whole sandy hook thing was faked?

Excerpt from Muad'Dib's January 7th, 2013 Critical Mass Radio interview:

...They used a poster child for this to get everybody's sympathy and to get everybody's emotions up so that they could hopefully bring in a gun ban. They used a little poster child, a little blonde-haired blue-eyed six year old girl. She was the face, the poster child. She was supposedly killed along with the other 19 six year olds and seven year olds at Sandy Hook. Three days later Obama was there doing a photo op and she's sitting on his knee. She's supposed to be dead, used as a poster child, this little girl died - she's sitting on Obama's knee three days later. The same little girl.

And then they have her parents interviewed. It shows that they're all actors. It never really happened, because the guy that was supposedly her dad, is shown in the video where he's to the side and he's laughing and joking with other people and then he's called up in front of the camera. He's off to the left. Then he's called to the center, to the focus of the camera to be interviewed and to give his speech about Sandy Hook and about his daughter. And he goes from on the side from laughing and joking with everybody, he comes up to the center and ... he takes the joking, smiling face off and you can see him physically trying to force his face to look sad and then he starts talking about how his daughter's been killed. They're actors. There were no bodies.

It was a made for TV drama to try to ram through the gun control laws, because they want to kill the American people and they can't kill armed people. That's why Hitler disarmed the Germans, it's why Stalin disarmed the Russians, it's why chairman Mao disarmed the Chinese and they killed between them something like 120 million of their own people. And that's what they want to do in America and they can't do it because the people have the Second Amendment and they have guns. So they have to do all of this, and they'll keep doing it. There will be more incidents like this, which are made for television, until they manage to persuade the American people to give up their guns. And then they'll start killing the Americans. Because the Americans are the only people stopping them from doing what they want to do already. They know they can't put their next phase, which is reducing the world's population, they can't put that phase into operation whilst the Americans have got millions of guns.

Is it a bona Fide radio thing or just internet bull?

Yeah! While Americans still have guns the Government with its B2 Bombers, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-35s, M1A2 Abrahms tanks, Apache Helicopters and Aircraft carriers stand no chance at killing the American people!

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Johnston wrote:Anyone know anything about this radio interview thingy that says the whole sandy hook thing was faked?

Excerpt from Muad'Dib's January 7th, 2013 Critical Mass Radio interview:

...They used a poster child for this to get everybody's sympathy and to get everybody's emotions up so that they could hopefully bring in a gun ban. They used a little poster child, a little blonde-haired blue-eyed six year old girl. She was the face, the poster child. She was supposedly killed along with the other 19 six year olds and seven year olds at Sandy Hook. Three days later Obama was there doing a photo op and she's sitting on his knee. She's supposed to be dead, used as a poster child, this little girl died - she's sitting on Obama's knee three days later. The same little girl.

And then they have her parents interviewed. It shows that they're all actors. It never really happened, because the guy that was supposedly her dad, is shown in the video where he's to the side and he's laughing and joking with other people and then he's called up in front of the camera. He's off to the left. Then he's called to the center, to the focus of the camera to be interviewed and to give his speech about Sandy Hook and about his daughter. And he goes from on the side from laughing and joking with everybody, he comes up to the center and ... he takes the joking, smiling face off and you can see him physically trying to force his face to look sad and then he starts talking about how his daughter's been killed. They're actors. There were no bodies.

It was a made for TV drama to try to ram through the gun control laws, because they want to kill the American people and they can't kill armed people. That's why Hitler disarmed the Germans, it's why Stalin disarmed the Russians, it's why chairman Mao disarmed the Chinese and they killed between them something like 120 million of their own people. And that's what they want to do in America and they can't do it because the people have the Second Amendment and they have guns. So they have to do all of this, and they'll keep doing it. There will be more incidents like this, which are made for television, until they manage to persuade the American people to give up their guns. And then they'll start killing the Americans. Because the Americans are the only people stopping them from doing what they want to do already. They know they can't put their next phase, which is reducing the world's population, they can't put that phase into operation whilst the Americans have got millions of guns.

