the dog scenario and tom tomorrow both funny and on point..
just a reminder for those of you that think guns are the only thing available to a whack job for civilian massacre and for those of you who think a carrying civilian could stop the weapon of choice by said whack jobs.
no_form: You seem to be missing the point. The point was not to compare dogs to guns. The point was to compare a stupid and uniformed argument about dogs to the current stupid and uninformed argument about guns. It's the argument being compared, not the subject.
You say "guns need more regulation." Which guns? Why? What sort of regulation, specifically? For what purpose? How specifically are the proposed rules going to effect that purpose?
Generally, gun control advocates don't address any of those questions coherently, or do so in a way that is blatantly outrageous in the context of American legal tradition. As an example, your hyperbole about using a guided missile for trap shooting. I'm sure you thought you were being funny, but it's just dumb. You can't own a MIM104 under current law and nobody is suggesting that you should.
In practice, gun control arguments are really proxies for two other things:
1) signalling political allegiance, and,
2) an acceptable way to express uncertainty about urban violence, which tends to be overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who we are not allowed to criticize under the regnant orthodoxy.
The first of those is just squid ink, and by far the most common. You see it everywhere on social and conventional media. It's basic effect is nothing more than throwing gang signs or singing college fight songs.
The second is less common but strikes closer to real issues. You see it most commonly when urban hipsters start talking about insane christian rednecks with arsenals. Those rednecks generally aren't a threat to anybody except local wildlife and road signs, but they get singled out because they are one of the few remaining unprotected groups it is socially acceptable to scorn in public. And they happen to like guns a lot. While guns in the hands of urban gang-bangers are scary as hell, we can't really talk about that without fear of somebody calling us racist. So we denigrate rural white people instead and channel all our fear into paranoia about their bizarre rural lifestyle and culture.
Those rural white people grow up with guns as completely ordinary tools and sources of entertainment. They're no more dangerous than a pair of skis or a motorcycle. And they also potentially come in handy if you find yourself in a dangerous situation and help is a LONG way away, which it usually is once you get outside city limits. They take your scorn and return it with interest: effete urban pantywaists who have never fired a gun in their lives getting the vapors and taking to their fainting couches because they think guns are scary and are too stupid to move away from ghettos or other crime-infested places.
None of that is particularly productive, because everybody is talking sideways.
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, real communication becomes impossible and there is no chance of resolution.
There are 300 million firearms in private ownership in the United States, a number that is increasing daily. Nearly one for every person. They are not distributed evenly, but there are lots of them out there. Even in your urban enclaves, most of your neighbors are probably armed, even if you don't know it. Yet, despite some alarming incidents splashed all over the news, we somehow have managed not to slaughter each other wholesale so far. My quiet urban neighborhood is chock full of gun owners, even right here in ultra-liberal Seattle. I know this because we go shooting together sometimes. By a miracle of fate, we have not yet killed each other or shot up any local elementary schools or gay bars.
If you insist on taking ignorant rhetoric and putting it into law, particularly if that law means a gross violation of the Second Amendment and blanket gun bans with confiscations, you will change that. It will prompt a civil war. Don't doubt that. It will happen.
So, when you are spouting your rhetoric about ending violence through confiscating America's guns, do keep in mind that such a course of action would have a far higher body count than anything like current murder rates in Chicago or mass shooting tolls.
But maybe you're just spoiling for a fight with your hated political enemies and don't care. If that's the case, do keep in mind also that most of them are armed to the teeth and know how to fight back. And if you think the US military, whose fighting ranks are mostly composed of those same rednecks you loathe so much, is going to do your dirty work for you while you sit in your downtown condo congratulating yourself on Facebook with rainbow avatars, you may be in for a rude surprise.
However, there are:leash laws for dogs. People are still killed by dogs, but not as many because that is a rational and common sense law.
To not enact legislation to keep individuals on the no fly list from purchasing firearms is like saying there should not be a no fly list because if someone really wanted to, they could get on an airplane anyway.
"Those rural white people grow up with guns as completely ordinary tools and sources of entertainment. They're no more dangerous than a pair of skis or a motorcycle."
Not one part of this quote would indicate any level of intelligence. Your gun obssesive religion is dumb and your "arguments" to defend it are equally so. But I guess such backwardness is not new. I could see plenty of slave owners having the same position.
Your 2nd ammendment is incredibly stupid and needs immediate reform.
I don't believe old people should have driver licenses, so a whack job buying hairspray and lighter is enough for me to tip off the FBI. Now how does one become a whack job?
one time at 4am, my buddy and I bought 2 dozen eggs, toilet paper, and shaving cream.
