so in the future every public place will have a full body search machine that will sound an alarm noting someone is carrying a gun.......... this way, when you go grocery shopping, because lord knows you need to be packing when going grocery shopping, the alarm sounds, a snapshot is taken and then posted on video screens through out the grocery store.........ensuring that before you say something about Halal food or Kosher food or Twinkies and Kale (possibly white people food) you know to bite your tongue and not say something offensive and give the guy who goes to the grocery store with a semi-automatic a reason to shoot......of course there always is that random deer that goes hopping through the store that might need to be shot with a tumbling bullet. them dam dear are so dangerous, normal bullets will not due.
You should only go to night clubs through virtual reality while you hide safely in your panic room. Everybody knows gwharton's right to own a weapon that fires 700 rounds per minute, can shoot a projectile through a wall, and has a high capacity magazine so he doesn't have to reloaded as often, is far more important than protecting someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Should we prosecute someone who sent 2,000 semi-automatic guns to the Mexican drug cartels and caused the deaths of many people? Or does Eric Holder get a pass?
ar-15 is a shit self defense weapon. huge, has a complicated firing mechanism, expensive, unwieldy. get a .356 or a glock, keep your weapons locked and unloaded, ammo locked up too. put a shotgun under the bed if you're that type. just remember that you're more likely to shoot a family member or yourself than shoot a 'bad guy', by a massive statistical margin.
"When you add to that the fact that most gun control advocates obviously don't know the first thing about firearms and repeatedly say incredibly stupid things about them..."
Which subsequent comments (including Balkins') have immediately proven to be true. SO far, the only person here who seems to know anything about firearms is jrg4597.
Here are some of the stupid claims being made just since my last post:
AR-15s are not "scaled down military weapons." They are a civilian version of the M-16 rifile. "Civilian version" means they share some parts, but are not military spec. Contrary to b3ta, they are specifically designed for civilian, not military, use. In particular, they cannot operate in fully automatic mode as machine guns, which the military version can do. This is a fundamental and major difference. Contrary to Balkins' assertion, it is not easy to convert an AR-15 into a machine gun, and it is definitely VERY illegal to even attempt doing so. You can go to jail for LONG time for even possessing the parts which allow it.
As a side note, anybody who has been through military or law enforcement firearms training can tell you that probably the only time they ever fired a hand-held weapon in full-auto mode was as a demonstration of why firing a hand-held weapon in full-auto is a stupid waste of ammunition which accomplishes nothing. In semi-auto, an M16/M4 rifle has very little recoil because the ammunition is so low-energy and most of the recoil energy goes into cycling the action. On full-auto, all thirty rounds go out the end of the muzzle very quickly, making the weapon nearly impossible to control and generating a massive kickback.
AR15s do not "tumble fire" (which is not even a thing...look it up before you start throwing around word salad). Expanding and tumbling ammunition, of the sort which inflicts maximum damage to soft tissues, are expressly outlawed by international treaty for military weapons. You can get hollow-points in .223, but they're a lot more trouble than they're worth and are pretty rare to begin with. Nobody has made tumbling (or "dum-dum") ammunition since hollow points were invented. Tumbling ammo dramatically reduces accuracy beyond about 6 feet distance.
The vast majority of AR15s are chambered in 5.56mm NATO FMJ (.223 caliber) which is actually illegal to use for big game hunting in most states because the rounds are not big enough or carry enough energy to be consistently lethal to game over about 60 lbs. body weight. They are basically varmint guns and target weapons for recreational plinking. Full metal jacket (FMJ), or "ball" NATO ammunition is actually designed for reduced lethality for treaty and military reasons. .223 ammo in particular is designed primarily to wound and incapacitate, because putting an enemy soldier out of action and requiring him to need lots of medical attention is far more militarily effective than outright killing him.
ARs make poor home defense weapons for that reason also. They don't have much stopping power, FMJ bullets waste a lot of energy by cleanly penetrating through soft targets, and the long-gun form factor makes for poor maneuverability in tight quarters.
In general, all rifles are poor home and self-defense weapons. For self defense, the best weapon is a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun: lots of power, compact form factor, and no through-penetration. Those are illegal, so the next best defense weapon is a regular 12-gauge shotgun, followed by a pistol in a large enough caliber that its muzzle energy exceeds 700 ft. lbs. (9mm doesn't meet this standard, by the way...you need to go up to 10mm or .40 caliber for that in a semi-automatic pistol, though .357 magnum in a revolver works too).
It turns out that people are actually pretty hard to kill, even when you shoot them. Omar Mateen killed 50 people in Orlando. Law enforcement reports that he did that with 202 shots fired. That's an almost unheard-of kill rate, and indicates that he had to reload several times. So he was either a really, really crack shot who was using heavy-duty anti-personnel ammo, or a lot of those people died because they didn't get medical care during the three-hour stand-off with police and bled out. The latter is far more likely than the former, by the way.
And he didn't take those weapons into the club prior to opening fire. He started shooting in the parking lot.
