Is it time to talk about guns?

Thankfully I don't feel anything has gone wrong.
My genetics are Hanseatin back to the start of recorded history. Have a field day with that.

I forgot Tishomingo's QUOTE.

 

I think that might explain it, if you're ideological about it.

 

I'm not. But every once in a while I smile thinking about how my ancestors enjoyed codfish for hundreds of years before Columbus could go for a long boat ride.

 

One day I will learn to pull the quotes apart like that. Please bear with me until then.

You said I saw no difference. I pointed out they're both autoloading firearms with similar rates of fire, and similar capacities. If you need to swap the magazine, it doesn't matter if it's. .223/5.56 or 12ga.

Next you're trying to say that an ar15 is deadly when it comes to school or mass shootings when up close, like a store or classroom, the shotgun is far more efficient and deadly.

You pointed out something regarding magazines, staggered or otherwise. While you can get 30 round magazines for the ar15, 20 is far more common, and 20 round magazines are available for a 12ga. If you need to reload, what gives the ar15 an advantage? 200 rounds means belt fed, and that's automatic, and generally illegal, so why go there?

Some things I have no problem with severely limiting access t. Like automatic firearms.
Other things, like 20 round magazines, heat shields, suppressors and grips shouldn't be banned. Especially if it's because they make what's just a rifle look "scary ", or magically turn it into an "assault" rifle. Assault rifles need to have an automatic setting, and those are for the most part illegal.

I don't think people will think what you post is wrong. By and large you are well thought out and clearly understood.
You do, however, have some odd thoughts and notions regarding firearms.
They make you seem afraid and angry at your fear.

 

Seems to me you're the one with the odd thoughts, buddy. Meagain has shown us evidence that the AR-15 is, in fact, the weapon of choice of mass murderers, for reasons that seem obvious. You're trying to get us to believe otherwise--mainly by making out that you have far superior knowledge about firearms and that we benighted fools who want to do something about mass shootings are barking up the wrong tree.

The Donald, Jr. tells us people can kill people with a bat or other weapon, which is true. A frying pan might do. But AR-15's are more efficient and cooler. And like Don, Jr., your make the standard NRA argument that guns don't kill people, people do, which is true but beside the point. People generally use weapons to kill people. If firearms aren't readily available they might resort to other things, like knives and machetes, or as a last resort, their bare hands. In Indonesia back in the day , people would sometimes "run amok"--a phrase describing the local custom of mass murderers to grab machete and run down the street hacking other people. Folks of Hanseatin background with psychological stresss, at least the ones in Scandanavia, prefer to turn their aggression inward on themselves--as evidenced by a high suicide rate, perhaps i influenced by the long, dark winters. Obviously, there are cultural reasons, as well as psychological ones, for this phenomenon--which have been studied by psychologists, anthropologists and social psychologists.
"Running Amok": an explanation for random mass murder
Running Amok: A Modern Perspective on a Culture-Bound Syndrome
Suicide and Scandinavia | Semantic Scholar
Can Culture Affect the Risk of Suicide? | NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness Indonesia: A Violent Culture? on JSTOR
Racial/Ethnic Differences in Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms in Adolescents - Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology
Racial/ethnic differences in internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescents
However, mass murders in the U.S. are rarely done with machetes, clubs, knives, bare hands, etc., because they're so much less efficient than firearms, and provide greater opportunities to victims to get away or fight back. I'm reminded of one of the Harrrison Ford movies, where the wild-eyed, turbaned assassin charges at him brandishing a sword and he calmly shoots him with his pistol.

I'm all for mental health, and think that the U.S., at this juncture in history, could use a lot more of it. It would be great if the Republicans who tend to bring it up when mass shootings occur, would put their money where their mouths are. It's been my experience that Republicans most of the time tend to be skeptical of psychiatry and psychology and think more in terms of sin as a cause. I, too, think psychiatry and psychology aren't rocket science and that identifying appropriate candidates for treatment and getting them into the system is a formidable problem. As for sin, preachers have been working on that for centuries, with limited success. So just as I kept weapons away from my kids when they were small., I think it makes sense to restrict easy access to the kinds of guns involved in mass shootings, to have background checks, Red Flag Laws, raise the age of purchase and ownership to 21. etc. And yes, ban assault-type weapons like AR-15's.If other wepons seem as efficient in committing mass murder, ban those, too--unless it can be shown that the benefits outweigh the risks.These seems like a much more efficient approach, and there's nothing in the language of the Second Amendment nor the Supreme Court opinions interpreting it, that would seem to restrict such measures. So why the blanket resistance? It won't solve the problem, but it seems to be the most promising line of attack for reducing the carnage.