We were drunk. I wouldn't of blamed the clerk if she had called the cops.
Some guy becomes a whack job (without drugs and alcohol that's what really bugs me about these religious people, they are crazy sober), makes an FBI list, gets taken off the list, buys a loophole type of gun and our lovely government, whose IT technology is so 1980's can't Legally make the data connection, can't tell the clerk on the other side - whack job buying gun.
ahhh the price of Freedom.
My drunk buddy and I had every right to go TP and egg peoples houses at 4am in the morning, no?
I know many rural people use them as tools to keep deer populations down or shoot speed limit signs.
But I also think if I can have a scaled down combat rifle I should also get to use missiles and rocket launchers. It's my right to bear arms correct? Those are arms. Are you going to tell me I can't have them? Do you want a civil war over that?
It's an absurd argument. Guns need more regulation. What that entails I'll have to research. But given the frequency of mass killings that happen in America it's clear whatever the laws are now they are NOT working.
Jun 14, 16 9:30 pm ·
·
Anyone defending gun ownership has already lost credibility and Balkarino, we already know how ignorant your views on guns are... ignorant even for you.
Your 2nd amendement and your religious attachement to it, is pathetic.
Human beings do not evolve. They are the same wild predators they were since 2 MILLION YEARS AGO.
Humans do not have the genetic capability to ever evolve to the extent that bearing weapons will never be needed. The idea that police or military can be there to save the fucking day like Superman in the comics is pure fucking fantasy.
When an armed thief is in your home, what do you have to defend against that thief with a gun. A baseball bat? Good fucking luck trying to stop a bullet coming at you at 5000 feet per second? Hell, even 1000 ft. per second which is about mach 1. Average bullets are a bit faster than that. A typical hunting rifle bullet comes out a barrel (barrel velocity) at a speed that can potentially exceed even the top speed of an SR-71 Blackbird.
You don't move at hypersonic speed to reliably stop bullets with a baseball bat.
People who do crimes wants to do their crimes with the least resistance and if they know you don't have a gun, they are going to choose to steal from you at gun point. People who do mass shootings chooses places where they can succeed in killing the most people with ease. They use guns or any other tool that gives them an OVERWHELMING advantage. Places like schools and other places where people customarily do not have guns are easy targets and that is what these people choose. They choose easy targets more often than any other target.
In the old wild west frontier, this kind of stuff did not happen so much. The reason is, they couldn't pull it off without being shot up to death. Massacres like that which occured last Sunday happens when an asshole hell bent on killing a bunch of people has overwhelming advantage to carry out their killing without any opposition. The only way to mitigate the loss of lives when someone chooses to kill a bunch of people is for people to be armed and ready to kill such mother fuckers like that before they get kill a lot of people. Police response time is ALWAYS too slow. A person can mass kill 50+ people in 30 seconds. If you want to stop the assholes, you need to stop them in the first 5 seconds. The only way to effectively do that is to take head shot on a shooter like that the moment they pull out their gun and take them down. Head shots between the eyes on a human is quick, effective and is nearly impossible to protect with bullet-resistant body armor or helmet. Chest shots can be worthless because they wear a bullet resistant vest. Helmets usually only protects certain parts of the head not the face between the eyes. You don't play games trying to wound and disarm the person. It isn't worth the time. If it can stop an elk and drop them right then and there, it'll stop a human being no matter what drugs or alcohol they have in their body. It's lights out, now not 5 minutes later.
Police response is a big circle jerk because they are trying to arrest the shit head. Fuck trying to arrest people like that.
Yes, in an ideal utopian fantasy world, we humans will never need guns or any other weapon. We would all live happily ever after like a fairy tale. I don't believe that is even scientifically possible of human beings. Human beings are biologically incapable of such utopian living. What is utopian for one person is hell to another because you'll always find people who don't want to live the same way as others. We have diversity of values and beliefs. The very fact this discussion exhibits the emotions that we all have, it is very clear that we can't have a universal utopia.
This is why conflicts happens. This is why we have terrorists. This is why we have these issues. We have people, each with their own beliefs, values, desires, goals, ambitions, emotions, etc. Terrorism is just an extreme consequence of human nature of being individuals combined with marginalization, prejudice, and factions pushing against other factions because they disagree and then counter-push. It's a feedback system.
I would pray that you never ever have some mad person endanger you or your family by gun point and you have nothing to defend you and your family. That's my concern for not having the tools to protect and defend yourself and your family.