Is it a bona Fide radio thing or just internet bull?

Yeah! While Americans still have guns the Government with its B2 Bombers, F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-35s, M1A2 Abrahms tanks, Apache Helicopters and Aircraft carriers stand no chance at killing the American people!

So if I'm reading that readio except correctly... the speaker/writer is suggesting that America wants to start killing off Americans by convincing Americans to give up their guns by killing Americans in American schools and blaming Americans with guns? As ATH put, are the American people that good that they need to be disarmed by the American government tries to kill them?

From what I've read, a major reason for some Americans not wanting to give up guns is because they are scared that the government will become tyrannical. I know we have a few American posters on here so my question to them is this: why does fear SEEM (note that I'm not saying it does) to form such a part of your culture? I read/watch a fair bit of American media and even the "sensible" stuff like CNN seems to love fear mongering whether it be about terrorism, obesity or some product causing cancer.

A side note from a non-American:

I've been playing quite a bit of Red Dead Redemption lately. It's set in the Wild West and is a fictional story with (hopefully) more violence than the Wild West had, and it was a violent place. The player can go in anywhere, kill nearly anyone at any given time, and probably get shot because of it, but that's what he can do. Since the issue is widespread and well known, nearly every NPC in the game carries a gun to defend themselves, because the fictional provinces are full of outlaws who only have one goal, whatever it may be, and they'll do anything to achieve it - and they're all around, can strike at any given time, and most importantly, are a serious perpetual threat.
Therefore, it's only plain logic to carry a gun so you can kill an outlaw who has chosen you as his "salary payer" that day...

The problem here is that from what I've seen of this debate, many people seem to think that's exactly how the world works in 2013.
I do not, in any way, mean that video games caused that, because I fully believe that they don't do that.

jammin78 wrote: So if I'm reading that readio except correctly... the speaker/writer is suggesting that America wants to start killing off Americans by convincing Americans to give up their guns by killing Americans in American schools and blaming Americans with guns? As ATH put, are the American people that good that they need to be disarmed by the American government tries to kill them?

I think so, thats why I am wondering if it's real, fake or a parody.

The NRA really do make a habit of looking like as bunch of numpties.

In the advert the NRA claims President Barack Obama is an "elitist
hypocrite" because his children have personal protection while he
has been critical of an NRA plan to put armed guards in America's
schools.

Are they really comparing the two situations and expect use to take it seriously?

I agree, AW....

The NRA is looking like fools over this. Sadly, I just read that their ranks have swelled by another 250,000 new members recently, so that does nothing but encourage them.

There is obviously no comparing the risk that the President's children face to the risks that normal school children face. One is a target from the day their father is elected, the others not so much. It is extremes like that comparison that make those who distrust the NRA even more determined to see their power brought in line.

In a real case of hypocrisy, the NRA just came out with a video app for children showing them how to shoot targets, including caskets??? And one of the guns the kids can choose from just happens to be one used by the Newtown shooter... and for a fee you can upgrade your guns!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21025626

That is not only insensitive, but an in-your-face approach by the NRA... bound to make people feel better about them. There are a great many very good people who are NRA members, but the organization itself is getting scary.

I sure wish I had all the answers, but I fear the NRA will "buy" enough congressmen/women to stunt most of what Obama is trying to do.

Totally agree about the NRA advert about Obama's children. I find it more and more incredible how the NRA can be taken seriously each time I hear or see something from them.

Johnston wrote:

jammin78 wrote: So if I'm reading that readio except correctly... the speaker/writer is suggesting that America wants to start killing off Americans by convincing Americans to give up their guns by killing Americans in American schools and blaming Americans with guns? As ATH put, are the American people that good that they need to be disarmed by the American government tries to kill them?

I think so, thats why I am wondering if it's real, fake or a parody.