"and the bad guy who is planning on shooting someone cares about that?"
And you're giving prime testimony as to why gun control won't work, making my point for me. How are those strict gun control laws working out for Chicago these day, eh?
Maybe you should reread that discussion on the .223 tumble fire before you post.
You are big on accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about when you are the one who does not know what the fuck he is talking about. Reread those comments.
we do not control access to AR-15 rifles right now. if we take away the ability to purchase more of those rifles we can reduce the amount in circulation. so there's a good gun control law right there.
systemic violence in a place like chicago cannot be blamed solely on people's access to guns, but that is not to say gun control laws are failing there or should be rescinded.
I read it. "Tumble fire" still isn't a thing. It's somebody who knows nothing about guns trying to put together some words he read in Salon or heard on CSI to sound knowledgeable.
A bullet will tumble when it hits something with enough rigidity to deflect it's vector off-axis. That increases the damage it will do to soft tissue if that happens inside a body. But it has been many decades since anybody made ammunition that was specifically designed to tumble, for the basic reason that it makes for shit accuracy. 5.56 FMJ is not "designed" to "tumble fire." No ammunition is. Some ammunition IS designed to spread on impact, for maximum energy transfer to the target. Militaries generally don't use that kind of ammunition for lots of reasons, and military rifles in particular are not designed to use it effectively.
TL;DR - if you want to use expanding bullets, like hollow-points, you're better off using pistol ammo in a weapon which is designed to do so effectively.
I am genuinely curious - what about AR-15s makes you think they are somehow in a special class of dangerousness which necessitates specific control? Please be very specific and reference particular features and performance characteristics versus other firearms or weapons.
I ask this because I have owned several AR-15s over the years, as well as many other types of firearms. So I have a wide basis for comparison and lots of direct experience. Aside from the ergonomic form factor, I don't think the design of the AR makes it a particularly effective rifle. In fact, I've sold all the ones I've ever owned not too many months after I've bought them because they are kind of lame. The only guns I've consistently kept over the years are two 12ga shotguns (one a side-by-side, the other a semi-auto I use mostly for trap shooting) and a .357mag revolver. Can you tell me in detail why you think an AR is so much more dangerous than those weapons? Because I can tell you categorically that it isn't. What I'm hearing when you all are hyperventilating about AR15s is that you are deeply scared of them for aesthetic, not practical reasons.
Which is kind of an architectural issue, as it turns out.
AR15s do not "tumble fire" (which is not even a thing...look it up before you start throwing around word salad). Expanding and tumbling ammunition, of the sort which inflicts maximum damage to soft tissues, are expressly outlawed by international treaty for military weapons.
Your own words. If it is not even a thing, then why is it outlawed? You contradict yourself in the very next sentence.
Fragmenting, expanding, and intentionally tumbling ammunition are outlawed or discouraged by military treaties in order to prevent a race to the bottom in the use of grisly anti-personnel weapons in widespread combat operations. It's ultimately comes down to applied game theory and military effectiveness, not a question of whether they are good or bad. That's true of nearly all treaties between sovereigns, incidentally.
There's no good military reason to use them anyway. They tend to gum up weapon actions more quickly than jacketed ammo, causing cleaning and reliability problems in the field. And like I said earlier, it is much more effective from a military perspective to wound a soldier, putting him out of action but not killing him, than it is to just kill him by blowing his head off. Caring for the wounded redirects lots of scarce resources to activities that are not fighting, and also causes all kinds of morale problems for an enemy force.
Some SOG units do use them in limited circumstances when they have good tactical reasons, but generally the military doesn't stock them and they have to be special-ordered.
Also, you seem really unclear on what tumbling vs. expanding even means when it comes to ammunition.
Idiots and their murderous toys... from tiny pistols to scary monsters. Ban them all and fuck your bullshit 2nd amendment obsession in it's outdated ass. Gwharton, you're part of the problem.
i'm not afraid of an ar-15. i've used one myself. but i still think that rifle along with all guns should have more government regulation and control over ownership. what we are doing now does not work.
The bullets of the early M-16 were designed to tumble. This was achieved by rifling the barrel less tightly than normal which gave the bullet less spin. This was done to try and compensate for the relatively low energy of the rounds used.
I would like to meet a person who can dish out 600 rounds a minute with an AR. The system would fail from over heating. The tiny seals would eventually melt from the hot gases after combustion at that rate. The m249 and 240b can achieve that rate of because it is mechanical not gas. Thanks Gwarton five years of service gave me the knowledge.
Olaf a year ago in Texas 2 civilian men with guns did save the lives of a hundred or so people but the media will not the value in protection one self because there is no money in happiness.
There is an architectural solution, sort of. Stay away from places where people congregate. After 9/11 I moved from the big city I was living in and after several moves am now out in the country. Not much chance of being the victim of a terrorist attack when the only thing around you is trees.