Often the police can not help you in the first five minutes. There is just not enough of them to respond in time. Unless you live right next to the police station, it is very unlikely they'll respond within 5 minutes. That first 1 to 2 minutes can be crucial and those minutes, you are on your own. No one to come to save the day.
If it is possible to address all our problems before weapons are ever used or applied, the world would be a wonderful place but sadly, the world is a very wild place.
Well said Gwarton, I am prior military, own firearms including an ar-15. Living in Florida, knowledge of guns is the same as learning to fish. I was taught with a BB gun at a young age, then gradually advanced to hunting for a resource and NOT sport. Entering the military gave me further knowledge into the systems and purpose of each type of firearm. If a person says I have an ar-15 for protection they are fools. If they say I have a 9mm protection I can agree.
So that we clearify the difference between what is sold to civilians and what the military uses is simple. The M4 weapon system has three settings on the safety. Semi-auto, three round burst and full auto. The civilian AR only has semi unless the person has special dealer license in which they may own or sell to someone with the same or higher. The civilians who own the license are vetted more than any military personal unless they are working with top secret documents.
Taking away firearms will not fix the issues of gun control but make it worse. However, I personally feel stricter laws, such as deeper vetting, expensive class/course time for every first time purchase and maybe a 3-5 year vetting for gun owners.
As prior military, I equally respect the arguments on both sides. I took an oath to protect our freedoms and rights of every American
Jun 14, 16 9:47 pm ·
·
no_form,
In my opinion, you have a right but you also have a responsibility to assure innocent people are not harmed or killed. You can safeguard what you need to protect yourself and your family as needed but you need to store and secure properly when not in use.
Right to bear arms is not a right to murder. A right to protect life, liberty and property is a fundamental human right. However, we can define performance standards or codes of safe storage and securing of arms which you must follow.
We can also mandate continuing education on safe use of weapons as appropriate including standards of appropriate response. For example, you don't respond to a gunman by detonating a thermonuclear warhead and wiping out a whole big area of a city of town including yourself. Appropriate scale of defensive response can be taught and be required education and continuing education.
Jun 14, 16 9:49 pm ·
·
Well said Gwarton, I am prior military, own firearms including an ar-15. Living in Florida, knowledge of guns is the same as learning to fish. I was taught with a BB gun at a young age, then gradually advanced to hunting for a resource and NOT sport. Entering the military gave me further knowledge into the systems and purpose of each type of firearm. If a person says I have an ar-15 for protection they are fools. If they say I have a 9mm protection I can agree. So that we clearify the difference between what is sold to civilians and what the military uses is simple. The M4 weapon system has three settings on the safety. Semi-auto, three round burst and full auto. The civilian AR only has semi unless the person has special dealer license in which they may own or sell to someone with the same or higher. The civilians who own the license are vetted more than any military personal unless they are working with top secret documents. Taking away firearms will not fix the issues of gun control but make it worse. However, I personally feel stricter laws, such as deeper vetting, expensive class/course time for every first time purchase and maybe a 3-5 year vetting for gun owners. As prior military, I equally respect the arguments on both sides. I took an oath to protect our freedoms and rights of every American
However, civilian assault rifles can often be easily modified into full auto. This is not an endorsement of such modifications. I'm just saying what is already known knowledge. How easy depends a lot on the particular gun.
AR-15 civilian version has typically two settings vs the three settings. They are single shot and semi-auto (short burst).
An AR-15 can be used for defense purposes as any other gun.
Long barrel shotguns- hunting/sport shooting
Short barrel shot guns-home protection
Long rifle(sniper rifles)- hunting /sport shooting.
Carbine rifles - including the M1 grand sport/pleasure shooting.
Hand guns- personal protection away from home and sport shooting.
Just a break down of what each system is primarily used for in responsible hands.
The AR I own has one setting semi-auto. I have never seen a single fire AR because the system works off the gases along with a buffer spring that pushes the bolt and forces the next round into the start chamber. Modification can be made if the knowledge is there. It goes for shotguns and hand guns as well. If someone makes the mod they have criminal intent.
Oh, and gwharton, you blew away that straw man with your stupid fucking rottweiler dialogue like ya'll was firing on full auto. My hero, so big and strong.
Balkins, your ignorance knows no limits. Fuck your 2nd and you're a waste space if you try and defend it. Double that if you're like that idiot who proudly claims to own an ar15. You're part of the problem.