You'd hope if was parody, otherwise that person really has paranoia problems.

jammin78 wrote:

Johnston wrote:

jammin78 wrote: So if I'm reading that readio except correctly... the speaker/writer is suggesting that America wants to start killing off Americans by convincing Americans to give up their guns by killing Americans in American schools and blaming Americans with guns? As ATH put, are the American people that good that they need to be disarmed by the American government tries to kill them?

I think so, thats why I am wondering if it's real, fake or a parody.

You'd hope if was parody, otherwise that person really has paranoia problems.

Yeah but it's Americans. You can never really be sure if serious or not

Johnston wrote:

jammin78 wrote:

Johnston wrote:

jammin78 wrote: So if I'm reading that readio except correctly... the speaker/writer is suggesting that America wants to start killing off Americans by convincing Americans to give up their guns by killing Americans in American schools and blaming Americans with guns? As ATH put, are the American people that good that they need to be disarmed by the American government tries to kill them?

I think so, thats why I am wondering if it's real, fake or a parody.

You'd hope if was parody, otherwise that person really has paranoia problems.

Yeah but it's Americans. You can never really be sure if serious or not

That's generalising.

But yes, can never be sure. If I had a Serious Cat meme to put up, it would go up right now.

and this is what I found difficult to understand.

Here is a proposal by Obama to control guns (main points):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21049942

The president urged Congress:

1. to reintroduce an expired ban on new purchases of "military-style" assault weapons, such as those used in several recent mass shootings
2. limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and pass a ban on possession and sale of armour-piercing bullets
3. introduce background checks on all gun sales; currently private purchases and some transactions at gun shows are exempt
4. introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals
5. finally approve the appointment of the head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

point 1 - can be argued by many if they want. I struggle to see why exactly civilians in a country that is in peace have a need to own military-style guns
point 2 - how limitation of 10-round per magazine equals 'ban on guns' puzzles me. Armour piercing bullets for civilians? Again, what is the purpose of having them by a law-abiding citizen in the peaceful country?
point 3 - isn't it the thing that would serve the same idea that 'pro' lobby pushes? 'no gun kill people, but guns in the hand of bad people'. It would maintain the right to have the gun, but limit bad guy in opportunity to buy the gun as easily as they can.
point 4 - the same. Good thing that goes together with the 'pro' lobby ideas.
point 5 - difficult to say.

After reading those ideas I just growing stronger that it is not 'little' gun owners that create main outcry about gun control. It is manufacturers and traders.

Johnston wrote:Yeah but it's Americans. You can never really be sure if serious or not

Whether or not that particular story is true or a parody there are Americans out there who believe that "once they take the guns they'll come for you" - look at the pro gun radio talk show host who went on Piers Morgan's show and afterwards posted a YouTube video from his hotel room claiming that after he left the studio undercover cops were tailing him and were trying to kill him and make it look like it was by criminals.

Denorth wrote:and this is what I found difficult to understand.

Here is a proposal by Obama to control guns (main points):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21049942

The president urged Congress:

1. to reintroduce an expired ban on new purchases of "military-style" assault weapons, such as those used in several recent mass shootings
2. limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and pass a ban on possession and sale of armour-piercing bullets
3. introduce background checks on all gun sales; currently private purchases and some transactions at gun shows are exempt
4. introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals
5. finally approve the appointment of the head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

point 1 - can be argued by many if they want. I struggle to see why exactly civilians in a country that is in peace have a need to own military-style guns
point 2 - how limitation of 10-round per magazine equals 'ban on guns' puzzles me. Armour piercing bullets for civilians? Again, what is the purpose of having them by a law-abiding citizen in the peaceful country?
point 3 - isn't it the thing that would serve the same idea that 'pro' lobby pushes? 'no gun kill people, but guns in the hand of bad people'. It would maintain the right to have the gun, but limit bad guy in opportunity to buy the gun as easily as they can.
point 4 - the same. Good thing that goes together with the 'pro' lobby ideas.
point 5 - difficult to say.

