Gun Control Anyone?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

...If 7 round magazines are adequate for civilian self defense as stated in NY, if "No one needs 10 round magazines" as stated by many folks including our esteemed president - then WHY do police need 17 round Glock magazines and why do soldiers need 30 round magazines? ...

The three situations are different. A private person like you or me has a need to squeeze off a round or two or 3 or 4 to stop an immediate attack by one bad guy in our house, or on the street. A cop needs to be able to lay down cover fire during an armed bank robbery or hostage situation, or fire at an escaping getaway car, and so might need to quick squeeze off a dozen or 17 rounds without a reload. A soldier in a fire fight needs to have all the ammo they can reasonably carry in the weapon and on their back when facing squads of enemy troops.

Police and soldiers have much different jobs. So too are citizens defending themselves different than police.

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

didn't the coroner report all the children were killed with a long gun?

The M.E. was very clear that all the victims were killed with rifle shots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE0OT5od9DA

Here are some interviews with families and co-workers of the victims at Sandy Hook, taken within days of the shooting. The people interviewed are crying without shedding tears. Their eyes aren't red and puffy like real crying causes. They are grinning ear to ear while talking about how sad they are. The cognitive dissonance is striking.

If there was one interview like that I would ignore it. But seeing so many... Perhaps others here will disagree and say it's all normal, but after watching enough of them it all starts to look staged.

I've been through a similar incident and seen the looks on people's faces afterwards. My husband was a teacher who died tragically. Many of his students spoke to him minutes before he died. I only bring this up again because in the aftermath of his death, none of his students, none of his co-workers looked or acted like the people in these interviews. I sure didn't look picture perfect and composed like these people. These interviews don't look like any grieving behavior I've ever seen.

Sandy Hook Interviews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKWgCRBR5qE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_b9h...ture=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QVKu...ture=endscreen


I can't imagine how a conspiracy could be done using so many people so I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but I do know that the event is being exploited to force gun control on the country like never before.

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

The three situations are different. A private person like you or me has a need to squeeze off a round or two or 3 or 4 to stop an immediate attack by one bad guy in our house, or on the street. A cop needs to be able to lay down cover fire during an armed bank robbery or hostage situation, or fire at an escaping getaway car, and so might need to quick squeeze off a dozen or 17 rounds without a reload. A soldier in a fire fight needs to have all the ammo they can reasonably carry in the weapon and on their back when facing squads of enemy troops.

Police and soldiers have much different jobs. So too are citizens defending themselves different than police.

I respectfully disagree. During the 1992 LA riots, many Korean shop owners found themselves and their stores under attack by rampaging mobs. They defended themselves and their property with high-capacity semi-automatic rifles, the kind the government wants to ban under the guise that civilians have no need for such capacity.

[bart]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

"There is no such thing as a conspiracy, especially one involving lots of people."

Sincerely,
LIBOR trader

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

If the Coroner reported the children were killed with a "long gun" based only on his autopsy findings then he is lying.

If he recovered enough fragments to rebuild the bullets he could be able to make a reasonable guess as to what caliber and weight the bullets were. From that he could only report what the projectile was. The fact that no one is reporting any facts about projectile caliber and weight seems to indicate that someone is not reporting what they really know and is jumping to conclusions and reporting that instead.

The coroner can not tell from what kind of gun the bullets were fired. The coroner can report on the condition of the fragments to give a first guess approximation on impact velocity. This is a very inexact science, though.

Hand gun cartridges can be fired form hand guns, carbines and rifles. Rifle cartridges can be fired from rifles and handguns. The reports, as stated, seem to be missing key facts.

The AR-15 platform shoots bullets from 0.45" to 0.17" including both rifle and handgun cartridges. There are several semi automatic handguns that shoot the .223 Rem cartridge commonly associated with AR-15s.

I'm not a medical professional, but I've got a bit of training on the treatment of ballistic trauma.

After seeing a heap of wound photographs, I believe it's relatively easy to differentiate wounds caused by 9mm pistol rounds and .223/5.56mm rifle rounds. They often have their own distinct wound characteristics. If an interested amateur like me can discern basic differences between projectile types in a wound, a medical professional could certainly accomplish far more.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I respectfully disagree. During the 1992 LA riots, many Korean shop owners found themselves and their stores under attack by rampaging mobs. They defended themselves and their property with high-capacity semi-automatic rifles, the kind the government wants to ban under the guise that civilians have no need for such capacity.

I've watched the likes of Piers Morgan(the same person accused of breaking laws like celebrity phone hacking) completely fail to acknowledge tyranny.