Some may say that's not a realistic solution for most people, which is true, but neither is there a realistic way to address the major issues the human race is facing. It does not look to me like the future is going to be any calmer or safer than it is now, so considering a major change to your situation really is an option. It was for me.
For what it's worth, I grew up with guns, I own a pile of guns, and I am 100% for increased gun control. I inherited most of mine but enjoy using them responsibly, and I like having them for protection. Our country is becoming way too divided; it's not the terrorists from outside that are the real problem but our inability to come together as a country.
There are really only two red-flags that cause me to dismiss a person's opinion and societal value outright.
a. They wear those silly copper "energy or magnetic" bracelets
b. They are proud firearm owners. Free for all gun ownership and the 2nd amendment religion is a societal cancer and the idiots who support it are part of the problem.
If we should ban guns, we might as well get rid of all knives,axes, saws, wood,stones , wire, chemicals, iron and fire.Oh wait if we did that no of us would have jobs. You may say but those are tools? Yet each one has the potential to kill. So the theory of Utopias are fantasy ideals that humans can love one another are like saying a clan chimpanzees will shake hand with and group. Or a buffalo protecting his herd. Once again logic comes to mind, a tool to one person can be a weapon in another's.
I have disagreed with Gwharton before on political matters but I do respect his opinion. He tends to be well informed on what he talks about. Lets see what common ground we can find.
Full disclosure my family owns three guns. two shot guns, a big ole dbl 12ga a .410 and a pump action pellet gun. All are locked, i keep no ammo, and with the exception of the pellet gun were passed to me from my grandfather and i consider them family heirlooms regardless of their actual monetary value.
As a gun owner and citizen I have an interest in making sure that bad people, however you want to define it do not get guns. I would think that just about all of us should be able to agree to that. I personally would be willing to put more responsibility on gun owners and sellers and i don;t really understand why others are not also willing to shoulder that burden.
An example of the kind of legislation that I think would help be:
1) Mandatory sentences for all crimes committed with a gun. If a gun is involved in a crime no matter how petty, weather it was fired or not, should have more extreme consequences.
2) Mandatory sentences for the misuse of a gun. If a child gets a hold your gun. If your gun is stolen and you do not provide the proper documentation, if your gun "accidentally" discharges. Your gun privileges at a minimum should be revoked but there should be strict consequences for not acting responsibly.
3) There should be a Fire Arms Black List. If you have committed a crime, are on a no fly list or have had any record of irresponsible behavior involving a gun you should be banned from having one. Failure to check this list before selling a gun to someone should be a crime, and cause your name to be included on said list. Maybe there is some sort of half life, waiting period.
4) There should be a statute of limitations where all gun sellers are held partially responsible for the acts that are carried out with weapons they sold. We as gun owners and sellers should be more vigilant about where these things are going. There should be a consequence for not preforming the proper due diligence. Failure to do so should result in not being able to legally sell weapons.
I don't think any of those proposed regulations would impose on what I feel are my or fellow citizens rights to have firearms. What they do is create a system where we collectively make ourselves safer. They do not single out specific weapons or people but rather the actions that are the problem.
Why is it that whenever a person shoots up a place we want a ban on guns and manufacturers, usually assault looking weapons (which are not really assault weapons) but when a person is killed by a car there is no outrage about the cars or carmakers?
32,000 people die from guns every year.
50,000 people die from cars each year.
These numbers include all deaths from accidental, suicide, purposeful intent, etc.
For some reason we want our 85 year old parents to keep their car keys (cuz if they didn't have them we would have to drive them to get their meds), drunks to remain out of prison and driving around, druggies to roam freely in steel killing cages on wheels, all while making it easier and easier to get a drivers license for anybody and everybody as if it were a "right" but place tighter and tighter controls on those people who want to legally own a gun in accordance with our constitution.
1 and 2 are debatable from a legal standpoint regarding mandatory minimums....not gonna touch those...3 is already the case with the exception of gun show loopholes which were recently closed (I think). 4 is unconstitutional from what I understand unless the seller bypasses the mandatory checks.
I heard an idiot talk show host the other day say that every time a major shooting happens, the crazy right wing gun nuts start screaming that Obama is going to take their guns away. So the day after a major shooting occurs, sales spike for guns. While this is true, it isn't because right wing gun nuts run out buying more guns because Obama is going to take them away. What is happening is that many common sense people realize just how vulnerable they are because of the policies of this administration. Something strikes a chord and they say, "I am not safe and nobody is looking out for me" Not only are the policies making you more unsafe, these people realize that the police are not there to protect them. The role of police is to mop up afterwards, after the damage is done.
Trust me, most right wing people already have their guns. Middle of the road people and scared left of center types are probably buying more than the righties these days.
So if your right to own a firearm is rescinded if you are mistakenly put on the "no fly" list and you have to live in a sketchy area like a Chicago suburb and need a firearm to protect your family, too bad?
