Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, since it's inevitable that the spree shooting at the Dark Knight Rises premiere is going to go seriously off topic into this arena, I thought perhaps we'd head it off at the pass and just start one here and have done with it.

Apparently the shooter's AR had a 100 round barrel drum, of which IG converters are so enamored of. I have to be honest; in that although I generally support the right to keep and bear arms, I also support some reasonable limitations thereof; and I kinda sorta think 100 round drums maybe shouldn't be available to civilians.

On the other hand, I was reading this article and was struck by this snippet:

According to the Brady Campaign/Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Colorado ranks among states with weaker gun laws. On Brady’s 100-point scorecard, Colorado scored 15. The states with the lowest ranking, 0, were Alaska, Arizona and Utah. California had the highest score, 81. According to the Brady Center, the score is based on laws that can prevent gun violence, such as background checks on all guns sales, permit-to-purchase requirements, limiting handgun purchases to one a month, and retention of sales records.

I don't have to google it to know that California has more actual gun violence per capita then Alaska despite having significantly stricter laws. So what's the deal?

A snap answer would be to say it's the people that live there, but that's like saying ice cream attracts sharks because more shark attacks happen when ice cream is being sold on the beach.

In Alaska most guns are a matter of survival against things like bears and giant moose. Also, there are less violent crimes likely because there is a significantly higher risk of being caught.

"Who killed Ted?"
"Bob said if he saw Ted near his cabin again he'd regret it."

Small communities tend to have less violent crime, as everyone knows everyone.

California has tons more people than Alaska. As such, it is easier to hide and blend in, so the fear of getting caught is much less. Also, California has things like LA and Oakland.

I do find it odd that Utah and Arizona have looser gun laws than Texas or Louisiana, where full automatics are legal. Apparently Mormons like their guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:A snap answer would be to say it's the people that live there, but that's like saying ice cream attracts sharks because more shark attacks happen when ice cream is being sold on the beach.

Scientifically sound reasoning to me >.> about the sharks that is.

I think it is going to be distasteful for Americans to confront this topic in the coming months given the events that have occurred, but I think it is something that needs to be discussed and debated. One of the issues is that gun ownership and the belief/support in the right to bear arms is quite a cross party thing; it isn't just die-hard Republicans that believe it, which is one of the reasons that top level politicians have traditionally shied away from addressing gun ownership; they know full well that any discussion of gun ownership or attempt to debate the pros/cons of gun laws will turn off vast swathes of their support. No politician who has any ambition of rising to the top (and they all do) is willing to jeopardise his/her future in that way. So the silence continues and the stone is left unturned. I feel, however, that sometimes you have to analyse and debate distasteful subjects if you ever want to make progress. It may be hurtful and someone may suffer politically for it, but the nettle must be grasped. How many more random and senseless killings need to occur before people sit up and think 'this is not right'. You may well draw parallels with other countries and indeed, there are very few countries which have not suffered the hurt of a shooting but where else on earth does this happen on a regular basis?

The problem is that Pandora's Box is well and truly open. Here in the UK, it was easy enough to pass the laws banning handguns because it didn't really affect many people anyway, apart form gun club members. If by some miracle, Obama passed a law banning gun ownership in the US, what happens to all those millions of weapons in the country? They don't suddenly disappear overnight and no amount of amnesties will get rid of them - the guns are there and always will be, unless the government starts getting incredibly pro-active about taking them off people and how many of us think that will ever happen?

The right to bear arms in so deeply ingrained in US culture such that guns pervade so many aspects of American life; it just isn't easy to separate the two. This isn't a case of giving up guns, this is a case of a massive sea change in American culture and thinking to the extent that average Americans reject their guns. But that would require an enormous social and political change in the mind set. Its harsh to say it, but you wanted your guns and your automatic weapons for all and you got it. But the price of that means that you suffer and will continue to suffer such appalling tragedies until such time as Americans say 'enough is enough'.

I have always been confused as to why Americans are so enamoured with guns and why so many seem to think that gun ownership is a basic right. I have been around firearms my whole life, they are even part of my job, but to me they are simply tools. I fail to see how anyone needs, or even wants, to own automatic weapons. I don't even own any firearms mysefl anymore as I simply have no use for them at the moment.