Your arguments is like saying cars kill people and not the drunk behind the wheel. Where is the logic in the argument? Because I don not recall artificial intelligence being implanted in to guns or being a carbon based life form?
this thread is a microcosm of US politics and society. I'm pretty sure the left and the right have their heads up their asses on this event.
meanwhile we just let Rick ramble on. Rick, if there were common sense thread laws, you wouldn't be allowed to post, unless of course you were a non-white non-christian person....
I agree with making it more difficult in owning a firearm. I believe a higher tax on purchase, deeper vetting, re-vetting annually or every few years by purchasing a licenses much like a fishing or hunting or a tag on car. Limit mag sizes. I can agree with such laws. I know I may offend some on here but but AR should only be sold to prior military/law enforcement by proof of a DD-214 or civilian equivalent.
Rick if someone was to use an AR in their home. They have a higher risk of a round passing through a wall and hitting someone one the other side such as a spouse, or your own child. If you don't have tactical experience kicking in doors and sweeping rooms such as my self your weapon will be taken as soon as you enter a room.
Yes, however think architectural, on interior walls what is there to stop a high powered round from passing through Sheetrock besides a stud? Not much?
It tumbles once it enters an object or person. The round is deadly. I has been known for someone to be shot in the thigh and move to other areas of the body.
That is what I thought. I appreciate that you seem reasonable about gun laws, but no civilian should be able to have a gun which fires that deadly a round for its standard ammunition period.
Jun 14, 16 11:21 pm ·
·
z1111,
There are law regarding guns and other arms. Cars are not constitutionally protected beyond 5th & 14th amendments protection of property. Improper use of guns can still get you fines or even prison time. Menacing people with a gun or other weapons is against the law.
The problem is criminals don't care about the laws. That is why they are called criminals. We have serious societal problems but it isn't guns.
Society needs to diffuse the situation behind people going out and doing mass killing.
Jun 14, 16 11:28 pm ·
·
z1111,
It doesn't work that way. AR-15 fires a bullet that is typically around the same caliber as a rifle used for deer hunting.
The problem is not the individual bullet and its impact but the impact of a large volume of bullets. These guns, especially the full auto machine guns, are sprayers. They aren't very accurate. They just send out a bunch of lead in hope of hitting something.
But a hunting rifle is more calibrated and in the hands of a skilled hunter will shoot and take down an elk with a single bullet. If head shot is used, it's lights out, now. It depends on whether or not you give a shit about the antlers/skull or not. Head shots tends to preserve more of the meat that you eat of the animals in hunting instead of damaging the meat.
The 7.62 is worse by far. That is what an AK-47 fires. Enter small but blows out the other side nasty. ARs are cheap to buy compared to the exotic AK. Hints why the media views the AR as a dangerous gun. When really SMG such as the MP5 are sold much smaller in size compared to and AR.They are smaller and shoot .45 cal round which can be made as a hollow point compared to the ball point of a.556 and 7.62.
To get back on the original topic, more exits and less enterence to public establishment such as bars. I would suggest safe a room for schools that are opened and once shut only law enforcement can open the doors.
A vestibule connected to a metal detector that locks down. I guess we are just going to have to accept that in assembly spaces things are going to be different.
Jun 15, 16 12:47 am ·
·
z1111,
You'll need something more substantial than ordinary CMU. You'll need ballistic concrete barrier. First, a layer of ballistic concrete over a Roman Concrete back wall. There is a resilience factor to it. Regular CMUs even filled are good for small rounds. Part of the design needs to handle even high caliber rounds including 50 caliber rounds and ordinary CMUs will not stop a 50 caliber round from BMG. Resilience up to 20mm and 30mm rounds are critical design performance standard including blasts from a truck containing explosive like ANFO.
This means exterior walls will have to be hell stout. It would be like a flour mill on steroids.
I would be perfectly happy banning AR-15s if I thought it would actually help the problem...all it will do is create an underground market and criminal network which will only exacerbate the problem. Just my opinion. I can't imagine a scenario where a black market wouldn't develop to fill the demand...
Jun 15, 16 12:53 am ·
·
I would probably have maybe 1-ft. thick ballistic concrete on both sides of a 3-ft. thick REINFORCED ROMAN CONCRETE - BALLISTIC WALLS. Some deeper interior walls maybe reinforced CMUs with 6" to 8" thick ballistic concrete wall panels.
I would agree with the vestibule but designed so that there is not a straight line. Kind of like a zig zag so that anyone trying to shoot from say a street could not get line of sight shooting through the doors unless they use very VERY heavy military grade fire power like that on the Spooky.
