Convince me: Assault weapons edition

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

In reply to Toebra :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton)

I had to look it up, I was a senior in high school at the time and the news cycle wasn’t as immersive then as it is today.  

 

And for for those who missed my meaning earlier as to “why have such a weapon vs some other type?”    For me it’s a question of faith in the system.  As long as the system works and the grocery stores stay stocked, the electricity stays on, and most everyone is generally healthy, the black rifle stays in the closet and doesn’t have a job.  But if the excrement ever hits the fan in a big way, the food trucks stop rolling/plague/grid collapse/ whatever, I have the tool for the job of protecting me and mine.  It’s a better than average tool for that job which ingests a common caliber that can be scavenged from many places and users.  

It appears that you get it.

The school shooting in Stockton back in 1989 led to California passing all sorts of laws to restrict magazine capacity, what sort of weapons you can purchase and so forth.  Thing is, guy that did it bought everything in Oregon, so the laws would not have done a thing to prevent it.  Most recent event, kid used a revolver and a shotgun.  

People are looking at the wrong thing when they talk about banning assault weapons.

z31maniac said:

Legitimate question:

What are you guys doing that you don't feel safe without a pistol or rifle nearby? I grew up in Tulsa, look up the violent crime per capita rates, working at QTs in ROUGH neighborhoods.................like we piled up cased of beer to hide the bullet holes, or one store I worked at where a manager was taken into the cooler and beaten to death with a baseball bat. 

I was actually robbed at knife point in one of less dangerous stores. 

I'm genuinely curious. 

That is not a legitimate question.  It is a strawman

FIYAPOWA said:

As far as rights go, no American citizen has to prove a need to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.  It's an enumerated right, and I am not required to justify myself to anyone, especially the government.

This is really the crux of it.

The biggest problem with all this is people are concerned about mass shootings, feel like they should do something about it, and they go do something that has no chance of helping, and may actually make things worse.  It would maybe be different if the people trying to restrict them had at least a rudimentary understanding about it, but they don't, so they come up with silly, ineffective laws that would not have helped if they were in place before whatever event happened most recently to spur the discussion again. 

Surprising this thread has lived this long

In reply to Ian F :

One comment from a couple of pages ago asked what has changed to make young kids (so far, all boys from what I can tell) do these things now versus in the past?  It's not like guns haven't always been available to a lot of kids.  I had easy access to my father's guns growing up and even with my rather bullied childhood never thought to enter the school and shoot everyone I felt had wronged me.  Perhaps media coverage of these shootings has simply changed the landscape.  Once one kid did it, this horrific action is now considered an option and it became self-perpetuating.  Determining how to close this Pandora's box will be exceptionally difficult.

I heard an discussion on the radio this morning that presented an interesting theory. I'm probably butchering it a bit, but here goes...

They framed the theory with the example of a riot. Everyone has different trigger points that set them in action. Most people won't be the first to throw a brick through a window. But some are, let's say that the first person to throw a brick has a trigger point of 1. Not lots of people are willing to start riots. Once the first brick is thrown, the next guy with a trigger point of 2- he's eager to join in but not one to throw the first brick- joins in. And so on until the riot grows. Eventually, an otherwise law abiding citizen with  a trigger point of 95 may join the looting if everyone around him is doing it. 

When it comes to school shooters, not many have a trigger point of 1. So you don't have school shootings. The theory is that Columbine was the 1 that got it started. Some that folowed were 2's. The frequency is increasing because now we have 3's and 4's that are joining in. People who otherwise would not have acted on the impulse are now acting. 

It sounds plausible to me, and very scary. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Scary indeed.  I'm not sure what could be done to put a lid back on that box since those "trigger points" could spread out into other parts of society. 

Ian F said:

I believe the compromise stems from the one subject everyone can generally agree on: We need to keep guns away from crazies that would do harm. 

The difficulty is in determining how to do that.  

The type of guns used, magazine size, or even if a gun is used at all is less important.  If someone wants to commit a mass-violent act, they'll find a way.

One comment from a couple of pages ago asked what has changed to make young kids (so far, all boys from what I can tell) do these things now versus in the past?  It's not like guns haven't always been available to a lot of kids.  I had easy access to my father's guns growing up and even with my rather bullied childhood never thought to enter the school and shoot everyone I felt had wronged me.  Perhaps media coverage of these shootings has simply changed the landscape.  Once one kid did it, this horrific action is now considered an option and it became self-perpetuating.  Determining how to close this Pandora's box will be exceptionally difficult.