At the end of the day they are designed to kill and as such they need to be heavily regulated. If they aren't then you will see a lot of gun crime and shootings, its as simple as that.

Most Americans don't want to own a fully automatic weapon. A handgun for self defense, perhaps a short-barrel shotgun for home defense, or a hunting rifle for, well, hunting, and all of the above for practice shooting-- but an AK47 with full auto would be seen as excessive even here in Texas.

America is fethed either way because the guns are already in circulation. Even if you brought about sensible gun laws ala - the rest of the entire world, it wouldn't stop regular rampages by deranged individuals because there are millions and millions of firearms all over the place anyway! And guns have long shelf lives..

As a result, I think more people should carry and everyone should take regular refresher training, better to have one of your own in-case you bump into a nutter outside Baskin Robins.

I think it really is a mental situation, and it arose due to Americas young history, it made sense for citizens to have guns a couple hundred years ago, not anymore because that bizarre national paranoia just isn't justified, but once you have them, your stuck with them!

So I just find it a quirky thing about a nation that is otherwise identical to my own, that absolutely gak loads of people have guns, like your walking around in Iraq or something.

2 guys recently tried to rob a net cafe in Florida. They burst in with guns out and pointed at people. A senior citizen with a conceal carry license pulled his gun out and shot both men without killing them. They then decided on medical treatment instead of dying and turned themselves in.

How many people in Florida are going to try robbing things if they have to be paranoid about people carrying concealed. Not many robbers are willing to take a bullet for the money.

Now I'm not saying that some old dude in Colorado should have been carrying. But if the FEAR that any old person could be armed would dissuade many people from attempting gun related crimes, for fear of being gunned down themselves.

As stated, the state with the strictest gun control laws has one of the highest amounts of gun related crimes in the country. Clearly making it hard to legally obtain a gun doesn't stop people from obtaining guns. A black market exists because our laws force it to exist.

I'm not saying everyone needs to be packing. But if there is a fear that ANYONE could be, then any sane person would rethink the crime they intended.

None of this accounts for people who are flying rodent gak crazy. But then crazy people don't need guns to kill people, as they usually have teeth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Most Americans don't want to own a fully automatic weapon. A handgun for self defense, perhaps a short-barrel shotgun for home defense, or a hunting rifle for, well, hunting, and all of the above for practice shooting-- but an AK47 with full auto would be seen as excessive even here in Texas.

This. No one in the states needs an AK. Bears don't need 30 rounds to take down.

Proper training and licensing is needed of course. And there should be guidelines as to who specifically can not own a firearm, such as felons convicted of violent crimes. That guy who went to prison for tax evasion isn't going to be in a drive by any time soon.

I just think the laws should be reduced to pistols only not shotguns, assault rifles or anything like that.

Shotguns (Short-barrel/Sawn-off especially, as they're easier to handle in a tight spot, although most places have them as illegal) are a perfectly logical method of home defense. The pellets have very little penetration ability and thus they are less likely to go through a wall and damage something in a different room or, worse, a different house.

I support the idea that if somebody is threating your life, you should be able to gun the scumbag down. By threat, I mean an actual knife or gun waved at you, not some drunken trash talk.
The right to self-defence is a principal I support. Where I live, there have been dozens of shopkeepers badly wounded, sometimes killed, by crooks and thugs attacking their shops.
Nine times out of ten, the robbers are carrying some kind of gun, so why shouldn't the shopkeeper?

I used to think It was a straightforward argument - guns are bad so lets ban them, but then you discover the Swiss and Finns have more guns per percentage of population, and those countries are safer than the USA.
Maybe it's the attitude of society?
What I do know is that it is such an emotive issue, that reasonable, rational attitudes and discussion, are often drowned out by the likes of Michelle Bachmann trying to score cheap political points. That's the tradegy.
But at the end of the day, it's for the American people to decide. If they're happy with 90 people killed every day by guns, then so be it.

Palindrome wrote:I have always been confused as to why Americans are so enamoured with guns and why so many seem to think that gun ownership is a basic right. I have been around firearms my whole life, they are even part of my job, but to me they are simply tools. I fail to see how anyone needs, or even wants, to own automatic weapons. I don't even own any firearms mysefl anymore as I simply have no use for them at the moment.