Jun 15, 16 12:57 am ·
·
Remember the Prohibition with alcohol?
An underground occured. If one wants to expedite a bloody Revolution that will end up getting everyone in the U.S. Capitol massacred.... piss off the nation and plunge us into a bloody war inside the country and basically the destruction of the U.S.
Without reading all the back and forth for 98 comments, could the OP change this to "Designing buildings to protect the public from mass terrorist attacks." You know, because that's what happened. Thanks!
No one wants to take away the guns from you less thans.
We want weapons designed for the military, specifically designed for the military, to be classified the same way machine guns are, that they are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
You can't buy an automatic weapon, and we live fine with that restriction.
Designing buildings to protect the public from mass shootings
http://thismodernworld.com/archives/7617
^beautiful
tom tomorrow is great.
the dog scenario and tom tomorrow both funny and on point..
just a reminder for those of you that think guns are the only thing available to a whack job for civilian massacre and for those of you who think a carrying civilian could stop the weapon of choice by said whack jobs.
9/11 - Airplanes.
Oklahoma City Bombing - Fertilizer Truck Bomb
Jonestown Masssacre - Revolutionary Suicide
......
no_form: You seem to be missing the point. The point was not to compare dogs to guns. The point was to compare a stupid and uniformed argument about dogs to the current stupid and uninformed argument about guns. It's the argument being compared, not the subject.
You say "guns need more regulation." Which guns? Why? What sort of regulation, specifically? For what purpose? How specifically are the proposed rules going to effect that purpose?
Generally, gun control advocates don't address any of those questions coherently, or do so in a way that is blatantly outrageous in the context of American legal tradition. As an example, your hyperbole about using a guided missile for trap shooting. I'm sure you thought you were being funny, but it's just dumb. You can't own a MIM104 under current law and nobody is suggesting that you should.
In practice, gun control arguments are really proxies for two other things:
1) signalling political allegiance, and,
2) an acceptable way to express uncertainty about urban violence, which tends to be overwhelmingly perpetrated by people who we are not allowed to criticize under the regnant orthodoxy.
The first of those is just squid ink, and by far the most common. You see it everywhere on social and conventional media. It's basic effect is nothing more than throwing gang signs or singing college fight songs.
The second is less common but strikes closer to real issues. You see it most commonly when urban hipsters start talking about insane christian rednecks with arsenals. Those rednecks generally aren't a threat to anybody except local wildlife and road signs, but they get singled out because they are one of the few remaining unprotected groups it is socially acceptable to scorn in public. And they happen to like guns a lot. While guns in the hands of urban gang-bangers are scary as hell, we can't really talk about that without fear of somebody calling us racist. So we denigrate rural white people instead and channel all our fear into paranoia about their bizarre rural lifestyle and culture.
Those rural white people grow up with guns as completely ordinary tools and sources of entertainment. They're no more dangerous than a pair of skis or a motorcycle. And they also potentially come in handy if you find yourself in a dangerous situation and help is a LONG way away, which it usually is once you get outside city limits. They take your scorn and return it with interest: effete urban pantywaists who have never fired a gun in their lives getting the vapors and taking to their fainting couches because they think guns are scary and are too stupid to move away from ghettos or other crime-infested places.
None of that is particularly productive, because everybody is talking sideways.
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, real communication becomes impossible and there is no chance of resolution.
There are 300 million firearms in private ownership in the United States, a number that is increasing daily. Nearly one for every person. They are not distributed evenly, but there are lots of them out there. Even in your urban enclaves, most of your neighbors are probably armed, even if you don't know it. Yet, despite some alarming incidents splashed all over the news, we somehow have managed not to slaughter each other wholesale so far. My quiet urban neighborhood is chock full of gun owners, even right here in ultra-liberal Seattle. I know this because we go shooting together sometimes. By a miracle of fate, we have not yet killed each other or shot up any local elementary schools or gay bars.
If you insist on taking ignorant rhetoric and putting it into law, particularly if that law means a gross violation of the Second Amendment and blanket gun bans with confiscations, you will change that. It will prompt a civil war. Don't doubt that. It will happen.
So, when you are spouting your rhetoric about ending violence through confiscating America's guns, do keep in mind that such a course of action would have a far higher body count than anything like current murder rates in Chicago or mass shooting tolls.
