continuing proofs America is wacko

Another thing to be aware of in the event of an assault weapon ban is that there will be a huge surge in sales of guns, clips and ammunition just prior to the ban going into effect as people hoard them. This probably isn't as bad as it sounds. Many of the hoarders are harmless. They secure their hoards carefully and have no intention of ever selling anything (something like dragons). This will give the gun industry a short-term boost, so they're less likely to complain.

If society is worried about the assault weapons that are still in circulation and grandfathered in, the simple solution would be to require that they be registered whenever they are sold. This would mean that to buy one, a person would either have to break a law (as would the seller) or have their name on an FBI list. This is how one might start making things increasingly uncomfortable as Mrs Figg suggested.

I think they should have to go around the neighborhood and tell everyone they just bought an assault weapon.

They're just not that unusual here.

And if you make it too inconvenient they'll just ignore the law and go underground. Gradualism is the best approach.

David H wrote:

halfwise wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:he believes the constitution should be interpreted as originally intended- Halfwise

So would that mean the bit of the constitution that covers arms would only cover arms from that time period?

In a sense, yes. For this reason any thoughtful gun rights supporter would not believe that people have a right to own assault weapons, but single fire low caliber handguns and rifles would be allowable to those who meet reasonable licensing requirements.

I'm not sure I agree, and here's the problem.
The complete text of the 2nd amendment is just this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This was written at a time when the 13 states weren't really a country yet, and were all broke. Nobody realistically foresaw being able to afford a standing national army even if they wanted one, so collective state militias were seen as the only viable means of national defense.

If we were looking just at original intent, it seems reasonable to argue that citizens are guaranteed the right to own military small arms including assault rifles and RPG's and train with them regularly in order to maintain a well regulated militia. The trouble is that only the nutcases really want that.

On the other hand, it seems clear to me that interpreting the 2nd amendment to include a right to own personal small arms such as pistols for personal defense is overreaching the original intent of this particular amendment.

Here's a cogently written article by a college sophomore addressing this issue:

http://news.yahoo.com/madison-never-meant-second-amendment-allow-guns-sandy-174733267--politics.html

It's a good article, but I have to quibble on the characterization of the 18th century military musket as as fairly harmless weapon. The "British Brown Bess" had a bore of 0.8 inches (2 cm) which is a small cannon! Each ball would weigh something like 20 times what the bullets of the most recent shooter was firing. Loaded with a single round ball they can hit a human sized target at 100 yds, and loaded with a fist full of rifle balls and used as a giant shotgun it could kill several people in one shot.

The bayonet is hardly the nonlethal weapon described either. It's a 1 1/2 foot dagger on the end of a massive 5 foot pole. It's designed to go completely through a target.

The stock and butt are built especially stout and with a heavy steel butt plate to be used as a war club at close range.

This was a serious military weapon that in skilled hands could kill many people at a number of distances in a short amount of time, unlike civilian firearms.

And at the end of the Revolutionary War there were several million of these military muskets left in America as war surplus, much like AK47's in Afghanistan today. In Massachusetts it was something like 2 muskets per citizen

So you're saying the weapons situation hasn't really changed in 200 years. The problems we are seeing now would be due to Petty's population concentration effects, plus perhaps media glorification (the media was no less graphic 200 years ago, just less incessant).

And yet....even if a musket is a small cannon the reload time makes a difference. One shot and you'd best run. The bayonet makes little difference as everyone can pick up kitchen knives, but a crowd of people are not helpless against a single knife wielding assailant: they just pick up folding chairs and pummel him. Doesn't apply to young kids but someone is unlikely to take on a crowd armed with a knife and slow loading gun.

halfwise wrote:So you're saying the weapons situation hasn't really changed in 200 years. The problems we are seeing now would be due to Petty's population concentration effects, plus perhaps media glorification (the media was no less graphic 200 years ago, just less incessant).

Sure, for the sake of discussion I'm comfortable with that position.

And yet....even if a musket is a small cannon the reload time makes a difference. One shot and you'd best run. The bayonet makes little difference as everyone can pick up kitchen knives, but a crowd of people are not helpless against a single knife wielding assailant: they just pick up folding chairs and pummel him. Doesn't apply to young kids but someone is unlikely to take on a crowd armed with a knife and slow loading gun.

