Gun Control Anyone?

[lektrode]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

He is a loon.

why - because he tells The Truth?

the lamestream media's agenda-driven product has been on FULL display since at least 2008 (and i'm sure plenty will tell you for a heluva lot longer than that)

what else would explain the outcome of the past few elections?

the current agenda, being broadcast by the liberal-loon-run news media is gun control
and the current occupant just yesterday confirmed it.

just like it was hellthcare in 2009, along with 'saving the economy' (read: banksters bonuses and backsides)
and 'saving the auto industry' (read: the unions) along with maintaining the status quo, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST.

but fixing the economy, creating REAL jobs, never mind a way 'forward' ?
next joke...
even funnier than 'change you can believe in'

hope yer ready for '4 more years' of same.

[BadJuju]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

There is nothing about what he said that suggests he is telling the truth. He is a conspiracy theorist. Did you read that article? He was proposing that the government performed a false flag operation in Newton. And that the shooter in Colorado was also involved with the government.

I can sympathize with you guys. I don't want for guns to be banned; however, a crazy is a crazy and that guy is as loony as Daffy Duck.

[LorenS]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

There is nothing about what he said that suggests he is telling the truth. He is a conspiracy theorist. Did you read that article? He was proposing that the government performed a false flag operation in Newton. And that the shooter in Colorado was also involved with the government.

I can sympathize with you guys. I don't want for guns to be banned; however, a crazy is a crazy and that guy is as loony as Daffy Duck.

Some folks take the confusion of the media a little too seriously. But I do remember reading about a "man in handcuffs" saying "I didn't do it".
It's pretty clear now that the "I didn't do it" came from the brother via Facebook.

I still stick to the "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence".

It's not like the Longmont cops really wanted a murder suicide on their hands.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/art...ng-4134543.php

Just because the guy kidnapped and beat his ex doesn't really make him a threat to society does it?

Longmont cops: "We're still trying to figure out how he got a gun".
Colorado citizens: "We're still trying to figure out why you let him go."

[vt]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

We Know How to Stop School Shootings December 20, 2012 By Ann Coulter Comments (13) 16 In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman’s mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation’s attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre. Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll. Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun. None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.) Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws. Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on. The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally. Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun. You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago. Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid. If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that’s because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season. It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.) In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.” This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject. The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped. If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn’t we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds? It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died. In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones’ methodology: – Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero. – Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.) – Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three. – Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two. – Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two. – Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One. By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls). All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed — and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study. If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

Fully automatic weapons are extremely inaccurate. As each round leaves the barrel it spins, creating air turbulence. The next round's trajectory is knocked off by that turbulence, while it is itself creating more turbulence for the round just behind it. The turbulence increases with each successive round. That's why it's called "spray and pray". Sighted fire with one round per trigger squeeze is much more accurate than full auto, not only because of the time taken to sight in, but for the lack of air turbulence.

Not trying to be pedantic, but that's not exactly true.

The problem with inaccuracy from fully automatic firing of a weapon lies largely with the management of recoil.

In a prone supported position, an individual firing a fully automatic weapon would have far better stability than in a standing unsupported position.

And it all comes down to stability of the "platform".

Support weapons such as man portable medium machine guns can achieve quite surprising levels of accuracy(IF that's the intent, rather than creating a beaten zone/cone of fire) over exceptionally long distances(well beyond a kilometer) due to high quality and consistent manufacturing of weapon systems and ammunition, as well as associated equipment to isolate the weapon system to enhance firing position stability and enhance performance.

There are stories of some support weapons(machine guns such as the Bren gun) that were rumoured to be TOO accurate and required less consistency to create a bigger beaten zone/cone of fire.

Turbulent air, wind, atmosphere typically don't come into play within 100m for small arms, but beyond it require training to adjust for it. Firing at 200m, 300m the adjustment for wind is relatively minor for many types of rifle ammunition. But beyond that adjusting for wind separates the men and women from the boys and girls.

With very few exceptions, infantry training today in professional armies consists of single, well aimed shot fire.

Many modern military rifles issued no longer include a fully automatic selection. Many are just safe and semi automatic. Some have a burst selector option where with one trigger pull the weapon will fire 2 or 3 rounds...which many believe to be of use when it comes to snap shooting, often called instinctive, reactive, or CQB shooting.

[lektrode]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

Some folks take the confusion of the media a little too seriously.