But maybe you're just spoiling for a fight with your hated political enemies and don't care. If that's the case, do keep in mind also that most of them are armed to the teeth and know how to fight back. And if you think the US military, whose fighting ranks are mostly composed of those same rednecks you loathe so much, is going to do your dirty work for you while you sit in your downtown condo congratulating yourself on Facebook with rainbow avatars, you may be in for a rude surprise.
True enough Olaf.
However, there are:leash laws for dogs. People are still killed by dogs, but not as many because that is a rational and common sense law.
To not enact legislation to keep individuals on the no fly list from purchasing firearms is like saying there should not be a no fly list because if someone really wanted to, they could get on an airplane anyway.
"Those rural white people grow up with guns as completely ordinary tools and sources of entertainment. They're no more dangerous than a pair of skis or a motorcycle."
Not one part of this quote would indicate any level of intelligence. Your gun obssesive religion is dumb and your "arguments" to defend it are equally so. But I guess such backwardness is not new. I could see plenty of slave owners having the same position.
Your 2nd ammendment is incredibly stupid and needs immediate reform.
Trying to be the next balkins gwharton?
^ he's doing a fine job.
Gruen, they must buy them in bulk at costco. I think they display them in the same aisle as the ammo, shitty beer, GEDs, and bibles.
Alright, enough of this for a night. I have some good beers to consume.
damn you NS you should share.
I don't believe old people should have driver licenses, so a whack job buying hairspray and lighter is enough for me to tip off the FBI. Now how does one become a whack job?
one time at 4am, my buddy and I bought 2 dozen eggs, toilet paper, and shaving cream.
We were drunk. I wouldn't of blamed the clerk if she had called the cops.
Some guy becomes a whack job (without drugs and alcohol that's what really bugs me about these religious people, they are crazy sober), makes an FBI list, gets taken off the list, buys a loophole type of gun and our lovely government, whose IT technology is so 1980's can't Legally make the data connection, can't tell the clerk on the other side - whack job buying gun.
ahhh the price of Freedom.
My drunk buddy and I had every right to go TP and egg peoples houses at 4am in the morning, no?
But I also think if I can have a scaled down combat rifle I should also get to use missiles and rocket launchers. It's my right to bear arms correct? Those are arms. Are you going to tell me I can't have them? Do you want a civil war over that?
It's an absurd argument. Guns need more regulation. What that entails I'll have to research. But given the frequency of mass killings that happen in America it's clear whatever the laws are now they are NOT working.
Anyone defending gun ownership has already lost credibility and Balkarino, we already know how ignorant your views on guns are... ignorant even for you.
Your 2nd amendement and your religious attachement to it, is pathetic.
Human beings do not evolve. They are the same wild predators they were since 2 MILLION YEARS AGO.
Humans do not have the genetic capability to ever evolve to the extent that bearing weapons will never be needed. The idea that police or military can be there to save the fucking day like Superman in the comics is pure fucking fantasy.
When an armed thief is in your home, what do you have to defend against that thief with a gun. A baseball bat? Good fucking luck trying to stop a bullet coming at you at 5000 feet per second? Hell, even 1000 ft. per second which is about mach 1. Average bullets are a bit faster than that. A typical hunting rifle bullet comes out a barrel (barrel velocity) at a speed that can potentially exceed even the top speed of an SR-71 Blackbird.
You don't move at hypersonic speed to reliably stop bullets with a baseball bat.
People who do crimes wants to do their crimes with the least resistance and if they know you don't have a gun, they are going to choose to steal from you at gun point. People who do mass shootings chooses places where they can succeed in killing the most people with ease. They use guns or any other tool that gives them an OVERWHELMING advantage. Places like schools and other places where people customarily do not have guns are easy targets and that is what these people choose. They choose easy targets more often than any other target.
In the old wild west frontier, this kind of stuff did not happen so much. The reason is, they couldn't pull it off without being shot up to death. Massacres like that which occured last Sunday happens when an asshole hell bent on killing a bunch of people has overwhelming advantage to carry out their killing without any opposition. The only way to mitigate the loss of lives when someone chooses to kill a bunch of people is for people to be armed and ready to kill such mother fuckers like that before they get kill a lot of people. Police response time is ALWAYS too slow. A person can mass kill 50+ people in 30 seconds. If you want to stop the assholes, you need to stop them in the first 5 seconds. The only way to effectively do that is to take head shot on a shooter like that the moment they pull out their gun and take them down. Head shots between the eyes on a human is quick, effective and is nearly impossible to protect with bullet-resistant body armor or helmet. Chest shots can be worthless because they wear a bullet resistant vest. Helmets usually only protects certain parts of the head not the face between the eyes. You don't play games trying to wound and disarm the person. It isn't worth the time. If it can stop an elk and drop them right then and there, it'll stop a human being no matter what drugs or alcohol they have in their body. It's lights out, now not 5 minutes later.