You mentioned preventing crazy people from owning guns.  I figured this is something I could speak to from experience.  In full disclosure I am a detective with a large police agency and I am one of my agencies hostage negotiators.  As a negotiator I get quite a bit of additional training in dealing with individuals with mental health issues.

About four years ago I rode a beat in a high crime area.  I was dispatched to a small apartment complex with another officer in regards to a suicidal individual.  This is a pretty typical call for a police officer, one you would get every other day or so.

This particular call sticks out in my memory, despite being one of the hundreds of suicidal person calls I responded to.

We arrive at the apartment and encounter the subject's mother on the porch.  She tells us her son is upset because he was recently fired from his job at a  local pizza restaurant.  We ask her several questions including if there are any firearms in the house, to which she replied no.

We walk into the apartment with the subject, who is wearing nothing but a pair of umbro shorts.  He was obviously upset and his muscles were tensed.  He had threatened to kill himself because of the job loss.  He is also less than pleased that there were now two police officers in his apartment. 

Normally the first thing we would do in this situation is pat the guy down for weapons, but given how agitated he was we decided that trying to pat him down would lead to a fight. Also he was wearing tiny shorts that would print a gun.

We ended up talking to him for about 20 minutes and he eventually calmed down to the point that we could safely take him into custody.  When we checked him for weapons we found a loaded Beretta in the pocket of his shorts.  It was a large gun and we could not see it even though he had nothing but a small pair of shorts on and we were close to him.

We ended up Baker Acting him. It was the third or fourth time he had been taken to see a psychiatrist by the police.  He should not have had the gun, to begin with given his mental condition but he had it and his mother who shared the apartment didn't know it was there.  That call could have gone very differently but it ended up being resolved safely.  That guy is the person you don't want having a firearm.

A few months later I was dispatched to another suicidal individual call.  I arrive at a small run down house and meet with the complainant who is the subjects mother (sense a theme here).  She proceeds to tell me about how the subject is disrespectful and refuses to move out.  She then tells me he threatened to kill himself because of the impending eviction.  Something didn't feel right about her story but I had to go on what she told me and act in good faith.  I met with the subject who seemed relativly normal and not really in crisis.  He would not give me a straight answer regarding if he made a suicide threat or not.

I called my Sergeant and a lively debate ensued.  I felt the complainant was trying to use the police via a baker act to evict her son.  My Sgt told me our general orders are clear as is the statute regarding suicidal individuals.  I ended up taking the guy to the mental health center to speak with a councilor.

At the end of the day if I didn't take him and he killed himself I would have been responsible.  Should this guy have his right to bear arms taken away because he was Baker Acted, I personally don't think so.

A twenty minute interaction with someone, based on very limited information provided by two parties in an argument determines if someone gets to keep their right to bear arms...

I always get a kick out of the 2A. Since the 80s, the historical reference has been lost. The militia aspect was extremely important to the writers and our current definitiin doesn't match there's. As someone who's seen many murder victims, I'll never understand the support of guns. I used to hunt. Then I grew up. I'm a damn proud ethical vegetarian. As for guns and mass shootings, look to foreign nations. We have  by an invredible degree, the highest homovide rate in the world. High gun ownership is directly responsible. Defend guns all you want, but you're defending ypur desires over the lives of those murdered. Killing isn't a natural thing. Hell, we weren't hunters and gatherers. zwe were scavengers, like crows. Even then, meat, for us is a carcinogen. I can go on and on and my opinion, on this, is unique here. But, there it is.

In reply to Ian F :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Scary indeed.  I'm not sure what could be done to put a lid back on that box since those "trigger points" could spread out into other parts of society. 

In my opinion, I think we are focusing on the wrong amendment here. I think the first has more to do with the current situation than the second. These killers are almost glorified (in their minds they are) in the media after they commit their vile acts. Pictures all over the place making them look "tough." Reliving the act over and over again. Their name is everywhere, every word they say or write is repeated. It's exactly what they want. 

The same radio show had this fictitious discussion between a would be mass shooter and a news outlet, it went something like this...

(Would be mass shooter) to XYZ news- "I'm mad and I want the world to know it. I'd like some air time to express my views to the world. Make my name a household word.

(XYZ News) Are you kidding me? What's in it for me? Beat it, punk. 

(Would be mass shooter) What if I give you a dozen bodies?