Sure, jla-x some of those ideas are debatable. but it's the proper debate to be having. Not the ban this gun or this people, but common sense regulation that we can agree will help make us safer. Sure we might have to sacrifice the ease with which we are able to exercise our rights but that doesn't mean giving them up entirely. but now i know i will hear the its' a slippery slope straw men come out to play.
Non, I respect your opinion about "gun culture" when synonymous with "violent culture" but have to disagree from a practical real world standpoint. It is patronizing when the upper class / upper middle class left tells poor and working class people from the comfort of their ideal safe enclaves that they cannot defend them selves from the real threat of violence that plague their communities (mainly perpetrated by people with illegal guns.)
Volunteer, That type of identity issue happens all the time for all kinds of other things. drivers licenses, credit reports, ect. we can put systems in place that allow for an appeal process or feedback loop of some kind.
Jla-x... a fine point you make and far more worthy of conversation that nonsensical "let's ban cars because they cause more deaths" or protect from china ramblings above.
Lol... Non has had an argument on anything I've posted. Instead he has resorted to calling every gun owner a fucktard.
I've seen the what guns do and I have seen the people behind them. This breaks down to three very simple types of people. The sheep whom are unaware of the dangers outside of a herd like (Non). The wolves who are opportunistic and will a sheep if they travel away from the pack. Then there are sheep dogs (people like myself). Do you know why the sheep fear the dogs? It's because they have seen the teeth of the dog while fighting off the wolves.
As for myself, I have a handgun for home defense, a 12 gauge, and a bolt action .22 rifle for target shooting...hopefully I will never need to use it but better safe than sorry..to me a gun is a precaution like a fire extinguisher....the only time I carry is when I go hiking in remote places...mainly for mountain lion defense ....although not sure a 9mm would stop one from eating me...but better than nothing. I've actually been stalked by one in the past and I nearly died of a heart attack. Also, a few years back a man shot one that grabbed his 2 year old son by the neck....very rare, but it makes me feel better to have one when I'm by myself 50 miles from civilization...Being mauled by a 200 lb cat would really really suck.
Thanks for actually addressing my original points and providing concrete proposals instead of invective. My initial response to your points:
#1 - I'm fine with that. As a practical matter, this is already on the books in most jurisdictions. If you want to make it universal at the federal level, go for it. You have my support.
#2 - Negligence and reckless endangerment laws already do this. No additional legislation needed.
#3 - This proposal is also already on the books nearly everywhere. In fact, it's been implemented more broadly than you suggest: it applies to all persons with a felony conviction, violent gun crime related or not. Felons cannot legally buy or possess guns nearly everywhere in the USA right now.
#4 - No. This creates an impossible, unreasonable, one-sided, and unlimited liability, even if there is a statute of limitations. Car dealers and manufacturers aren't liable for what people do with the cars they sell, and neither should be gun dealers or manufacturers.
The government has shown no interest whatsoever to date about providing any information to people mistakenly put on the "no fly" list. Indeed, the government seems to view decorated combat veterans of the armed forces to be a bigger threat than the type of Islamic extremist that killed the 49 people in Orlando. The bodies were not cold before Obama was prattling on about how the shooter was a "homegrown" terrorist, trying to deflect from the shooter's extremist Muslim views and repeated trips to Saudi Arabia.
no need to provide counter arguments to pro-gun stances JRG. You've lost simply by claiming you own an AR early. You're part of the problem and you need to take your share of the blame every time someone opens fire in a crowd.
Don't think yourself so high-and-mighty, you're just another gun-totting imbecile desperately trying to hold on tight to an outdated and intellectually poor culture.
on #4 the intent is to acknowledge that there is a need for two sided liability of some sort. Something greater than "I checked the list" that help balance the liability with the capitalist notion of wanting to sell as many of a product as possible. I realize the problem of unlimited liability which is why i would propose that rule has a time limit. So there is some liability for a limited amount of time. Let's say two years.
I'm open to other ideas it seems like we need to empower the good guys better rather than just acting reactively.
Jun 15, 16 2:59 pm ·
·
I'm going to make it very clear.
Senseless killing has been going on since the beginning of human civilization if not before hand. Gun ownership does not mean the gun owners has intent to kill or murder people. The people who do mass killings are a very small percentage of our population.
Getting rid of guns doesn't solve or stop mass killings and other like senseless killing. These kinds of killings are not dependent on guns to make it happen. Guns are only one of many kinds of tools that can be used to mass kill. It would be irresponsible to discuss those methods as some of those tools are horrorifying to an even larger magnitude if used in such a manner.
If you truly want to stop mass killings, we have two options. Everyone is confined in straight jackets in a padded room....... OR we actually study the issues, understand the issues and address the issues that are causing people to mass killing.
Yes, the mass killing issue is a psychological and sociological problem. Why are people choosing to kill and harm other people? That's the question we need to understand.