Police response is a big circle jerk because they are trying to arrest the shit head. Fuck trying to arrest people like that.
Yes, in an ideal utopian fantasy world, we humans will never need guns or any other weapon. We would all live happily ever after like a fairy tale. I don't believe that is even scientifically possible of human beings. Human beings are biologically incapable of such utopian living. What is utopian for one person is hell to another because you'll always find people who don't want to live the same way as others. We have diversity of values and beliefs. The very fact this discussion exhibits the emotions that we all have, it is very clear that we can't have a universal utopia.
This is why conflicts happens. This is why we have terrorists. This is why we have these issues. We have people, each with their own beliefs, values, desires, goals, ambitions, emotions, etc. Terrorism is just an extreme consequence of human nature of being individuals combined with marginalization, prejudice, and factions pushing against other factions because they disagree and then counter-push. It's a feedback system.
I would pray that you never ever have some mad person endanger you or your family by gun point and you have nothing to defend you and your family. That's my concern for not having the tools to protect and defend yourself and your family.
Often the police can not help you in the first five minutes. There is just not enough of them to respond in time. Unless you live right next to the police station, it is very unlikely they'll respond within 5 minutes. That first 1 to 2 minutes can be crucial and those minutes, you are on your own. No one to come to save the day.
If it is possible to address all our problems before weapons are ever used or applied, the world would be a wonderful place but sadly, the world is a very wild place.
Welcome to the jungle.
So that we clearify the difference between what is sold to civilians and what the military uses is simple. The M4 weapon system has three settings on the safety. Semi-auto, three round burst and full auto. The civilian AR only has semi unless the person has special dealer license in which they may own or sell to someone with the same or higher. The civilians who own the license are vetted more than any military personal unless they are working with top secret documents.
Taking away firearms will not fix the issues of gun control but make it worse. However, I personally feel stricter laws, such as deeper vetting, expensive class/course time for every first time purchase and maybe a 3-5 year vetting for gun owners.
As prior military, I equally respect the arguments on both sides. I took an oath to protect our freedoms and rights of every American
no_form,
In my opinion, you have a right but you also have a responsibility to assure innocent people are not harmed or killed. You can safeguard what you need to protect yourself and your family as needed but you need to store and secure properly when not in use.
Right to bear arms is not a right to murder. A right to protect life, liberty and property is a fundamental human right. However, we can define performance standards or codes of safe storage and securing of arms which you must follow.
We can also mandate continuing education on safe use of weapons as appropriate including standards of appropriate response. For example, you don't respond to a gunman by detonating a thermonuclear warhead and wiping out a whole big area of a city of town including yourself. Appropriate scale of defensive response can be taught and be required education and continuing education.
Well said Gwarton, I am prior military, own firearms including an ar-15. Living in Florida, knowledge of guns is the same as learning to fish. I was taught with a BB gun at a young age, then gradually advanced to hunting for a resource and NOT sport. Entering the military gave me further knowledge into the systems and purpose of each type of firearm. If a person says I have an ar-15 for protection they are fools. If they say I have a 9mm protection I can agree.
So that we clearify the difference between what is sold to civilians and what the military uses is simple. The M4 weapon system has three settings on the safety. Semi-auto, three round burst and full auto. The civilian AR only has semi unless the person has special dealer license in which they may own or sell to someone with the same or higher. The civilians who own the license are vetted more than any military personal unless they are working with top secret documents.
Taking away firearms will not fix the issues of gun control but make it worse. However, I personally feel stricter laws, such as deeper vetting, expensive class/course time for every first time purchase and maybe a 3-5 year vetting for gun owners.
As prior military, I equally respect the arguments on both sides. I took an oath to protect our freedoms and rights of every American
However, civilian assault rifles can often be easily modified into full auto. This is not an endorsement of such modifications. I'm just saying what is already known knowledge. How easy depends a lot on the particular gun.
AR-15 civilian version has typically two settings vs the three settings. They are single shot and semi-auto (short burst).
An AR-15 can be used for defense purposes as any other gun.
Short barrel shot guns-home protection
Long rifle(sniper rifles)- hunting /sport shooting.
Carbine rifles - including the M1 grand sport/pleasure shooting.
Hand guns- personal protection away from home and sport shooting.
Just a break down of what each system is primarily used for in responsible hands.