After reading those ideas I just growing stronger that it is not 'little' gun owners that create main outcry about gun control. It is manufacturers and traders.

I'm in no doubt that the manufacturers and traders have a large influence on the gun laws in the US and on congress. They have just as much money and just as powerful lobbying capability as the pharmaceutical companies.

IMO Obama has taken the right tactic. Much as it would be preferable to take a really hard approach it would never be agreed to so it needs to be done in small steps. However it does have to be an ongoing process - once these laws are in place and adjusted to there needs to be more proposed to push things a bit further and so on and so forth.

However I think they could have gone further than they have. On point 1 there are more styles of weapons that could be banned without interfering with people's apparent right to arms on the premise of protecting themselves. Point 2 is a good one in that it will remove that sort of thing from the public domain and give authorities more scope to punish criminals who are likely to be the ones who own armour piercing bullets (although I agree with what you're saying about the fact that it's flabbergasting to think they were ever legal in the first place).

The laws surrounding background checks IMO need to be taken even further to incorporate more elements as part of background checks and harsher penalties for those selling the weapons without properly completing the background checks and adhering to them.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21313208

While the circumstances are still unclear, he was great soldier. I've read his book and he was far from being just pure sniper. My point that the sad event shows that guns doesn't make you safe. I was shocked that he got killed, with his skills and experience. Note that there was second person with gun who also couldn't defend himself.

people of the USA.. what is going to have to happen before you understand the changes that need to be made? Seriously - is it all fine until every parent in the country has had the a call that their child has been murdered? Is that the tipping point?

DOLOMITE wrote:people of the USA.. what is going to have to happen before you understand the changes that need to be made? Seriously - is it all fine until every parent in the country has had the a call that their child has been murdered? Is that the tipping point?

But they have a right to bear arms, yada yada yada!

It's a tragic situation.

Trump calls for help with mental health but conveniently forgets to mention that he repealed Obama's policy of making it much harder for people with certain mental health issues to purchase guns.

I say all the below as an American who has owned guns of different sorts for 30 years and has served in the military. I've never owned the types of weapons that are used in these mass killings and think that they should not fall under the 2nd amendment protection for reasons stated below. Hunting and sport shooting are cultural things here as they are in many other places but don't require these types of weapons and many states don't allow them to be used for hunting anyway. Canada is a prime example of how those uses of firearms can be allowed without allowing weapons that would've been game changers in WWII to be held in private hands.

You would think that the tipping would've happened long ago however there's way too many factors at play to say "Here's the answer." While I know that sounds like a cop out there really is a huge stream of inter-connected threads where cutting one won't unravel the whole thing.

Although the base of the issue is not just guns they are the common denominator. The problem with just legislating against them is 1) The 2nd amendment (and it's subsequent misrepresentation) and 2) The NRA and gun lobbying in general.

In the case of the first is that people like to disregard the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment or interpret it to mean that it's meant to allow the populace to defend themselves against an overreaching government. When in fact it was because the founders were against the idea of having, and financing, a standing army because A) They were broke and B) General distrust of the way standing armies were used by the colonial powers previously.

In the second case the NRA funnels large sums of money into the campaigns of politicians who they believe will vote against any sort of legislation that will restrict gun ownership.

The campaign donations leads into the problem with what has gone on in the last 20 or so years since the Citizens Untied case in the Supreme Court that opened the flood gates for large donors to throw a lot of money into PAC's (Political Action Committees) which, as long as they're not directed by or directly linked to a specific campaign, has no limits on how much they spend nor need to disclose who is donating to them. (before anybody jumps down my throat this is a large simplification)

Now this lobbying doesn't just stop with laws regarding the guns themselves since they also try to reach into other areas that affect who might be able to get a gun and under what circumstance that someone's guns can be taken away. As an example, they don't want doctors/psychologists/psychiatrists from even being able to ask someone in their care if they own a gun for fear that saying something that might be interpreted as them being a risk to themselves or others might be grounds to "abridge their 2nd amendment rights." Hell, after the Pulse nightclub shooting they were against adding people who are on no-fly lists from being excluded by the background check system because sometimes people get added to those lists by accident.