I'm not enjoying picturing the scenario, but I'm fairly confident that a if man broke into a school with an 18th century musket and two 18th century pistols rather than their 21st century counterparts, he could do just as much horror in only a few more seconds than in the recent shooting. Against a large armed crowd he would still have the element of surprise.

You seem to be assuming that killing is the primary goal of most of these mass murders, and they're expecting to get away alive, but I suspect most are choosing this as a dramatic way of suicide, in which case the actual weapon used isn't as significant. I think.

Yeah, dissecting this is getting grisly, but I can see if he has more than one weapon he can use the other one to cover himself during reload. It would take a brave crowd willing to sacrifice a life or two to bring him down in a mass rush. Wouldn't happen in an elementary school.

After some thought, I think the type of weapon is more significant than I gave it credit for, but for different reasons.

Most of the assault rifle owners I know fall into 2 categories:

1] Ex-soldiers who were trained with them and feel more secure with them close at hand (though they rarely talk about them or show them)
2] People who are into the "cool factor" and talk about nothing else. They treat these things as if they were toys.

I think all the school shooters fall into the second category. They're mostly of an age where fashion and image are everything and they know that this will the be act for which they'll be getting on TV, so they take especial care to dress in black, fix their hair, wear body armor (BTW why do any of us ever need to buy body armor???) You've got to have cool gun or it will ruin the whole effect!

So I'm proposing that all future assault weapons look like this:


I think that might solve most of the porblem right there!

Brilliant! I'd love to see the NRA try to construct an argument against that!

Thinking more about bullet proof vests and body armor, I notice that many of these shooters have worn them, and that there are many models to choose from on Amazon!

Now I can imagine if I lived in a neighborhood that had a lot of drive-by shootings I might want to wear something like this when I was going out to walk the dog in the evening, but other than that, why would anybody need one? Can you buy these through the mail in other countries??

I'm thinking that if I were trying to identify likely potential shooters, a list of people with a history of depression who bought body armor would narrow the field pretty quickly.

A question for the Brits: what are the limits in the UK on law enforcement's access to medical records? This obviously would be a valuable tool for restricting access to weapons and identifying potential shooters, but it would also obviously cause many troubled people to think twice before seeking professional help. Has the UK found a reasonable balance?

To access medical records police need permission- that comes via the courts.
So basically the police have to convince a judge its warranted, as medical records are otherwise considered private.

So I think you suggested that firearms shouldn't be sold to people with a history of mental illness. It makes a lot of sense, but I can't figure out how to practically screen for that. Any ideas?

It is a tricky on.
To get a gun in Scotland you have to submit yourself to a lot of background checks which includes allowing access to all your records, and you have to have a 'legitimate' reason for requiring one- saying 'just in case I ever have to defend myself,' or 'its to keep the government in place' is not likely to count.
But in a society like America where so many guns are available that might not work as they could probably get one without applying.

Asuming the BBC news site is accurate, at the moment in America you can buy a gun with no criminal background checks- surely that is notonly mad but is something which can be tightened up immediately?
Also its not illegal to traffick in guns apprently- which I am quite suprised at- and is another area which could be eaily sorted out.

It would at least be a start.

Yes to everything. Background checks are required when you buy from any normal gunshop (you probably don't have these, but they're far more common that butcher shops here. ) But there is a loophole for gunshows (which you probably don't have either,) where a gunclub will rent a fairgrounds for a weekend and hundreds of independent gunsmiths and gunmerchants will buy, sell and trade arms like a public market. There may be 10,000 to 15,000 people attend these. If you have a collectors license you can by almost ANYTHING there!!

I'm not quite sure what your definition is of trafficking or what exactly the rules are. I know that it's not wide open, but there are loopholes you could drive a Sherman Tank through, and yes they could easily be closed if only there was the political will.

Edit: you know it's really funny that I seem to be the gun expert here! I know there are others who visit here from time to time who are probably at least as knowledgeable, if not quite a bit more so.