(XYZ News) Deal. 

Now, I am not advocating any restrictions to the first amendment, even it they would prove beneficial. Same as the arguments defending the second amendment. And I understand the public's want and need for information, and the press' duty to report it. I just wish they could do it in a more responsible manner, stick to the facts, and avoid glorifying the incident. Maybe self imposed limits on how much coverage the scumbag gets. Personally, I'd like to see it go one step farther- 

(XYZ news) We've learned that the shooter had a very small hootus. And a bed wetting problem. Numerous Nickelback albums were found in his room. 

The US does not have the highest murder rate in the world. Not even close.

 

Considering you can't even correlate gun ownership with homicide rates I believe I don't have to justify E36 M3.

Highest number of guns on the planet out of any country that actually cares to check. 107th out of 218 countries in intentional homicide rates and the number of gun homicides has been dropping since the 90s just like every other crime has been.  Just over 50% of all the homicides in the us are concentrated in and around population centers and over half the counties in this country had 0 murders in 2016.

Europe has always had low homicide rates that also has nothing to do with guns, but comparing tiny homogenous nations like Denmark to the US is disingenuous.  Canada is much the same, never having the issues with crime of any type that the US has.

Turns out gun control works wonders in countries where people aren't inclined to break the law in the first place. The opposite effect gets you Mexico, Brazil, and Russia, all countries with gun control that does nothing to stop people from killing each other.

Does our country have a crime problem? Yes.
Are guns the cause? No.
Is banning them the solution? Considering the last gun ban did nothing to stop mass shootings or even gun crime in general, also no.
Is banning them even feasible? God no. Making a reliable firearm is laughably easy, not that you would even need to given the number of guns in the country that you couldn't begin to make a dent in even with a few decades.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

When news is a for-profit business, stories that attract attention and keep eyeballs on the screen are what they will broadcast.

Of course, even this concept isn't exactly new.

Grizz said:

...comparing tiny homogenous nations like Denmark to the US is disingenuous.

I just have to say: man, when people do that it drives me nucking futz.  Yeah, some E36 M3 may work great in a country the size and population of one of our states who all share 2000 years of history, but that doesn't mean it will for a country a hundred times the size, with a radically diverse population that have had maybe 150 years to work it out together.

You know. There is a reason that the Russian twitter bots spout tons of pro and anti gun rhetoric.  They’re some smart folks. 

markwemple said:

I get it that ammosexuals will always defend guns over kids but your arguments don't hold the water you think they do. Stop spouting NRA nonsense. 

Dude. Things were going well until you started being an ass. Please stop. This has been a civil discussion. This E36 M3 isn’t civil and is extremely offensive and demeaning. We get it. You don’t like scary things. Fine. Don’t result to personal attacks. Save it for faceyspace. This place is better than that

Ammosexual is a new one for me LMAO 

I figured we were all petrosexual!

In reply to markwemple :

Tone it down. You are crossing the line of what is appropriate for this forum. 

Mr Wemple, thank you for so effectively illustrating one of the many reasons why it is so difficult to have a mature discussion about this.

I am a hoplophile. I didn't grow up that way. 

No guns in my household, my mother even hid the BB gun my grandparents tried to give me as a young lad...  was a WV conservation officer. 

I grew up believing in honor and that guns make killing too easy. I would personally be OK with a return to allowing dueling with swords, for example, as a way of settling questions of honor and challenges to people's manhood. 

I investigated firearms leading up to Y2K and as 'just in case' insurance, we had a couple revolvers and shotguns. We also had extra fuel, firewood, and food, all of which got used later on... I also got my concealed carry permit because, why not? Better to have and not need than need and not have.
(Full disclosure, My NC Miata has run-flat tires, (no spare, but a tire slime kit), AND I have AAA). It's good to have backup plans, and contingency plans for if the backups go belly up as well. 

A couple years later, I was elected to a sworn peace officer position. By wife got me a Glock semi-auto pistol (and I have since gotten a couple more). I have a deer rifle. No AR, though I wouldn't mind having one. I go through annual firearms training and shoot/don't shoot scenario training. 

   (FYI - I think anyone reporting on police shootings should have to go through a Lasershot or similar session with a few shoot / don't shoot scenarios before reporting on them)

Do I carry? Not as often as I should, but often enough. I intend to do everything I can to protect the lives of my family, any bystanders, and myself should something terrible go down. If that .00000001% event goes down and you aren't prepared, there's nothing you can do then. 