Designing buildings to protect the public from mass shootings
so in the future every public place will have a full body search machine that will sound an alarm noting someone is carrying a gun.......... this way, when you go grocery shopping, because lord knows you need to be packing when going grocery shopping, the alarm sounds, a snapshot is taken and then posted on video screens through out the grocery store.........ensuring that before you say something about Halal food or Kosher food or Twinkies and Kale (possibly white people food) you know to bite your tongue and not say something offensive and give the guy who goes to the grocery store with a semi-automatic a reason to shoot......of course there always is that random deer that goes hopping through the store that might need to be shot with a tumbling bullet. them dam dear are so dangerous, normal bullets will not due.
You should only go to night clubs through virtual reality while you hide safely in your panic room. Everybody knows gwharton's right to own a weapon that fires 700 rounds per minute, can shoot a projectile through a wall, and has a high capacity magazine so he doesn't have to reloaded as often, is far more important than protecting someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I am still waiting for this news story "Civilian with Semi-Automatic Thwarts Terrorists and Saves Hundreds of Lives"
Should we prosecute someone who sent 2,000 semi-automatic guns to the Mexican drug cartels and caused the deaths of many people? Or does Eric Holder get a pass?
Should we prosecute those that trained Osama Bin Laden? Or does Reagan Bush get a pass?
ar-15 is a shit self defense weapon. huge, has a complicated firing mechanism, expensive, unwieldy. get a .356 or a glock, keep your weapons locked and unloaded, ammo locked up too. put a shotgun under the bed if you're that type. just remember that you're more likely to shoot a family member or yourself than shoot a 'bad guy', by a massive statistical margin.
Above, I wrote:
"When you add to that the fact that most gun control advocates obviously don't know the first thing about firearms and repeatedly say incredibly stupid things about them..."
Which subsequent comments (including Balkins') have immediately proven to be true. SO far, the only person here who seems to know anything about firearms is jrg4597.
Here are some of the stupid claims being made just since my last post:
AR-15s are not "scaled down military weapons." They are a civilian version of the M-16 rifile. "Civilian version" means they share some parts, but are not military spec. Contrary to b3ta, they are specifically designed for civilian, not military, use. In particular, they cannot operate in fully automatic mode as machine guns, which the military version can do. This is a fundamental and major difference. Contrary to Balkins' assertion, it is not easy to convert an AR-15 into a machine gun, and it is definitely VERY illegal to even attempt doing so. You can go to jail for LONG time for even possessing the parts which allow it.
As a side note, anybody who has been through military or law enforcement firearms training can tell you that probably the only time they ever fired a hand-held weapon in full-auto mode was as a demonstration of why firing a hand-held weapon in full-auto is a stupid waste of ammunition which accomplishes nothing. In semi-auto, an M16/M4 rifle has very little recoil because the ammunition is so low-energy and most of the recoil energy goes into cycling the action. On full-auto, all thirty rounds go out the end of the muzzle very quickly, making the weapon nearly impossible to control and generating a massive kickback.
AR15s do not "tumble fire" (which is not even a thing...look it up before you start throwing around word salad). Expanding and tumbling ammunition, of the sort which inflicts maximum damage to soft tissues, are expressly outlawed by international treaty for military weapons. You can get hollow-points in .223, but they're a lot more trouble than they're worth and are pretty rare to begin with. Nobody has made tumbling (or "dum-dum") ammunition since hollow points were invented. Tumbling ammo dramatically reduces accuracy beyond about 6 feet distance.
The vast majority of AR15s are chambered in 5.56mm NATO FMJ (.223 caliber) which is actually illegal to use for big game hunting in most states because the rounds are not big enough or carry enough energy to be consistently lethal to game over about 60 lbs. body weight. They are basically varmint guns and target weapons for recreational plinking. Full metal jacket (FMJ), or "ball" NATO ammunition is actually designed for reduced lethality for treaty and military reasons. .223 ammo in particular is designed primarily to wound and incapacitate, because putting an enemy soldier out of action and requiring him to need lots of medical attention is far more militarily effective than outright killing him.
ARs make poor home defense weapons for that reason also. They don't have much stopping power, FMJ bullets waste a lot of energy by cleanly penetrating through soft targets, and the long-gun form factor makes for poor maneuverability in tight quarters.
In general, all rifles are poor home and self-defense weapons. For self defense, the best weapon is a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun: lots of power, compact form factor, and no through-penetration. Those are illegal, so the next best defense weapon is a regular 12-gauge shotgun, followed by a pistol in a large enough caliber that its muzzle energy exceeds 700 ft. lbs. (9mm doesn't meet this standard, by the way...you need to go up to 10mm or .40 caliber for that in a semi-automatic pistol, though .357 magnum in a revolver works too).
It turns out that people are actually pretty hard to kill, even when you shoot them. Omar Mateen killed 50 people in Orlando. Law enforcement reports that he did that with 202 shots fired. That's an almost unheard-of kill rate, and indicates that he had to reload several times. So he was either a really, really crack shot who was using heavy-duty anti-personnel ammo, or a lot of those people died because they didn't get medical care during the three-hour stand-off with police and bled out. The latter is far more likely than the former, by the way.