The U.S. averages three gun deaths an hour.
Nothing to see here, just the price of livin' free.
Oh, and gwharton, you blew away that straw man with your stupid fucking rottweiler dialogue like ya'll was firing on full auto. My hero, so big and strong.
There are laws against drunk driving. Why can't there be common sense gun laws?
this thread is a microcosm of US politics and society. I'm pretty sure the left and the right have their heads up their asses on this event.
meanwhile we just let Rick ramble on. Rick, if there were common sense thread laws, you wouldn't be allowed to post, unless of course you were a non-white non-christian person....
left,right, left, right....
Isn't it a .223 tumble fire?
That is what I thought. I appreciate that you seem reasonable about gun laws, but no civilian should be able to have a gun which fires that deadly a round for its standard ammunition period.
z1111,
There are law regarding guns and other arms. Cars are not constitutionally protected beyond 5th & 14th amendments protection of property. Improper use of guns can still get you fines or even prison time. Menacing people with a gun or other weapons is against the law.
The problem is criminals don't care about the laws. That is why they are called criminals. We have serious societal problems but it isn't guns.
Society needs to diffuse the situation behind people going out and doing mass killing.
z1111,
It doesn't work that way. AR-15 fires a bullet that is typically around the same caliber as a rifle used for deer hunting.
The problem is not the individual bullet and its impact but the impact of a large volume of bullets. These guns, especially the full auto machine guns, are sprayers. They aren't very accurate. They just send out a bunch of lead in hope of hitting something.
But a hunting rifle is more calibrated and in the hands of a skilled hunter will shoot and take down an elk with a single bullet. If head shot is used, it's lights out, now. It depends on whether or not you give a shit about the antlers/skull or not. Head shots tends to preserve more of the meat that you eat of the animals in hunting instead of damaging the meat.
Those are good suggestions. I would add metal detectors, bullet proof glass, CMU construction.
A vestibule connected to a metal detector that locks down. I guess we are just going to have to accept that in assembly spaces things are going to be different.
z1111,
You'll need something more substantial than ordinary CMU. You'll need ballistic concrete barrier. First, a layer of ballistic concrete over a Roman Concrete back wall. There is a resilience factor to it. Regular CMUs even filled are good for small rounds. Part of the design needs to handle even high caliber rounds including 50 caliber rounds and ordinary CMUs will not stop a 50 caliber round from BMG. Resilience up to 20mm and 30mm rounds are critical design performance standard including blasts from a truck containing explosive like ANFO.
This means exterior walls will have to be hell stout. It would be like a flour mill on steroids.
I would be perfectly happy banning AR-15s if I thought it would actually help the problem...all it will do is create an underground market and criminal network which will only exacerbate the problem. Just my opinion. I can't imagine a scenario where a black market wouldn't develop to fill the demand...
I would probably have maybe 1-ft. thick ballistic concrete on both sides of a 3-ft. thick REINFORCED ROMAN CONCRETE - BALLISTIC WALLS. Some deeper interior walls maybe reinforced CMUs with 6" to 8" thick ballistic concrete wall panels.
I would agree with the vestibule but designed so that there is not a straight line. Kind of like a zig zag so that anyone trying to shoot from say a street could not get line of sight shooting through the doors unless they use very VERY heavy military grade fire power like that on the Spooky.
Remember the Prohibition with alcohol?
An underground occured. If one wants to expedite a bloody Revolution that will end up getting everyone in the U.S. Capitol massacred.... piss off the nation and plunge us into a bloody war inside the country and basically the destruction of the U.S.
Without reading all the back and forth for 98 comments, could the OP change this to "Designing buildings to protect the public from mass terrorist attacks." You know, because that's what happened. Thanks!
gwharton and Rikki Stupid. peas in a pod.
Cars, aren't inherently designed, to kill.
Your brains, designed to spew stupid.
Pair your brains with anything, you will kill.
Fucking idiots.
9/11 - Planes; now, we lock cockpits, take off shoes, expand no-fly lists.
Oklahoma - fertilizer; now ATF looks at large purchases of the stuff, and we have placed chemical tracers in the stuff.
Jonestown - mass suicide; now, if we can only get Rikki and gwharton to form their circle-jerking death cult, I'll chip in for the Kool-Aid.
A lot of rampant stupid here.
No one wants to take away the guns from you less thans.
We want weapons designed for the military, specifically designed for the military, to be classified the same way machine guns are, that they are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
You can't buy an automatic weapon, and we live fine with that restriction.
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.