He acts as if tyranny is as obsolete as a buggy whip, that it's been conquered like Small Pox never to return.

I find that perspective as dangerously naive, or in his specific case completely malignant and intentional.

It almost disgusts me as much as Piers Morgan's sycophantic "support the troops" schtick.

He put a former Marine on the air, thanked him for his service and associated "members of his family" "fighting alongside" the Marine in Iraq/Afghanistan........and failed to mention he got busted fabricating Iraqi prisoner abuse placing UK Forces at greater risk in Iraq.

If Americans knew Piers Morgan's background or if Piers had a Pro 2nd Amendment guest on with decent debating skills he would be easily crucified.

[LorenS]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

After seeing a heap of wound photographs, I believe it's relatively easy to differentiate wounds caused by 9mm pistol rounds and .223/5.56mm rifle rounds. They often have their own distinct wound characteristics. If an interested amateur like me can discern basic differences between projectile types in a wound, a medical professional could certainly accomplish far more.

Did you see any photos from this case?


I agree it should be possible to determine the type of bullet and a probable velocity of impact. But that is not what this guy said. He said the "long gun". This implies a multiple choice type response, not a reporting of the evidence response.


Why did he not say the wounds were consistent with fragmenting (or FMJ or whatever) ammunition from a .223 caliber rifle? He could even show a recovered bullet, or a photo of it. He tap danced all around that question. He refused to specify anything that could confirm whether the recovered weapons were the source of the injuries, or some as yet un-located weapon. Why be so careful?

Why not say exactly what you found and let the evidence speak for it's self?

This guy is either incompetent or is hiding something. His answers on camera were worthless. There should be some kind of evidence to produce, but since there will be no trial there will be no evidence. Instead, the evil "gun owners" will be put to trial in the court of public opinion and there will be no discovery and no rules of procedure and no real evidence.

[BadJuju]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I've been through a similar incident and seen the looks on people's faces afterwards. My husband was a teacher who died tragically. Many of his students spoke to him minutes before he died. I only bring this up again because in the aftermath of his death, none of his students, none of his co-workers looked or acted like the people in these interviews. I sure didn't look picture perfect and composed like these people. These interviews don't look like any grieving behavior I've ever seen.

People grieve differently. Not all people are open with their emotions. A dear friend of mine and one of the very few I have outside of the Internet passed away yesterday. I have not grieved openly over his death, but I can assure you that he will be sorely missed by me. So that might be true of those people.

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

"There is no such thing as a conspiracy, especially one involving lots of people."

Sincerely,
LIBOR trader

New gun control laws. Note the propoganda buzzwords like "tough" "responsible" "balanced" and "civil society". (Emphasis mine):

New York Passes Major Gun Control Law


By Becky Bratu and Pete Williams, NBC News

New York lawmakers on Tuesday approved the toughest gun control law in the
nation, expanding the state's existing assault weapons ban and addressing gun
ownership by those with mental illnesses in the first major legislative action
in response to the Newtown, Conn., school massacre.

The measure passed the state Assembly 104-43 after passing the state Senate
43-18 Monday. Gov. Andrew Cuomo quickly signed the legislation on Tuesday.

"This unfortunately required tragedies and loss of life to actually spur the
political process to action," Cuomo said in remarks minutes before signing the
bill.

"This will be the toughest gun control package in the nation," Sen. Jeffrey
Klein, leader of the Independent Democratic Conference that shares majority
control with Republican senators, had told The Associated Press. "All in all, it
is a comprehensive, balanced approach that will save lives."

In a statement Tuesday, the National Rifle Association said it was "outraged"
and called New York's gun control bill "draconian."

The vote came as lawmakers in other states as well as the federal government
wrestle with how to reduce gun violence after a series of mass shootings.

President Barack Obama is set to unveil his own proposals -- based on
recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden's gun task force -- on Wednesday.
He is expected to focus on both legislative measures and steps that could be
taken through executive action.

These steps could include cracking down on people who lie on background checks
and focusing on improving school safety and mental health care. A federal
assault weapons ban would require approval from Congress.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg applauded the state's bipartisan
cooperation in a statement Tuesday, and suggested that it "sets an example for
Washington to follow."

"The responsible and comprehensive gun reform bills the governor signed into law
today will help keep guns away from criminals and others who are already
prohibited from purchasing them," Bloomberg said.

Cuomo, who had called for an overhaul of gun laws in New York in his State of
the State address last week, defended the provisions of the law.

"Seven bullets in a gun, why? Because the high-capacity magazines that give you
the capacity to kill a large number of human beings in a very short period of
time is nonsensical to a civil society," Cuomo said, according to Reuters.