Which leads into the whipping boy that they like to use recently which is mental illness. Granted, most people who want to take out a large bunch of people, by definition, have a mental illness but, by and large, the elected officials who support these extremes of gun ownership are conservatives who also want to gut health care and social nets that would catch people with these types of problems. All of which disregards the fact that even an undiagnosed person who has this sort of urge but doesn't have access to a gun can only do so much damage with a machete or axe.

And these are only a small part of all the things that are involved with trying to straighten this mess out. Personally it comes down to politicians having the will to buck the gun lobby and at a bare minimum outlaw semi-automatic weapons and high capacity, but preferably even removable, magazines. That only solves the problem going forward though, and I have no idea how to approach getting millions of AK and AR based weapons that are already out there out of civilian hands.

Nice post Raggedman

Asphalt_World wrote:Nice post Raggedman

Agreed, thanks Raggedman.

The mental illness aspect frustrates me too. Is it thought that only USA has kids with mental problems? That teenage alienation is unique to American high schools? Because it's not. It's just that 1) in other counties those kids with such issues can't easily lay their hands on weapons and 2) they haven't grown up in an environment where shooting up your school is almost a norm - a known option for taking your frustrations out. It would barely occur to anyone outside the US as something to do.

RaggedMan wrote: In the case of the first is that people like to disregard the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment or interpret it to mean that it's meant to allow the populace to defend themselves against an overreaching government. When in fact it was because the founders were against the idea of having, and financing, a standing army because A) They were broke and B) General distrust of the way standing armies were used by the colonial powers previously.

From an outsiders point of view,this is the one thing i've never understood about using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to own a gun.

I've had a few conversations with gun owning Americans and the only two reasons i've ever heard to justify the ownership of guns is either "We use them for hunting" or " Because if someone breaks into my house, they ain't walking out", which, to me anyway, has absolutely zilch to do with the true intention of the 2nd amendment, considering the term "a well regulated militia". When i've raised the well regulated militia part of the amendment in the discussion the usual reply surrounds, as you said RaggedMan, the interpretation of the word militia.

It seems, again, from an outsiders point of view, that the 2nd amendment has been basically reduced to meaning "I have a right to own as many guns as I want for whatever reason I want".

I wonder if the founding fathers would be resting comfortably if they were aware of the impact this part of their historic document was having on the country they so proudly devoted their lives to creating and ensuring the security and safety of their country men, women & children?

I wonder.

Jezza13 wrote:

RaggedMan wrote: In the case of the first is that people like to disregard the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment or interpret it to mean that it's meant to allow the populace to defend themselves against an overreaching government. When in fact it was because the founders were against the idea of having, and financing, a standing army because A) They were broke and B) General distrust of the way standing armies were used by the colonial powers previously.

From an outsiders point of view,this is the one thing i've never understood about using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to own a gun.

I've had a few conversations with gun owning Americans and the only two reasons i've ever heard to justify the ownership of guns is either "We use them for hunting" or " Because if someone breaks into my house, they ain't walking out", which, to me anyway, has absolutely zilch to do with the true intention of the 2nd amendment, considering the term "a well regulated militia". When i've raised the well regulated militia part of the amendment in the discussion the usual reply surrounds, as you said RaggedMan, the interpretation of the word militia.

It seems, again, from an outsiders point of view, that the 2nd amendment has been basically reduced to meaning "I have a right to own as many guns as I want for whatever reason I want".

I wonder if the founding fathers would be resting comfortably if they were aware of the impact this part of their historic document was having on the country they so proudly devoted their lives to creating and ensuring the security and safety of their country men, women & children?

I wonder.

The militia thing is funny because at the time there was a lot of debate about whether the states should have their militias be the citizen soldier type or a more professional force. Similar to what I said above about having a standing national force some didn't want the state militias to be like a regular army while others thought that it wasn't possible to have a group trained well enough to be effective if drawn from the general population and that there would be too much economic loss by having folks leave their day jobs to train often enough to be ready if needed.