Longmont cops: "We're still trying to figure out how he got a gun".
Colorado citizens: "We're still trying to figure out why you let him go."

heh - right!
thats the real question in all this - other than why would a woman with a 'veritable arsenal' in her house allow her admitted mentally ill kid to have access to the guns when un-supervised????

THATS THE REAL QUESTION, not whether 'assault weapons' should be banned - which IMHO would - in no time flat - allow (the nanny state libs) congress to ban all guns just as soon as they could insert one 'random provision' after another into completely unrelated bills - at any time they feel like it, using guns as a 'bargaining chip' amongst themselves for one member or anothers boondoggles - and dont even try to tell me that isnt what happens on a daily basis inside the beltway - the 'affordable care act' being my exhibit A

which is precisely why the 2nd amendment exists.

There is nothing about what he said that suggests he is telling the truth. He is a conspiracy theorist. Did you read that article?

yeah - a conspiracy theorist?

this guy?

come on mr juju - you really ought to read his bio
here's a nice lil snippet:

Roberts’ exclusion from what he calls “corporate media” is understandable given his assessment of its reliability. In the farewell column cited above he wrote: “Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home.” He is convinced that with the present administration, mainstream media have become a propaganda ministry for the U.S. government.

with a better definition of the US gov and the real conspiracy

and why 'gun control' is JUST ANOTHER diversion:

» The Fiscal Cliff Is A Diversion: The Derivatives Tsunami and the Dollar Bubble

By: Paul Craig Roberts| December 17, 2012 |



The “fiscal cliff” is another hoax designed to shift the attention of policymakers, the media, and the attentive public, if any, from huge problems to small ones.

The fiscal cliff is automatic spending cuts and tax increases in order to reduce the deficit by an insignificant amount over ten years if Congress takes no action itself to cut spending and to raise taxes. In other words, the “fiscal cliff” is going to happen either way.

The problem from the standpoint of conventional economics with the fiscal cliff is that it amounts to a double-barrel dose of austerity delivered to a faltering and recessionary economy. Ever since John Maynard Keynes, most economists have understood that austerity is not the answer to recession or depression.

Regardless, the fiscal cliff is about small numbers compared to the Derivatives Tsunami or to bond market and dollar market bubbles.

The fiscal cliff requires that the federal government cut spending by $1.3 trillion over ten years. The Guardian reports that means the federal deficit has to be reduced about $109 billion per year or 3 percent of the current budget. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...cuts-tax-hikes More simply, just divide $1.3 trillion by ten and it comes to $130 billion per year. This can be done by simply taking a three month vacation each year from Washington’s wars.

The Derivatives Tsunami and the bond and dollar bubbles are of a different magnitude.
Last June 5 in “Collapse At Hand” http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012...lapse-at-hand/ I pointed out that according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s fourth quarter report for 2011, about 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure was held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.

Prior to financial deregulation, essentially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the non-regulation of derivatives--a joint achievement of the Clinton administration and the Republican Party--Chase, Bank of America, and Citibank were commercial banks that took depositors’ deposits and made loans to businesses and consumers and purchased Treasury bonds with any extra reserves.

With the repeal of Glass-Steagall these honest commercial banks became gambling casinos, like the investment bank, Goldman Sachs, betting not only their own money but also depositors money on uncovered bets on interest rates, currency exchange rates, mortgages, and prices of commodities and equities.

These bets soon exceeded many times not only US GDP but world GDP. Indeed, the gambling bets of JP Morgan Chase Bank alone are equal to world Gross Domestic Product.

According to the first quarter 2012 report from the Comptroller of the Currency, total derivative exposure of US banks has fallen insignificantly from the previous quarter to $227 trillion. The exposure of the 4 US banks accounts for almost of all of the exposure and is many multiples of their assets or of their risk capital.

The Derivatives Tsunami is the result of the handful of fools and corrupt public officials who deregulated the US financial system. Today merely four US banks have derivative exposure equal to 3.3 times world Gross Domestic Product. When I was a US Treasury official, such a possibility would have been considered beyond science fiction.

Hopefully, much of the derivative exposure somehow nets out so that the net exposure, while still larger than many countries’ GDPs, is not in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Still, the situation is so worrying to the Federal Reserve that after announcing a third round of quantitative easing, that is, printing money to buy bonds--both US Treasuries and the banks’ bad assets--the Fed has just announced that it is doubling its QE 3 purchases.

In other words, the entire economic policy of the United States is dedicated to saving four banks that are too large to fail. The banks are too large to fail only because deregulation permitted financial concentration, as if the Anti-Trust Act did not exist.