 

We're missing a point on mental illness, besides being out of the realms of affordability as any medical treatment, once you are tagged in the health system with mental illness treatment, you're screwed for life. Any employer, any insurer, any health system will see it and discriminate, HIPAA or not - that's just window dressing for the casual amateur inquiry. I have an acquaintance that sells life insurance. He tells me there is an internal database that tracks these kind of things, fed off of what people have had to give up from applying for insurance elsewhere. Fine print. "we may share your qualification information with those that hold 'proper' informational requirements. It's like being an alcoholic - once you apply for treatment, you're almost a criminal in employer's and insurers' eyes. It's just the way things are. "Did you ever seek treatment for ............." is everywhere. It's a shame we can't use some of the dough they spend on private incarceration.

 

Let me add a few more odd thoughts then...
Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech guy used a handgun as did most of the other mass shooters ever. Any idea what kind? Of course not. Is there any chance at all that it's because the ar15 is by far the most popular rifle in the country that it has been used often and not because it's the best and most evil killing machine ever conjured up by mankind?
You really need to stop pretending that if every ar15 on the planet disappeared the world would be a safer place and start addressing why on earth some people are driven to commit horrible acts of violence.
What's the old saying? Good or bad, it ain't the arrow, it's the Indian.

 

Texas police shoot, kill man armed with gun at youth summer camp, authorities say

It's sometimes the good guy with a gun...

 

Possibly either. Possibly neither. If you have data, why don't you show it to us.

The good guys with guns don't seem up to the job. Sometimes the good guys with guns (Texas police stand) idly by in the hall while children are massacred cuz they're afraid of a bad kid with an AR15

Again, an effort to substitute a meme for rationally addressing the issues. Nobody is talking about banning all guns or getting criminals to obey the law. The idea is to make it harder for criminals, or people with issues, to obtain weapons that enable them to kill large numbers of people in a short time before "good men with guns" can respond. It won't solve the problem, but it might help to alleviate it. Seems worth considering, long with restrict easy access to the kinds of guns involved in mass shootings, to have background checks, Red Flag Laws, raise the age of purchase and ownership to 21. etc I'm sure the NRA stockpile of memes has one for each of these options, but it might be fun to see what you come up with.

BTW, who is this geezer with the cigarette and the beer can? Is he an expert on anything? Why should we trust his judgment? I have a question for him: Wait..banning murder stops murderers from killing people? Please tell me more about why we have laws against murder on the books when murders still happen every day. Should we do away with them?

 

At the time, Seung-Hui Cho's ability to kill so many people with a couple of handguns intrigued reporters. For some theories, see: How did Cho Seung-Hui kill so many people with just a pair of handguns?. But showing that it's possible to do something doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been more efficient to do it with an AR15. And then there's the issue of background checks and Red Flag Laws. He had previously been accused of stalking by two women on campus, detained by police who were concerned about his sanity, and ordered by a magistrate to a mental health hospital for evaluation. Possibly he didn't have an AR15 because it would have attracted attention, him being a resident alien and all.

I've addressed your "guns don't kill people argument in Post # 1879.We'll never get people to stop killing people. The hope is to make it more difficult for them to kill large numbers of people at a time.

 

If that was a accurate statement you would be reading this
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

 

We've only tried one and it doesn't seem to be working, soooo...

Alabama school resource officer shoots, kills ‘suspicious’ person outside elementary school: report
Here's another one that worked

Please, don't take the memes too seriously.

 

I'm all for making it as difficult as possible for them too. But not at the expense of someone who is responsible and wants to own a particular firearm for whatever reason. Especially if there's no data showing the legislation is actually doing what's intended and its only an emotional knee-jerk reaction by someone using a tragedy to push an anti 2nd amendment/private ownership of firearms agenda.
I'm all happy about your hope, but anything that will have no effect but making things difficult for people like me will be resisted.
Anything that'll reduce the firearm tragedy epidemic will be supported.