Having the state level militias is partly due to independence that the states desired to maintain after the formation of the federal government. So in a sense it was to protect themselves should the national government overstep their bounds. This is an argument that a lot of people who advocate for the private possession of these rifles use today.

When it comes to non-militia gun ownership it wasn't addressed much in the past but in 2008 there was the Heller decision in the Supreme Court. This is where a law in the District of Columbia that banned handguns and required long guns to be stored unloaded or with a trigger lock installed. The Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional (5-4 vote) and since then it's been seen as a precedent that shows that non-militia gun ownership is assured under the 2nd amendment. Not something I agree with but that's the way things stand at this point.

Now even if there wasn't any mention of militia in the amendment and you just accept that hunting and home defense are valid uses for private gun ownership weapons like AK-47 and AR-15 are useless for those purposes unless you have a compound of some sort to defend from a zombie hoard, and it's illegal to hunt with them in every state. Where I live, Maryland, you can't even use a regular rifle to hunt deer. Bows/crossbows and shotguns with slug ammo only here.

Sorry for posting another wall of words but like I said. It's a complicated subject so it's hard to just say that's it. Turn 'em all in.

But watching the news today I got a different vibe and think that the tide maybe turning. This time there are some very smart, well spoken kids among the students of this school and are doing a good job of shaming the pols and hope that it can make a difference.

When the 2nd amendment was adopted to the original constitution on 12/15/1791. It was pretty cut and dry why it was needed and why such a rule should be in place. Society has changed, the circumstances have changed for such rules as well, which is why there have been numerous trials brought to the supreme court to be sorted out regarding the 2nd amendment and with that the interpretation of the amendments have been guided in the direction we find ourselves in today.

Anytime this debate comes up and is brought to the supreme court all previous cases are used as reference to determine if "the rights of the people" have been infringed on. This is what the country was founded on and we are talking about centuries of examples that can be used to defend the 2nd amendment.

"In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majorityof the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.Jun 26, 2015"
Source- https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

As for the ar15 itself its the #1 rifle sold in the usa because the platform itself can be pretty much whatever you want it to be. In a world where everyone wants it their way you can do that with the AR. The customization on this weapon can fit numerous situations which is one of the reasons why its so popular...... But you cant blame the gun for the bad rep it gets when tragedy occurs. A massacre can occur with any weapon. The same amount of damage can be done with a handgun, shotgun, bombs and even a cars have been used in massacres. So if assault rifles get banned then guess what another weapon/ method will take its place. (Sad but true) People will adapt to the circumstances and figure out a way to harm the innocent if they so wish to do so.

Mayhem wrote:...The same amount of damage can be done with a handgun, shotgun, bombs and even a cars have been used in massacres. So if assault rifles get banned then guess what another weapon/ method will take its place. (Sad but true) People will adapt to the circumstances and figure out a way to harm the innocent if they so wish to do so.

Don't really agree with that. There's a reason that this kind of gun is the weapon of choice for people intent on doing such things. There have been multiple killings with handguns , but they are much less common and mostly occurred in places where automatic/semi-automatic weapons were already outlawed or would have been very difficult to obtain.

Interestingly after such an incident in here in the UK (Dunblane), the law was reviewed, handguns made illegal and over 150,000 weapons handed in.

DOLOMITE wrote:

Mayhem wrote:...The same amount of damage can be done with a handgun, shotgun, bombs and even a cars have been used in massacres. So if assault rifles get banned then guess what another weapon/ method will take its place. (Sad but true) People will adapt to the circumstances and figure out a way to harm the innocent if they so wish to do so.

Don't really agree with that. There's a reason that this kind of gun is the weapon of choice for people intent on doing such things. There have been multiple killings with handguns , but they are much less common and mostly occurred in places where automatic/semi-automatic weapons were already outlawed or would have been very difficult to obtain.