Called the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, New York's law:

Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were
made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the
state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be
loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more
bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.

Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for
gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the
state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to
be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.

Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who
already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the
state.

Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible
threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who
would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal
Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.

Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.

Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law
defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new
law reduces that specification to just one feature

Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers
-- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

One of the most controversial elements of the bill is the requirement on
providers of mental health services.

"People who are mentally ill should not have access to guns, that's common
sense," Cuomo said, according to Reuters. "That's probably the hallmark of this
bill, coming up with a system that allows for mental-health screens."

Critics are arguing that the provision is unprecedented and draconian, but it is
neither, said Art Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone
Medical Center and an NBCNews.com contributor.

"For decades mental health workers have had an ethical obligation to report
those they think pose a clear and present danger to others to the police and to
the person who has been threatened," Caplan said. "Their codes of ethics require
them to do so. The new law in New York now makes that reporting a legal duty and
gives the therapist a clear set of directions as to how to report and to whom."

In a statement, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. thanked
legislators and said the bill will "provide law enforcement with stronger tools
to protect our communities from gun violence, including provisions that better
enable us to combat gun trafficking and violent gangs, and others that close the
state gun show loophole and regulate large-quantity sales of ammunition and
firearms."

Critics of the proposal had accused lawmakers of playing politics with citizens'
rights and hundreds of gun manufacturer jobs.

"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a
governor who wants to be president," Republican Sen. Greg Ball, who represents
part of the Hudson Valley, said after the Senate vote on Monday, according to
the AP. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal
that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now
turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."

Assemblyman Marc Butler, a Republican, represents the upstate district where
gun-maker Remington Arms Co., which employs 1,000 workers, is based. He called
the closed-door meetings by Senate Republicans and the Democratic majority of
the Assembly "politics at its worst."

Remington builds Bushmaster rifles in Illion, N.Y. Bushmaster semi-automatic
rifles were used in the Newtown shooting and in the killing of two firefighters
in Webster, N.Y.

The NRA expressed skepticism about the new law in a statement Tuesday: "While
lawmakers could have taken a step toward strengthening mental health reporting
and focusing on criminals, they opted for trampling the rights of law-abiding
gun owners in New York, and they did it under a veil of secrecy in the dark of
night."

"This legislation is not about hunters, sportsmen, or legal owners who use their
guns appropriately," Cuomo said. "It is about reducing gun violence and making
New York a safer place to live."

Legislators in other states also are moving forward with gun control
legislation.

In New Jersey, one of 18 new gun bills submitted to the legislature would
require gun buyers to submit to a psychological evaluation. A bill requiring gun
owners to register annually, and another requiring all guns to be kept in lock
boxes when not in use may be introduced in California. In Connecticut, state
Sen. Beth Bye wants to limit access to assault weapons and high-capacity
magazines, and require that firearms be registered by model and serial number.

[charliebrown]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

i am sorry JuJu. I will pray for you and your friend. It's all I can do.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Here it comes...

The three situations are different. A private person like you or me has a need to squeeze off a round or two or 3 or 4 to stop an immediate attack by one bad guy in our house, or on the street. A cop needs to be able to lay down cover fire during an armed bank robbery or hostage situation, or fire at an escaping getaway car, and so might need to quick squeeze off a dozen or 17 rounds without a reload. A soldier in a fire fight needs to have all the ammo they can reasonably carry in the weapon and on their back when facing squads of enemy troops.

Police and soldiers have much different jobs. So too are citizens defending themselves different than police.

What do you base your opinion on?

I believe you are incorrect.

I base my opinions on considerable training and experience with small arms as a private citizen, as a soldier both training and deployed, and in support of law enforcement training and operations(in Army uniform).

A gunfight is a gunfight.

A private citizen, police officer, and soldier ALL have ultimate responsibility for the rounds they discharge. There is no immunity.

Police are NOT trained to "lay down cover fire" and attempt fire/maneuver like soldiers.

And soldiers are only able to fire/maneuver within their rules of engagement(meaning they are responsible for where their rounds fall).

YES, all three have different jobs, but a gunfight is a gunfight.

The topic of training is one that is little covered.

There is a naive(and possibly intentional) assumption on the part of mass media that private citizens are incompetent/dangerous and that law enforcement and soldiers are all qualified snipers that train every day.

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

MOST(but not all) police officers I know only fire the minimum qualification shoots required periodically, and overall marksmanship skills and stressor inoculation is to a fairly low common denominator.

I personally know of a police incident where police expended nearly 2 dozen rounds to shoot a dog running amongst a group of them. The police fired nearly 360 degrees without regard for the background of where the rounds were fired in a residential neighbourhood. Placing each other, the community, and community property at unnecessary risk, fortunately they only hit parked cars and houses.