And he didn't take those weapons into the club prior to opening fire. He started shooting in the parking lot.
"it is definitely VERY illegal to even attempt doing so. You can go to jail for LONG time for even possessing the parts which allow it."
and the bad guy who is planning on shooting someone cares about that? you're providing the evidence why AR-15's shouldn't be available to the public.
"and the bad guy who is planning on shooting someone cares about that?"
And you're giving prime testimony as to why gun control won't work, making my point for me. How are those strict gun control laws working out for Chicago these day, eh?
Maybe you should reread that discussion on the .223 tumble fire before you post.
You are big on accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about when you are the one who does not know what the fuck he is talking about. Reread those comments.
I haven't read through all of the above (and I'm not going to), but this very cogent and brief blog post explains what I think is the reality: "Architecture can do fuck-all to prevent a mass-shooting."
As architects we can't do anything, really. But as citizens we can, and I don't ever separate who I am as a citizen from who I am as an architect..
we do not control access to AR-15 rifles right now. if we take away the ability to purchase more of those rifles we can reduce the amount in circulation. so there's a good gun control law right there.
systemic violence in a place like chicago cannot be blamed solely on people's access to guns, but that is not to say gun control laws are failing there or should be rescinded.
z1111,
I read it. "Tumble fire" still isn't a thing. It's somebody who knows nothing about guns trying to put together some words he read in Salon or heard on CSI to sound knowledgeable.
A bullet will tumble when it hits something with enough rigidity to deflect it's vector off-axis. That increases the damage it will do to soft tissue if that happens inside a body. But it has been many decades since anybody made ammunition that was specifically designed to tumble, for the basic reason that it makes for shit accuracy. 5.56 FMJ is not "designed" to "tumble fire." No ammunition is. Some ammunition IS designed to spread on impact, for maximum energy transfer to the target. Militaries generally don't use that kind of ammunition for lots of reasons, and military rifles in particular are not designed to use it effectively.
TL;DR - if you want to use expanding bullets, like hollow-points, you're better off using pistol ammo in a weapon which is designed to do so effectively.
no_form:
I am genuinely curious - what about AR-15s makes you think they are somehow in a special class of dangerousness which necessitates specific control? Please be very specific and reference particular features and performance characteristics versus other firearms or weapons.
I ask this because I have owned several AR-15s over the years, as well as many other types of firearms. So I have a wide basis for comparison and lots of direct experience. Aside from the ergonomic form factor, I don't think the design of the AR makes it a particularly effective rifle. In fact, I've sold all the ones I've ever owned not too many months after I've bought them because they are kind of lame. The only guns I've consistently kept over the years are two 12ga shotguns (one a side-by-side, the other a semi-auto I use mostly for trap shooting) and a .357mag revolver. Can you tell me in detail why you think an AR is so much more dangerous than those weapons? Because I can tell you categorically that it isn't. What I'm hearing when you all are hyperventilating about AR15s is that you are deeply scared of them for aesthetic, not practical reasons.
Which is kind of an architectural issue, as it turns out.
AR15s do not "tumble fire" (which is not even a thing...look it up before you start throwing around word salad). Expanding and tumbling ammunition, of the sort which inflicts maximum damage to soft tissues, are expressly outlawed by international treaty for military weapons.
Your own words. If it is not even a thing, then why is it outlawed? You contradict yourself in the very next sentence.
z1111,
Fragmenting, expanding, and intentionally tumbling ammunition are outlawed or discouraged by military treaties in order to prevent a race to the bottom in the use of grisly anti-personnel weapons in widespread combat operations. It's ultimately comes down to applied game theory and military effectiveness, not a question of whether they are good or bad. That's true of nearly all treaties between sovereigns, incidentally.
There's no good military reason to use them anyway. They tend to gum up weapon actions more quickly than jacketed ammo, causing cleaning and reliability problems in the field. And like I said earlier, it is much more effective from a military perspective to wound a soldier, putting him out of action but not killing him, than it is to just kill him by blowing his head off. Caring for the wounded redirects lots of scarce resources to activities that are not fighting, and also causes all kinds of morale problems for an enemy force.
Some SOG units do use them in limited circumstances when they have good tactical reasons, but generally the military doesn't stock them and they have to be special-ordered.
Also, you seem really unclear on what tumbling vs. expanding even means when it comes to ammunition.
Idiots and their murderous toys... from tiny pistols to scary monsters. Ban them all and fuck your bullshit 2nd amendment obsession in it's outdated ass. Gwharton, you're part of the problem.
i'm not afraid of an ar-15. i've used one myself. but i still think that rifle along with all guns should have more government regulation and control over ownership. what we are doing now does not work.
I never mentioned expanding ammunition.
Your argument is sophistry.
You are trying to bully people with extraneous, irrelevant and self-contradictory statements.
The bullets of the early M-16 were designed to tumble. This was achieved by rifling the barrel less tightly than normal which gave the bullet less spin. This was done to try and compensate for the relatively low energy of the rounds used.
jrg4597,
Not to mention swapping magazines and hand-cycling the action every two seconds between barrel-melting bursts of fire.