Interestingly after such an incident in here in the UK (Dunblane), the law was reviewed, handguns made illegal and over 150,000 weapons handed in.

Long guns are easier to purchase in the states. In most states you have to file for a "pistol permit" for EVERY pistol you wanna purchase (so u must be approved by a govening body) but for a long gun you can just walk into any gun store, say i want that one and you take it home right then and there. That is why rifles are more common in tragedies then anyother type of weapon. If you had to file for long guns as you do for pistols it would be more difficult to obtain. Similar to rifles some handgun have high capacity magazines and can be easily concealed another reason why the handguns have more restrictions so by default are considered more dangerous. That is why i stated the same damage can be done with a hand gun.

As for vehicles those incidents are much less common but it happens and maybe it doesnt make world news because its not a gun but it has happened twice in the last year here in new york city

It is too late, there are just too many guns of all types out there. It is inevitable that people who are crazy will have access to them. Sad really. I have an American friend who calls it "an arms race out of control." Ironically I also have a colleague who lives in Atlanta who has all sorts of handguns because she needs different sizes and colours to match the handbag she is using that day.

Mayhem wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:

Mayhem wrote:...The same amount of damage can be done with a handgun, shotgun, bombs and even a cars have been used in massacres. So if assault rifles get banned then guess what another weapon/ method will take its place. (Sad but true) People will adapt to the circumstances and figure out a way to harm the innocent if they so wish to do so.

Don't really agree with that. There's a reason that this kind of gun is the weapon of choice for people intent on doing such things. There have been multiple killings with handguns , but they are much less common and mostly occurred in places where automatic/semi-automatic weapons were already outlawed or would have been very difficult to obtain.

Interestingly after such an incident in here in the UK (Dunblane), the law was reviewed, handguns made illegal and over 150,000 weapons handed in.

Long guns are easier to purchase in the states. In most states you have to file for a "pistol permit" for EVERY pistol you wanna purchase (so u must be approved by a govening body) but for a long gun you can just walk into any gun store, say i want that one and you take it home right then and there. That is why rifles are more common in tragedies then anyother type of weapon. If you had to file for long guns as you do for pistols it would be more difficult to obtain. Similar to rifles some handgun have high capacity magazines and can be easily concealed another reason why the handguns have more restrictions so by default are considered more dangerous. That is why i stated the same damage can be done with a hand gun.

As for vehicles those incidents are much less common but it happens and maybe it doesnt make world news because its not a gun but it has happened twice in the last year here in new york city

Wow - didn't know that. I can see the ease-of-concealment aspect. I think the bigger issue is more around single-fire vs semi/automatic though. Can you really just take it home there and then? I thought there was a cooling-off period? Or is that only certain states and/or weapon types?

The AR is a flexible system but its base design; from the rate of fire, to the high capacity removable magazines, to the way the projectile behaves after it makes contact with a body has a single purpose which is to put people down. While what the public can buy isn't the same as what the military uses its a distinction without a difference. If the M1 Garand that was carried by US forces in WWII had been replaced with the most basic AR-15 available to today's average Joe they'd be the best armed force in the war by far.

Unless you have a compound to defend against an invading hoard an AR is about as bad choice for home defense as you can make. Even an M4 style carbine version isn't great indoors and a high velocity jacketed round usually doesn't stay inside the building it was fired in. While there are .223 frangible rounds on the market that are designed for this purpose very few people buy them.

While you can get an AR chambered for different calibres most are sold as 5.56 NATO/.223 which most states don't allow for hunting even deer. So it's useless for hunting as well.

Now as far as target shooting goes it's okay for that. When I was in the Corps I could put 7-8 out of 10 rounds on a modified B target (human silhouette) from 500 meters with an M-16A1, and often went 10 for 10 when the A2 came around, all with open sights. (And much younger eyes) But military competition shooting is still usually done with match grade M-14's.

Even then though there is no need for a semi-automatic cyclic rate of several hundred rounds per minute, nor a removable magazine.