At the end of the day they are designed to kill and as such they need to be heavily regulated. If they aren't then you will see a lot of gun crime and shootings, its as simple as that.

It is something that is really hard to grasp as a non-american, my dad had similar issues when he emigrated here form Britain. It goes back to long before the revolution, and is ingrained in the american psyche, as pioneers and settlers it was an essential tool far more important to them then the average British subject. This continued until the French-indian war (7 years war) when colonial militia fought of the french, giving them the confidence and experience that would allow them to challenge the British. The revolution tought us that any government could be challenged by a well armed and confident populace. Guns were seen not as form of personal defense but rather as a defense against the government itself. So armaments are such an ingrained part of american society, government, and culture. We were created not by a professional army but rather by a group of armed civilians.

Eventually, the "protection against the government" thing faded (most people recognize that this kind of thing isn't really going to work these days anyway) and it became a matter of ingrained culture instead; hunting, target shooting, skeet shooting, self defense, and sometimes even fashion (some guns just look downright sexy to many Americans) in a weird sense. Collecting them is also popular, especially collecting historical weapons like ones from the World Wars.

So what's the deal?

Deal is that people who want to shoot other people might not care if "Illegal possession/carriage of firearm" gets written in after "Murder/Attempted Murder" ..couple this with MUCH different attitudes and legal complications in trying to defend yourself and the situation shouldn't be terribly surprising.

California has tons more people than Alaska.

Alaska also generally does not care if one goes for a long walk and put a pistol under their coat. California will jail you for this. Anyone deciding you need to die will still be armed if they want to be.
Alaska doesn't care if ones gun holds 11 rounds or just 10. California will jail you for this. For bad guys, this is irrelevant except that they can expect you will have fewer bullets than they would.
Alaska will not automatically assume one is out to kill babies by the bushel if a group of upstanding gentlemen decides curb stomp you, and the attackers take rounds. California will pretty much start with the assumption that you are, in fact, out to murder babies and work from there.
Alaska puts a rifle (in a surprising amount of cases a select-fire rifle) in most of its squad cars if it can at all be afforded. California does not do this. Bad guys can expect lighter initial police resistance in one place. On the bright side, response times in my experience have been equivalent (AKA: Way too damn late to actually help you, whether rural or city.) and they both draw chalk outlines and write reports with stunning efficiency.

Someone bent on preying on others is just enabled by the legal and social situation in one state more than the other.

I'm a huge supporter of pro-gun legislation, but I do think that some more specific regulation is required.

Like the transfer of gun ownership. Should be done at a licensed dealer, so that the appropriate background checks are performed.

While this would not have much impact criminals selling firearms to other criminals, it would decrease the possibility of the lawful gun owners from unknowingly selling to criminals.

I would also be supportive of a more thorough background check prior to issuing class 3 licenses, similar to the checks conducted when attempting to get a security clearance.

A lot of information can be learned about someone by asking their family, friends, and neighbors.

EDIT: Spelling.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I support the idea that if somebody is threating your life, you should be able to gun the scumbag down. By threat, I mean an actual knife or gun waved at you, not some drunken trash talk.
The right to self-defence is a principal I support. Where I live, there have been dozens of shopkeepers badly wounded, sometimes killed, by crooks and thugs attacking their shops.
Nine times out of ten, the robbers are carrying some kind of gun, so why shouldn't the shopkeeper?

Hence why outright blanket 'gun bans' are so moronic - you're only punishing the responsible, law-abiding citizen who's not out to shoot anyone who gets in his way like criminals do!

Criminals will always find ways to get around our laws and obtain their illegal weapons. They're criminals!!! They don't give jack- about the police or our justice system because it's become so watered down and tends to favour the law-breaker to begin with.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I used to think It was a straightforward argument - guns are bad so lets ban them, but then you discover the Swiss and Finns have more guns per percentage of population, and those countries are safer than the USA.
Maybe it's the attitude of society?
What I do know is that it is such an emotive issue, that reasonable, rational attitudes and discussion, are often drowned out by the likes of Michelle Bachmann trying to score cheap political points. That's the tradegy.
But at the end of the day, it's for the American people to decide. If they're happy with 90 people killed every day by guns, then so be it.

Emphasis mine.