There is an architectural solution, sort of. Stay away from places where people congregate. After 9/11 I moved from the big city I was living in and after several moves am now out in the country. Not much chance of being the victim of a terrorist attack when the only thing around you is trees.
Some may say that's not a realistic solution for most people, which is true, but neither is there a realistic way to address the major issues the human race is facing. It does not look to me like the future is going to be any calmer or safer than it is now, so considering a major change to your situation really is an option. It was for me.
For what it's worth, I grew up with guns, I own a pile of guns, and I am 100% for increased gun control. I inherited most of mine but enjoy using them responsibly, and I like having them for protection. Our country is becoming way too divided; it's not the terrorists from outside that are the real problem but our inability to come together as a country.
There are really only two red-flags that cause me to dismiss a person's opinion and societal value outright.
a. They wear those silly copper "energy or magnetic" bracelets
b. They are proud firearm owners. Free for all gun ownership and the 2nd amendment religion is a societal cancer and the idiots who support it are part of the problem.
OK. Here is how i see it.
I have disagreed with Gwharton before on political matters but I do respect his opinion. He tends to be well informed on what he talks about. Lets see what common ground we can find.
Full disclosure my family owns three guns. two shot guns, a big ole dbl 12ga a .410 and a pump action pellet gun. All are locked, i keep no ammo, and with the exception of the pellet gun were passed to me from my grandfather and i consider them family heirlooms regardless of their actual monetary value.
As a gun owner and citizen I have an interest in making sure that bad people, however you want to define it do not get guns. I would think that just about all of us should be able to agree to that. I personally would be willing to put more responsibility on gun owners and sellers and i don;t really understand why others are not also willing to shoulder that burden.
An example of the kind of legislation that I think would help be:
1) Mandatory sentences for all crimes committed with a gun. If a gun is involved in a crime no matter how petty, weather it was fired or not, should have more extreme consequences.
2) Mandatory sentences for the misuse of a gun. If a child gets a hold your gun. If your gun is stolen and you do not provide the proper documentation, if your gun "accidentally" discharges. Your gun privileges at a minimum should be revoked but there should be strict consequences for not acting responsibly.
3) There should be a Fire Arms Black List. If you have committed a crime, are on a no fly list or have had any record of irresponsible behavior involving a gun you should be banned from having one. Failure to check this list before selling a gun to someone should be a crime, and cause your name to be included on said list. Maybe there is some sort of half life, waiting period.
4) There should be a statute of limitations where all gun sellers are held partially responsible for the acts that are carried out with weapons they sold. We as gun owners and sellers should be more vigilant about where these things are going. There should be a consequence for not preforming the proper due diligence. Failure to do so should result in not being able to legally sell weapons.
I don't think any of those proposed regulations would impose on what I feel are my or fellow citizens rights to have firearms. What they do is create a system where we collectively make ourselves safer. They do not single out specific weapons or people but rather the actions that are the problem.
Why is it that whenever a person shoots up a place we want a ban on guns and manufacturers, usually assault looking weapons (which are not really assault weapons) but when a person is killed by a car there is no outrage about the cars or carmakers?
32,000 people die from guns every year.
50,000 people die from cars each year.
These numbers include all deaths from accidental, suicide, purposeful intent, etc.
For some reason we want our 85 year old parents to keep their car keys (cuz if they didn't have them we would have to drive them to get their meds), drunks to remain out of prison and driving around, druggies to roam freely in steel killing cages on wheels, all while making it easier and easier to get a drivers license for anybody and everybody as if it were a "right" but place tighter and tighter controls on those people who want to legally own a gun in accordance with our constitution.
1 and 2 are debatable from a legal standpoint regarding mandatory minimums....not gonna touch those...3 is already the case with the exception of gun show loopholes which were recently closed (I think). 4 is unconstitutional from what I understand unless the seller bypasses the mandatory checks.
The logical fallacies are stronger than ever today!
I heard an idiot talk show host the other day say that every time a major shooting happens, the crazy right wing gun nuts start screaming that Obama is going to take their guns away. So the day after a major shooting occurs, sales spike for guns. While this is true, it isn't because right wing gun nuts run out buying more guns because Obama is going to take them away. What is happening is that many common sense people realize just how vulnerable they are because of the policies of this administration. Something strikes a chord and they say, "I am not safe and nobody is looking out for me" Not only are the policies making you more unsafe, these people realize that the police are not there to protect them. The role of police is to mop up afterwards, after the damage is done.
Trust me, most right wing people already have their guns. Middle of the road people and scared left of center types are probably buying more than the righties these days.
Prescription drugs are to blame too.
Gun ownership culture is to blame Jla-x.
2nd amendment fucktards just don't want to grow-up and see it.
because of the policies of this administration.
What policies, exactly, are you referring to?