Gun laws vary from state to state but handgun sales are uniformly more highly regulated than long guns but it's still very easy to get a pistol as long as you're 21 years old. There is no federal waiting period law for either hand or long guns but some states have imposed waiting periods for handguns from 3-7 days while a few have it for all gun sales.

For a little info on waiting periods and background checks here's a link to the subject.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/ ... g-periods/

The whole "Well what are going to do? If they want to kill somebody they're going to do it." argument is lame as hell. Just because some people have murderous intent doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them to carry it out.

Sure, there is no way to make everyone, everywhere completely safe but there's no reason to leave easily secured avenues of protection open.

I don't think this kid could've gotten a car into the halls of the school to plow others down as they were leaving their classrooms. If he had been armed with a bladed weapon instead of a gun he could've done a lot of damage but not nearly as much.

DOLOMITE wrote:

Mayhem wrote:

DOLOMITE wrote:

Mayhem wrote:...The same amount of damage can be done with a handgun, shotgun, bombs and even a cars have been used in massacres. So if assault rifles get banned then guess what another weapon/ method will take its place. (Sad but true) People will adapt to the circumstances and figure out a way to harm the innocent if they so wish to do so.

Don't really agree with that. There's a reason that this kind of gun is the weapon of choice for people intent on doing such things. There have been multiple killings with handguns , but they are much less common and mostly occurred in places where automatic/semi-automatic weapons were already outlawed or would have been very difficult to obtain.

Interestingly after such an incident in here in the UK (Dunblane), the law was reviewed, handguns made illegal and over 150,000 weapons handed in.

Long guns are easier to purchase in the states. In most states you have to file for a "pistol permit" for EVERY pistol you wanna purchase (so u must be approved by a govening body) but for a long gun you can just walk into any gun store, say i want that one and you take it home right then and there. That is why rifles are more common in tragedies then anyother type of weapon. If you had to file for long guns as you do for pistols it would be more difficult to obtain. Similar to rifles some handgun have high capacity magazines and can be easily concealed another reason why the handguns have more restrictions so by default are considered more dangerous. That is why i stated the same damage can be done with a hand gun.

As for vehicles those incidents are much less common but it happens and maybe it doesnt make world news because its not a gun but it has happened twice in the last year here in new york city

Wow - didn't know that. I can see the ease-of-concealment aspect. I think the bigger issue is more around single-fire vs semi/automatic though. Can you really just take it home there and then? I thought there was a cooling-off period? Or is that only certain states and/or weapon types?

The AR platform that is sold to the general public is semi auto .223/556. For full auto you will need a special license. Which the average joe cant just fill out a form and acquire. AR's are available in numerous calibers even handgun calibers such as .22, 9mm, 45acp etc.,. So if you wanted one for home defense you could obtain one for your needs without worry of over penetration.

Typically long guns have no waiting period. (Can vary state to state) you can walk out with it right then and there granted you will need a firearms ID CARD, state ID, pass a back round check (phone call made on the spot). Have all the required documents and pass the back round check you take it home right there with ammo / mags.

Hand guns however do have a waiting period which varies from state to state. As i mentioned you need to file for a pistol permit with your governing body and that also varies from state to state how long it takes to get it. Once you have it you are approved for 1 pistol purchase with that permit and the permit expires within a set time (ex 7 - 90days)

RaggedMan wrote:The whole "Well what are going to do? If they want to kill somebody they're going to do it." argument is lame as hell. Just because some people have murderous intent doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them to carry it out.

Sure, there is no way to make everyone, everywhere completely safe but there's no reason to leave easily secured avenues of protection open.

I don't think this kid could've gotten a car into the halls of the school to plow others down as they were leaving their classrooms. If he had been armed with a bladed weapon instead of a gun he could've done a lot of damage but not nearly as much.

Actually he could have since schools in Florida are multiple building structures outside. Not just one building. They are more like mini malls where you have to walk from builing to building.