I personally know of a specialist police officer(like SWAT) who shot a fellow officer in the back of the head(fortunately wearing a kevlar helmet with a Bushmaster(same rifle type as used in these recent incidents) via accidental discharge that I would blame on poor and insufficient training.

I have done force on force training with SWAT type police here a few times where I play the bad guy and it's easy to beat them, until they learn how to apply their training and equipment more effectively, mostly due to a lack of training and assuming a lower order threat.

MOST(but not all..infantry being an exception) soldiers I know only fire the minimum qualification shoots required periodically, and overall marksmanship skills and stressor inoculation is to a fairly low common denominator.

Soldiers also tend to get considerably more firearms training pre-deployment before going overseas to rectify that perishable skill which degrades considerably over time....so just in time training can provide an acceptable level of training for the military in many situations.

I am not trying to portray police and military as incompetent when it comes to firearms, but public perception about the marksmanship and combat effectiveness of most police and military would be far off the mark.

Citizens who train weekly and realistically(stressor inoculation) for a gunfight would probably be far better prepared to face a single dangerous threat than most(NOT all) police and military....that's a fact.

I just attended yet more training for a trip later this year run by folks without law enforcement or military training/experience, yet they are training military because they are subject matter experts in the science of gunfighting.

Historically, gun fights involving law enforcement occur at distances, on average, far shorter than you might believe, and the vast majority of rounds expended(circa 80-90%), miss.

I would have training/experience/proficiency that would put me towards the top end of the spectrum with over 3000 rounds expended in the last week alone. It would pale significantly in comparison to those who perform highly specialized fulltime roles and I am not trying to blow my own trumpet, but all I know is that if I was defending my family/myself at home or elsewhere with a handgun(not likely in my local environment) I would NOT want to have a wheelgun(revolver) or a mere 7 rounds to do so without a magazine change.

SOME police and military are good.......VERY good.....the same as some private citizens are very good.......the rest....citizens, police, and military are below average to average.

The stopping power of a pistol round pales in terminal energy compared to a rifle round. Unless head/spine/vital organs are hit(often required repeatedly) people can still continue to function and perform, even if seriously injured.

Those interested in the "science" of gunfighting might find it worth reading up on Jeff Cooper(deceased) who set up GunSite.

He's widely regarded as being a significant thought leader on the topic of gunfighting.

Just my 0.02c

[bart]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

...
"Seven bullets in a gun, why? Because the high-capacity magazines that give you
the capacity to kill a large number of human beings in a very short period of
time is nonsensical to a civil society," Cuomo said, according to Reuters.
...

When I hear that about magazine limits, I think about more than one person in an adversary situation, as in gangs do exist and break-ins (or whatever) by multiple people also exist. And then I think about most gun owners who are poorly trained and also subject to being quite upset in a high emotion defensive situation.

The simple truth is that the potential that they'll miss and run out of bullets is not small. In other words, that's well beyond nonsensical in a civil and law abiding society.


Possibly incendiary, but any male with working parts has the capacity to rape many many women... so we should cut off the possibly offending male item or items?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Here it comes...

What do you base your opinion on?

I believe you are incorrect....

Just my 0.02c

I have no expertise in firearms other than the several thousand rounds I've burned up killing beer cans and other targets with my own guns and my friends'.

The notion that average folks should have access to the same firepower as a soldier leads us into a sort of arms race that does not seem sensible.
All of life is a trade-off between risk and benefit. The risks of unstable people spraying bullets into theaters and schools is real and recent. The benefits of heavily armed citizens, on the other hand, seem pretty far-fetched and hypothetical.

I support citizens having small arms to overthrow tyranny, but I am also willing to limit magazine capacities. I see the risk of crazy folks mowing down innocent people as very real, and far greater than the potential benefit of having individuals with 50 round banana clips at the ready to defend liberty. Should a tyrant emerge, we could organize many people with 10 rounds each and get the job done. I can change a 10 round clip pretty fast, and I already own several.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

...Possibly incendiary, but any male with working parts has the capacity to rape many many women... so we should cut off the possibly offending male item or items?...

I sometimes use that very idea defending gun ownership, by saying "There is a difference between impotence and restraint"

[shiny!]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Possibly incendiary, but any male with working parts has the capacity to rape many many women... so we should cut off the possibly offending male item or items?

According to Cuomo's logic, after a male has reproduced himself by fathering a child the answer would be "yes". Him retaining the capacity to "fire more bullets" and father more children is "nonsensical to a civil society."