The purpose of QE is to keep the prices of debt, which supports the banks’ bets, high. The Federal Reserve claims that the purpose of its massive monetization of debt is to help the economy with low interest rates and increased home sales. But the Fed’s policy is hurting the economy by depriving savers, especially the retired, of interest income, forcing them to draw down their savings. Real interest rates paid on CDs, money market funds, and bonds are lower than the rate of inflation.

Moreover, the money that the Fed is creating in order to bail out the four banks is making holders of dollars, both at home and abroad, nervous. If investors desert the dollar and its exchange value falls, the price of the financial instruments that the Fed’s purchases are supporting will also fall, and interest rates will rise. The only way the Fed could support the dollar would be to raise interest rates. In that event, bond holders would be wiped out, and the interest charges on the government’s debt would explode.

With such a catastrophe following the previous stock and real estate collapses, the remains of people’s wealth would be wiped out. Investors have been deserting equities for “safe” US Treasuries. This is why the Fed can keep bond prices so high that the real interest rate is negative.

The hyped threat of the fiscal cliff is immaterial compared to the threat of the derivatives overhang and the threat to the US dollar and bond market of the Federal Reserve’s commitment to save four US banks.

Once again, the media and its master, the US government, hide the real issues behind a fake one. The fiscal cliff has become the way for the Republicans to save the country from bankruptcy by destroying the social safety net put in place during the 1930s, supplemented by Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” in the mid-1960s.

Now that there are no jobs, now that real family incomes have been stagnant or declining for decades, and now that wealth and income have been concentrated in few hands is the time, Republicans say, to destroy the social safety net so that we don’t fall over the fiscal cliff.

In human history, such a policy usually produces revolt and revolution, which is what the US so desperately needs.

Perhaps our stupid and corrupt policymakers are doing us a favor after all.

of course i happen to think it was mostly the dems policies - esp since 2007 - but thats a whole nutha argument - and we dont even need get into the repeal of glass-steagall, the release of osama bin laden from a sudan jail in the late 90's or other random little tidbits of the 'conspiracy' of incompetence - that brought us to the cliff (this time)

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Interesting discussion here. Last night I spoke with my wife about the ins and outs of what we knew about the most recent shooting. She didn't grow up around guns/rifles. I OTOH did and own a few for hunting and target practice.

The most interesting thing to me was her reaction and thought process when I told her that my little mountain rifle (a 7mm-08) was a whole lot more powerful than the rifle used in the shooting. And that my bolt action 30-06 was of a design that was over a century old and was on a whole different planet from the .223 in terms of energy and range. My hunting rifles are designed to be extremely lethal for ONE target while the assault rifles are designed to be more lethal for A BUNCH of targets. Lower energy = lower recoil, handles to make it easier to stay on target when shooting a lot of round in a hurry, that kind of thing. Then I told her that a lot of people considered my rifles to be 'sniper rifles'. Which opened up a whole other can of worms.

Parsing language and technical details and design intent and all of that is kind of a dead end. Not that it isn't important to know them, I am just not sure you could design a gun control law that will accomplish the complete abolition of these kinds of crimes and still be on the right side of the 2nd.

But you can start talking about what kinds of individuals are committing these crimes. And we are starting to understand that we have a system that just is not getting mentally ill and dangerous people off the streets. And certainly we aren't doing a very good job of keeping psychotic individuals separated from lethal weapons. It is only my opinion, but I think the discussion needs to be directed here moreso than anywhere else.

I am quite certain others will disagree.

Will

I would like to point out something that Penguin has touched on.

It's my understanding that when the US military changed it's most commonly used rifle calibre from 7.62mm/.308 to 5.56mm/.223 it was done for a number of reasons:

1.) It allowed a single soldier to carry the same amount of ammunition at much less weight, or to have far more ammunition for the same previous weight carried.

2.) The 5.56mm/.223 round possesses quite good ballistics, but the energy the round possesses is rather light(compared to the 7.62mm/.308. In some places the 5.56mm/.223 is outlawed for use against deer as it's deemed much more likely to lead to wounding the animal rather than more humanely killing it.

3.) The same as above but when it comes to people.....when fighting a war wounding a bad guy and making him combat ineffective can be far better for the good guys than killing him. If you kill an enemy, his mates can carry on. If you wound an enemy, his mates get bogged down in casualty treatment and evacuation or suffer a significant decline in morale. While individual soldiers are not trained to wound, if the inherent ballistics of the round are more likely to do so, then it is a big picture planning and procurement consideration.