As to the current issues - 

"Assault weapons" are functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle or carbine. Basing restrictions on cosmetic features is a stupid approach, but i guess it looks like a political victory for those "doing something". 

Those who don't like firearms have gone after handguns in the past (concealable, used in many homicides) and are likely to go after "sniper rifles" when convenient. It was discussed around the time of the Beltway shooter.

This is one of the reasons that people who are pro firearms ownership believe that compromise proposals are a lie. It seems like any opportunity to propose 'reasonable' restrictions is quickly jumped on by politicians and activists, and it's clear that at least some of them have the ultimate goal of making all private ownership illegal.  

I did consider the ideas for requiring training, or insurance... and at this point, while they have some attractiveness, I disagree with them. If you have to use a firearm, you are taking on an enormous responsibility and have the same potential legal consequences as an evildoer does. From a religious viewpoint, you could potentially end someone's life (are you comfortable with that? I'm not... and hope you're not, but I am willing to shoot to stop a legitimate threat, knowing that here in the US, the person is likely to recover and sue me). Can you get insurance for this? Yes. Should it be mandatory? I might reconsider it if there's a way for it to be mandatory for those who don't follow the law...

If the schools can be a venue for any number of other education, then the schools should once again include a gun safety / hunter safety component. In my case, it was part of our Physical Education time during the winter. Teaching young (elementary kids the Eddie Eagle or equivalent: "1) Stop! 2) Don't Touch 3) Leave the area 4) Tell an adult" and older kids the rules of safe use (Always treat a firearm as if it's loaded, keep the muzzle in a safe direction, keep your finger off the trigger (now adjusted to 'outside the trigger guard). know your target and what's in front of it and behind it" is basic safety they should all be exposed to. I'm sure some schools still do this, but I doubt all do. 

I also think we need additional education on deescalation. (Verbal Judo is an early example). I'm not sure if that could be done effectively in the school system, but it might be worth exploring. 

That was a lot of thoughts, kind of all over the place, but I waited to read the whole thread before posting. 

I definitely appreciate the venue and opportunity to discuss the real societal issues here without being disagreeable. This is truly a unique place!

Toebra said:

Mr Wemple, thank you for so effectively illustrating one of the many reasons why it is so difficult to have a mature discussion about this.

Yeah, like i said in my previous posts, this is why these sorts of discusions never go well

Although, ignoring those types of posts goes a long way towards the goal of not heading down that rabbit hole.

EastCoastMojo said:

Although, ignoring those types of posts goes a long way towards the goal of not heading down that rabbit hole.

Also true

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The family of one of the students killed in a Texas high school shooting filed a lawsuit against the alleged gunman’s parents, claiming the shooter’s father didn’t properly secure the weapons and were negligent in entrusting him with firearms.

Authorities charged Dimitrios Pagourtzis, a 17-year-old student Santa Fe High School, with capital murder in the May 18 attack that killed eight students and two substitute teachers. Investigators said Pagourtzis used a shotgun and pistol belonging to his father that had been kept in a closet.

Texas law states that guns can’t be made accessible to children under 17, with exceptions such as hunting or when under parent supervision. Parents can be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and $4,000 in fines if the child fires the weapon and causes serious injury or death.

Christopher Stone and Rosie Yanas, whose son Chris Stone, 17, was killed, filed a lawsuit in Galveston County on Thursday. Stone’s funeral was Friday.

The lawsuit also argued that Pagourtzis’ parents didn’t obtain mental health counseling for their son and didn’t warn the public about his “dangerous propensities.” Dimitrios Pagourtzis posted a photo of a T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase “Born to Kill” on social media, and Gov. Greg Abbott has said the teenager had journals with writings indicating he planned the attack.

Pagourtzis family attorney Nicholas Poehl said he only represents them in the criminal case against the son and declined comment on the civil lawsuit. He did not know when the family would have attorney in the civil matter.

The lawsuit is not the first of its kind following a mass shooting.

Most recently, the family of one of the four people killed in a shooting at a Waffle House restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee, sued the suspected gunman’s father, accusing the Illinois man of negligence. In that case, police said the gunman had displayed signs of mental illness before his Illinois gun card was revoked in 2017. His guns were transferred to his father, but police said the father returned them to his son at some point.

Texas law requires gun owners to “take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.”