And there's the real kicker; politicians are terrified of actually addressing the real problems because they don't want to be seen as racist and/or insensitive. "Political correctness" has become more important than protecting society from armed thugs, because our leaders don't want to risk offending the leftist nutters, bleeding-heart socialists, 'dude who takes everything as a personal insult', etc... crowd. (honestly, the right and the left needs to get together on this and work out a proper solution instead of continually pointing fingers at eachother!)

Look at Toronto to see where strict gun laws and rigid adherence to political correctness gets you.

Apparently, the solution to Toronto's gun violence problem as one local politician figures, it to ban the sale of bullets. (because of corse, every gangbanger is responsible enough to go down to his local gun store with his illegal handgun, and then leagally purchase his ammo with his non-existant gun permit you actually need to legally buy your bullets!)

It's a complicated issue and I'm glad I'm not making the decisions at the end of the day!

No matter how much laws you have, criminals will always have guns, and every so often, somebody will go on the rampage. It happens even in Britain.

Dare I say maybe Michael Moore had a point? Maybe there is something unique about gun violence in America, because there are other countries with more guns than the USA, and more countries with equal or more violent histories.

Maybe if America was more socialist (or at least addressed some of it's problems) and embraced European cafe culture, It would be less of a problem

Seriously, though, I'm more qualified than most on this forum to use guns (past military service) and yet, having seen violence and the mess that guns can do to human anatomy, I don't keep them, and I seem to shy away from violence these days except when it's plastic soldiers...

"Political correctness" has become more important than protecting society from armed thugs

Complete and utter nonsense. I dunno how it is in the UK, but that is certainly not the case here in the US (you know, the subject of the thread?). Here, the societal bias tends to be for harsh punishments and enforcement of crimes (unless they're white-collar crimes). It gets to the point where we have to have investigations and lawsuits just to protect the basic fundamental rights of the accused at times.

filbert wrote:I think it is going to be distasteful for Americans to confront this topic in the coming months given the events that have occurred

In a couple of months it will be forgotten as Americans move on to more important issues like The World Series and what Snookie is wearing...

Though it will get a quality made for tv movie on Lifetime in a year or two starring Brian Austin Green...

Also a documentary or three.

Melissia wrote:

"Political correctness" has become more important than protecting society from armed thugs

Complete and utter nonsense. I dunno how it is in the UK, but that is certainly not the case here in the US (you know, the subject of the thread?). Here, the societal bias tends to be for harsh punishments and enforcement of crimes (unless they're white-collar crimes). It gets to the point where we have to have investigations and lawsuits just to protect the basic fundamental rights of the accused at times.

Depends on where you are.

Here is CA its PC all the time, regardless of whats right. Some downright wrong things get done in the name of political correctness.


The idea of gun control is a nice one, but utterly futile in the end. If someone wants to get an automatic assault rifle, they will get one. Regardless of the laws.

And just because someone wants an assault rifle, doesn't mean they are planning on going on a rampage. Maybe I want an AK-47 because its a cool gun. If I have a weapon for self-defense, might as well make it a cool one right? And its good insurance if someone comes after me. The very threat of a "Chopper" is often enough to make most criminals run for the hills, unless they too have one. In which case its good I don't have some peashooter.

Not to mention that with the way some court cases have gone down in recent months, its really best to shoot and kill an intruder in your home instead of just wounding him. He might sue you for assault, and win(true story)

Relapse wrote:A snap answer would be to say it's the people that live there...

Its not a bad answer once all other variables are eliminated.

...but that's like saying ice cream attracts sharks because more shark attacks happen when ice cream is being sold on the beach.

Sharks are known for their love of honey glazed ham (preferably spiral cut), and that's the best they can get. Its why they hate us so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:This isn't a case of giving up guns, this is a case of a massive sea change in American culture and thinking to the extent that average Americans reject their guns.

I think you're partially correct. It is a cultural issue, but not related to firearms. Its more a matter of callousness with regard to the state of your fellow Americans.

I don't think banning guns in the US would help anyone, because as pointed out many times before, there are just too many guns around.
However, if there is a country with very stict gun control laws, it should definetly stay that way. Take germany for example. Its very hard to get a gun here, and hence there are less nutjobs gunning down dozens of people. Of course we have nutjobs too, but they usually have to contend with axes and air pistols, and do waaaay less damage.