I'm certainly not trying to take a radical right wing stand on this........just sharing some relevant information.

When the media pump it as "designed to kill and murder" it's not true.

Although I've seen my share of wound channel photos of folks shot with 5.56mm/.223(and others) for some medical training.....it is all quite unpleasant and more viscerally disturbing than anything I've ever seen in a movie or video game.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm a bit done with the Gun Control thing......I'll be trying(key word trying) to avoid posting on this topic in the short term.

Does anyone use Google Trends?

Has anyone else noticed how search terms such as Fiscal Cliff are tanking, and Gun Control are exploding?

How many current news topics can the average American juggle?

I posit that when you cut out the attention pie slices from the Mayan end of the world doom, Kim Kardashian's new shoes, and Honey Boo Boo....you're left with one tiny weight watchers slice of attention pie.

Which means Fiscal Cliff got binned for Newtown, CT.

[lektrode]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm a bit done with the Gun Control thing......I'll be trying(key word trying) to avoid posting on this topic in the short term.

Does anyone use Google Trends?

Has anyone else noticed how search terms such as Fiscal Cliff are tanking, and Gun Control are exploding?

How many current news topics can the average American juggle?

no kiddin, eh?
but nears eye can tell - this being The Big Day an all: 12/20/2012
course with the 'miracle of technology' we got here at the 'tulip, its simply AMAZING just how many we can

I posit that when you cut out the attention pie slices from the Mayan end of the world doom, Kim Kardashian's new shoes, and Honey Boo Boo....you're left with one tiny weight watchers slice of attention pie.

Which means Fiscal Cliff got binned for Newtown, CT.

WHOOOO HAAAA !!!! (not that i'm yukkin it up, but)
i'm right there with ya on that, ld - and nears eye can tell:
http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/...st_loop-12.gif
- it's STILL 5'oclock somewhere - but everybody east of CHI might wanna be getting prepared for another sort of 'doomsday' and get out their shovels - or their waders, not sure which - since this one did just dump 40" in the wasatch:

http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/Loop/NatLoop_Small.gif

but its early yet, so anything could still happen - think i'll start gettin prepped (for 5'oclock)

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Does anyone use Google Trends?

Has anyone else noticed how search terms such as Fiscal Cliff are tanking, and Gun Control are exploding?

How many current news topics can the average American juggle?

I posit that when you cut out the attention pie slices from the Mayan end of the world doom, Kim Kardashian's new shoes, and Honey Boo Boo....you're left with one tiny weight watchers slice of attention pie.

Which means Fiscal Cliff got binned for Newtown, CT.

I don't bother with Google trends, but at work we're calling it the "Fiscal Speed Bump".

The "fiscal speed bump" to me is a diversion too. If we don't get some reasonable trade policy and some kind of handle on the corruption in our financial markets we're going to go banana republic. I still hold out some hope that the middle class will wake up, clean house and let honest people succeed, put dishonest people in jail and enjoy the fruits of a free market.

[cbr]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

- The Connecticut school shooting is a tragedy in more ways than one. Children lost their lives, families lost their children, and the tragedy is being used to disarm Americans faced with a police state growing in power and menace. -

How true. Funny how 9-11 empowered the old military - industrial complex (now fully coopted into the international financier complex) to completely erode what was left of american core values and competencies, and create a force tuned for counter insurgency should the situation become bad enough for americans to finally stand up. Now incidents like this are being used to eliminate even the most fundamental means of self determination.

Bin Laden won. He actually did destroy america.

[lektrode]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

and every time i must endure airport 'security' i'm reminded of this - tho i'd rather not say 'won', maybe just 'winning' for the moment - it'll be our political class' next series of actions that determines the ultimate outcome and thats whats really got me concerned - at this point, i really dont think they have any idea what to do next, cept more of the same.

and the definition of insanity is....

[reggie]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

The slain at Sandy Hook were babies. If people would put themselves in the shoes of the parents of the children who didn't come home from school last Friday, the sale of Bushmaster-type assault weapons would be banned by the end of the day.

Well, that was one of the goals of the event, was it not?

[aaron]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

Bin Laden won. He actually did destroy america.

He did not win. He just pissed his enemies off and they have only gotten stronger. He attacked wall street. He attacked the pentagon. He planned to attack the white house. Now those three divisions are much, much stronger and have laid waste to anything in their way.

[cbr]

Re: Paul Craig Roberts weighs in

You just restated my point that bin laden won. Making those three power blocks stronger is the worst result possible.