So if your right to own a firearm is rescinded if you are mistakenly put on the "no fly" list and you have to live in a sketchy area like a Chicago suburb and need a firearm to protect your family, too bad?
Sure, jla-x some of those ideas are debatable. but it's the proper debate to be having. Not the ban this gun or this people, but common sense regulation that we can agree will help make us safer. Sure we might have to sacrifice the ease with which we are able to exercise our rights but that doesn't mean giving them up entirely. but now i know i will hear the its' a slippery slope straw men come out to play.
Non, I respect your opinion about "gun culture" when synonymous with "violent culture" but have to disagree from a practical real world standpoint. It is patronizing when the upper class / upper middle class left tells poor and working class people from the comfort of their ideal safe enclaves that they cannot defend them selves from the real threat of violence that plague their communities (mainly perpetrated by people with illegal guns.)
Volunteer, That type of identity issue happens all the time for all kinds of other things. drivers licenses, credit reports, ect. we can put systems in place that allow for an appeal process or feedback loop of some kind.
Jla-x... a fine point you make and far more worthy of conversation that nonsensical "let's ban cars because they cause more deaths" or protect from china ramblings above.
I've seen the what guns do and I have seen the people behind them. This breaks down to three very simple types of people. The sheep whom are unaware of the dangers outside of a herd like (Non). The wolves who are opportunistic and will a sheep if they travel away from the pack. Then there are sheep dogs (people like myself). Do you know why the sheep fear the dogs? It's because they have seen the teeth of the dog while fighting off the wolves.
As for myself, I have a handgun for home defense, a 12 gauge, and a bolt action .22 rifle for target shooting...hopefully I will never need to use it but better safe than sorry..to me a gun is a precaution like a fire extinguisher....the only time I carry is when I go hiking in remote places...mainly for mountain lion defense ....although not sure a 9mm would stop one from eating me...but better than nothing. I've actually been stalked by one in the past and I nearly died of a heart attack. Also, a few years back a man shot one that grabbed his 2 year old son by the neck....very rare, but it makes me feel better to have one when I'm by myself 50 miles from civilization...Being mauled by a 200 lb cat would really really suck.
JonathanLivingston:
Thanks for actually addressing my original points and providing concrete proposals instead of invective. My initial response to your points:
#1 - I'm fine with that. As a practical matter, this is already on the books in most jurisdictions. If you want to make it universal at the federal level, go for it. You have my support.
#2 - Negligence and reckless endangerment laws already do this. No additional legislation needed.
#3 - This proposal is also already on the books nearly everywhere. In fact, it's been implemented more broadly than you suggest: it applies to all persons with a felony conviction, violent gun crime related or not. Felons cannot legally buy or possess guns nearly everywhere in the USA right now.
#4 - No. This creates an impossible, unreasonable, one-sided, and unlimited liability, even if there is a statute of limitations. Car dealers and manufacturers aren't liable for what people do with the cars they sell, and neither should be gun dealers or manufacturers.
HEY GUYS THERE ARE CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE. I'M THE BEST ONE.
The government has shown no interest whatsoever to date about providing any information to people mistakenly put on the "no fly" list. Indeed, the government seems to view decorated combat veterans of the armed forces to be a bigger threat than the type of Islamic extremist that killed the 49 people in Orlando. The bodies were not cold before Obama was prattling on about how the shooter was a "homegrown" terrorist, trying to deflect from the shooter's extremist Muslim views and repeated trips to Saudi Arabia.
no need to provide counter arguments to pro-gun stances JRG. You've lost simply by claiming you own an AR early. You're part of the problem and you need to take your share of the blame every time someone opens fire in a crowd.
Don't think yourself so high-and-mighty, you're just another gun-totting imbecile desperately trying to hold on tight to an outdated and intellectually poor culture.
Gwharton,
#1 yes by all means we should make this federal.
on #4 the intent is to acknowledge that there is a need for two sided liability of some sort. Something greater than "I checked the list" that help balance the liability with the capitalist notion of wanting to sell as many of a product as possible. I realize the problem of unlimited liability which is why i would propose that rule has a time limit. So there is some liability for a limited amount of time. Let's say two years.
I'm open to other ideas it seems like we need to empower the good guys better rather than just acting reactively.
I'm going to make it very clear.
Senseless killing has been going on since the beginning of human civilization if not before hand. Gun ownership does not mean the gun owners has intent to kill or murder people. The people who do mass killings are a very small percentage of our population.
Getting rid of guns doesn't solve or stop mass killings and other like senseless killing. These kinds of killings are not dependent on guns to make it happen. Guns are only one of many kinds of tools that can be used to mass kill. It would be irresponsible to discuss those methods as some of those tools are horrorifying to an even larger magnitude if used in such a manner.
If you truly want to stop mass killings, we have two options. Everyone is confined in straight jackets in a padded room....... OR we actually study the issues, understand the issues and address the issues that are causing people to mass killing.
Yes, the mass killing issue is a psychological and sociological problem. Why are people choosing to kill and harm other people? That's the question we need to understand.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.