Grey Templar wrote:
The idea of gun control is a nice one, but utterly futile in the end. If someone wants to get an automatic assault rifle, they will get one. Regardless of the laws.

Not true at all. Laws are designed to place hurdles in front of certain desires, not eliminate them entirely.

Does your desire for that automatic assault rifle exceed your desire to not break the law? I mean, would you try to steal one?

CT GAMER wrote:

filbert wrote:I think it is going to be distasteful for Americans to confront this topic in the coming months given the events that have occurred

In a couple of months it will be forgotten as Americans move on to more important issues like The World Series and what Snookie is wearing...

Though it will get a quality made for tv movie on Lifetime in a year or two starring Brian Austin Green...

Your both wrong, you know why?

In a couple of months something like this will have happened again.

You live in America. A nation bustling with firearms and 30% of the populous are on meds for mental issues.

You think your going to forget about this because of Snookie?!

Sadly chaps, your going to forget about it because its going to happen again someplace else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
The idea of gun control is a nice one, but utterly futile in the end. If someone wants to get an automatic assault rifle, they will get one. Regardless of the laws.

Not true at all. Laws are designed to place hurdles in front of certain desires, not eliminate them entirely.

Does your desire for that automatic assault rifle exceed your desire to not break the law? I mean, would you try to steal one?

Dogma has the right of it as usual.

The idea of gun control clearly isn't futile, because funny thing, the first world country with the slackest gun control laws, has (fething overwhelmingly by the way!) the largest number of deaths/murders by shooting.

Its not rocket science is it?!

Of course hard core gangsters and gak will always get guns, they can in England. But this kid, and the Columbine kid, and the Virginia tech kid, and any other numerous incidents I could mention, are not hard core gangsters, they were quiet and shy most of the time, they didnt associate with Russian mobsters or Mexican smugglers, and as a result if they went nuts in Yorkshire, they would probably stab a couple of people and that would be the end of it.

You honestly think a young lad like the perp in this incident would be able to get an assault rifle if he went to University in Edinburgh?

Why is the statement the 'US has loose gun laws' thrown about like that? As has been pointed out before, some states have *very* strict laws and sometimes contribute substantially to the nation's overall gun crimes.

Although, I suppose it is the case that those states have less strict laws than say the UK or some such country.

Assualt style weapons are not an issue. The shooter in COlorado did not have an automatic. Even though the weapon jammed on him was more due to the weapon double feeding itself was due to the huge capacity magazine he was using. Good thing he didn't knew SPORTS corrective action. Only thing saving my 30 rounds mags from being collected locally is I'm military. Threw that in there because isn't high capacity magazines are being "phased out" from civilian purchase?

what is actually defined as a high cap magazine

I completely agree that there is no practical or realistic way you could ever remove all guns from society. However the idea that gun control is somehow 100% ineffective is ludicrous. The cat is certainly mostly out of the bag but in the case of Virginia tech or the aurora shooting a lack of regulation and oversight is quite obviously a huge factor. As dogma and matty have stated, a lot of the lone wolf loser psychos who end going on senseless rampages weren't exactly plugged in to the local underground firearms market. I really doubt the Virginia tech kid or this guy would have been able to acquire illegally purchased firearms. Although the thoughts of a nerdy loner walking around the bad parts of town asking every person he see's where he can buy a gun is amusing.

What I hate the most about every post-rampage discussion is the idea that "you know what would have solved that, more guns". It just seems asinine and it usually comes from the same hindsight heroes who think if only they were there they would/could have done something about it. The thought never crosses their mind that they may have A) been s***ing their pants or B) the first one to take a shot to the dome.

It's funny, you talk drugs and half the people seem to think the war on drugs is working but when you talk to the some people about guns its "oh you can't stop it, there will be a black market". That’s too much cognitive dissonance for my taste.

You can't stop most crime most of the time but the idea that it's fruitless to attempt to prevent it through regulation is bull***t. If all buddy in the theater could find on his stroll though the bad part of town was an ass kicking or possibly a crappy pistol we wouldn't be seeing nearly the same death toll.

30 rds mag and above. A twenty round mag is not considered high capacity