I have very slightly more experience with guns than most folk I know here who werent in the armed forces (I kow few of those and obviously they have more experience than me), in that when I was a scout we used to go to the army shooting range and get to fire 2.2 rifles.
And I also helped out shhooting rabbits on the farm near where I grew up when there was a mixamotosis outbreak- that was a grim business.
But I havent held or fired any sort of gun in over 20 years now. And cant say I have felt or had the need to either.

Trafficking of weapons here is severly clamped down on, if I got hold of a gun and sold it on and was caught I would not only get done for possession an illegal fire arm but for trafficking too- probably looking at about 10-15 years for that.

Professional gangs of smugglers can be looking at anything from 20-40 years.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Trafficking of weapons here is severly clamped down on, if I got hold of a gun and sold it on and was caught I would not only get done for possession an illegal fire arm but for trafficking too- probably looking at about 10-15 years for that.

Professional gangs of smugglers can be looking at anything from 20-40 years.

Ah. All you need to do here is apply for a dealer's license. If you get caught breaking the rules they normally just fine you and/or revoke your license. Similar to a butcher not meeting health code.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
But I havent held or fired any sort of gun in over 20 years now. And cant say I have felt or had the need to either.

That's best if you don't ever have the need for one. But as you know there are times on a farm when sad work needs to be done and a firearm is the most humane tool.

By the way, I know you're a devoted gamer. I'm trying not to make judgements on the games, but I'd appreciate yours. What do you think of Grand Theft Auto series as games? Everything I've seen really creeps me out! It seems like every new generation goes farther towards "breaking the fourth wall" between a kid's game and violent crime, yet it seems to be considered mainstream. Your thoughts?

I am a huge fan of the GTA games- probably my favourite game series of all time- anyone who sites them as a root of violence in my view has never played one. Nor are they kids games anymore than Fifty Shades of Grey or Evil Dead is for kids.
GTA games are a satire on modern society- including socities fascination with violence.

GTA itself can put it better than me however-

Unfortunately those would take hours to watch on dial-up. The reason I brought it up now is that the day before the shooting I was watching 8 to 10 year olds watching the GTA demo on a 60 inch screen in a shopping mall with stars in their eyes, so it was fresh in my mind.

We have young friends who started GTA at about that age. They graduated to paintball tactical shooting at 14 or 15, and saved for 9mm Glocks when they turned 18. They already had hunting rifles and shotguns. They love to go up into the hills and blast through cases of ammunition.

They're good kids and certainly not criminals, but I don't feel that they have the same respect for firearms that I was raised with. They treat them more like toys, and that kind of worries me.

Edit: listening to them now

Sorry Dave, forgot about your net speeds (or lack of- mine drops to about dial up speeds in the evenings too sadly).

Kids should not be playing GTA- they are violent but the violence comes in the context of the story, characters and the satire.
A kid is unlikely to get the satire or care much for the depth of the story.
Same as with films and tv this is where some parental guidance is required.

In case your dialup is giving you gip heres a transscript of the first vid.
Its a radio advert for Ammu-nation- the main guin store in GTA's fictional version of america.

-sound of breaking glass-

womans voice: My family! He's got a gun!

growly voice over- someone is breaking into your home. What do you do? Call 911? It takes police an average of thirty-five minutes to respond to a 911 call. In that time a burgular could have his way with your wife, smoke a cigarrette, flip her over and go in for seconds. Don't let the worst happen to you, it's vital that you protect yourself. Do it, the patriotic way.

Announcer- Thats right! Ammunation has all the equipment you need to protect your family from the evils of a liberal society.
Fixed and mounted submachine guns, mortars, surface to air and all manner of heat seeking missles and, just in to celebrate the Gulf War, pink and blue tracer bullets so you can protect your family in the dark.
Start the week off right on Make my Day Monday with two for one on maim, straif and kill landmines.
Got Gulf War syndrome? Get 10 bucks off all machine gun rifles. Hey! If you love your family, prove it..with a gun!
Ammunation, protecting your rights.

I got the first two to buffer while I put the horse away for the night. I think you're right that a lot of kids would get the jokes but wouldn't understanding the depth of the satire. It's the same as kids who love South Park just for the rudeness. Still, you have to hope that some of the seeds of the satire take root.

Most of the video gamers I know are under 18 years old though, so whatever it may say on the box, I think that's a conscious target market for the product (just with like cheap cigarettes and cheap beer...)