Abbott, a staunch supporter of gun rights, said this week he’s open to strengthening laws on gun storage and reporting lost or stolen weapons. But that suggestion is already drawing resistance from some gun rights lawmakers who said they would resist efforts for more government control of what happens inside the home.

“The idea of regulating and enforcing the storage of firearms is a nightmare. I will fight it forever,” tweeted Republican Rep. Jonathan Stickland.

pimpm3 said:

Ian F said:

I believe the compromise stems from the one subject everyone can generally agree on: We need to keep guns away from crazies that would do harm. 

The difficulty is in determining how to do that.  

The type of guns used, magazine size, or even if a gun is used at all is less important.  If someone wants to commit a mass-violent act, they'll find a way.

One comment from a couple of pages ago asked what has changed to make young kids (so far, all boys from what I can tell) do these things now versus in the past?  It's not like guns haven't always been available to a lot of kids.  I had easy access to my father's guns growing up and even with my rather bullied childhood never thought to enter the school and shoot everyone I felt had wronged me.  Perhaps media coverage of these shootings has simply changed the landscape.  Once one kid did it, this horrific action is now considered an option and it became self-perpetuating.  Determining how to close this Pandora's box will be exceptionally difficult.

You mentioned preventing crazy people from owning guns.  I figured this is something I could speak to from experience.  In full disclosure I am a detective with a large police agency and I am one of my agencies hostage negotiators.  As a negotiator I get quite a bit of additional training in dealing with individuals with mental health issues.

About four years ago I rode a beat in a high crime area.  I was dispatched to a small apartment complex with another officer in regards to a suicidal individual.  This is a pretty typical call for a police officer, one you would get every other day or so.

This particular call sticks out in my memory, despite being one of the hundreds of suicidal person calls I responded to.

We arrive at the apartment and encounter the subject's mother on the porch.  She tells us her son is upset because he was recently fired from his job at a  local pizza restaurant.  We ask her several questions including if there are any firearms in the house, to which she replied no.

We walk into the apartment with the subject, who is wearing nothing but a pair of umbro shorts.  He was obviously upset and his muscles were tensed.  He had threatened to kill himself because of the job loss.  He is also less than pleased that there were now two police officers in his apartment. 

Normally the first thing we would do in this situation is pat the guy down for weapons, but given how agitated he was we decided that trying to pat him down would lead to a fight. Also he was wearing tiny shorts that would print a gun.

We ended up talking to him for about 20 minutes and he eventually calmed down to the point that we could safely take him into custody.  When we checked him for weapons we found a loaded Beretta in the pocket of his shorts.  It was a large gun and we could not see it even though he had nothing but a small pair of shorts on and we were close to him.

We ended up Baker Acting him. It was the third or fourth time he had been taken to see a psychiatrist by the police.  He should not have had the gun, to begin with given his mental condition but he had it and his mother who shared the apartment didn't know it was there.  That call could have gone very differently but it ended up being resolved safely.  That guy is the person you don't want having a firearm.

A few months later I was dispatched to another suicidal individual call.  I arrive at a small run down house and meet with the complainant who is the subjects mother (sense a theme here).  She proceeds to tell me about how the subject is disrespectful and refuses to move out.  She then tells me he threatened to kill himself because of the impending eviction.  Something didn't feel right about her story but I had to go on what she told me and act in good faith.  I met with the subject who seemed relativly normal and not really in crisis.  He would not give me a straight answer regarding if he made a suicide threat or not.

I called my Sergeant and a lively debate ensued.  I felt the complainant was trying to use the police via a baker act to evict her son.  My Sgt told me our general orders are clear as is the statute regarding suicidal individuals.  I ended up taking the guy to the mental health center to speak with a councilor.

At the end of the day if I didn't take him and he killed himself I would have been responsible.  Should this guy have his right to bear arms taken away because he was Baker Acted, I personally don't think so.

A twenty minute interaction with someone, based on very limited information provided by two parties in an argument determines if someone gets to keep their right to bear arms...

Completely ancillary to this thread and likely the only time I'll post,  this was fascinating to read, especially from a law enforcement perspective  

Glad too see this has stayed away from personal insults for the most part. I enjoy reading viewpoints from both sides when there logical and not spewing insults. Safe storage is a big factor alot of people ignore, I have kids who have started learning basic firearm use for hunting. All of our firearms are still locked in a safe they can't access. 

Amazingly I also support better background checks and requiring all gun sales even private party to use one. I certainly wouldn't sell anything I own to someone without a background check and legally transferring the registration.