After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

It's a .22 semiautomatic rifle with a ten-shot magazine. I'm asking your opinion as to whether or not it's an assault rifle. In other words, does it fit the description of an assault rifle based on your perception? Also, do you mean that you won't support a ban on shotguns unless someone in authority tells you that you should?

And here, I've researched this for you:

Silencers are not rare. As of February of last year, there are 1,297,670 silencers registered with ATF. The reason that silencers are rarely used in crimes is not because they are rare. So the answer to your question is no.

Concerning the alcohol issue, I said that according to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, it is estimated that 32 to 50 percent of homicides are preceded by alcohol consumption by the perpetrator. And I said that now that you've been told that the number of murders could be reduced by one third or more, what do you think about limiting the amount of alcohol Americans can purchase in a given timeframe? Your answer to that was that it sounded like an excellent idea. I don't know how you could have thought that you were being asked that in other than the context of homicides; I mean, that's what the subject is, and that's what my question was.

Also, you should probably read what the ATF has to say about the popularity of the AR-15. It can be found here:

Read the white paper on firearms regulations

Scroll down to number 6. And to be brought up to speed concerning silencers, scroll down to number 8.

 

LOL

Not

Oh this is the classic ‘I’m not a racist..BUT…’

Oh no I’m not saying black people are more criminal, immoral and violent BUT I’m going to use something from AmRen a white supremacist source to imply they are 50x more likely than white people to be so.

*

So after saying the ‘trash humans’ were not different from other humans you are now strongly implying (in that nudge and a wink way so favoured by racists) that ‘the trash’ are not like other humans (they are genetically different) and oh and it pains you to say it BUT it is just a FACT that black people are more likely than other humans to be ‘trash’ human beings.

Oh and some of my best friends are black…BUT…well….

Wow Goebbels would be proud of you LOL

*

So your argument seems to be that - 'oh it’s not ease of access to guns that is the problem in the US the real problem is these ‘different’ people, these defective people, these black people, and their bad genes.'

It’s crap but a masterly crap argument – if it’s down to these bad black people (and much, much smaller number of white ones) then there is nothing that can be done, no amount of gun control will help because it’s just a FACT that a majority of black people will just carry on killing at the same rate whatever happens.

But if you take this to its logical conclusion, there could be a solution one might call it a final solution….BUT…of course some of your best friends are black so you wouldn’t be suggesting that.

 

Ok despite the racist nudge nudge going on the thing is that general crime levels are not that significantly different in the US than in other comparable countries except in relate to gun related deaths and injury

Guns make any confrontation much more likely to have a tragic outcome, a simple argument, domestic problem, or criminal activity where there is ease of access to guns has the potential to end much more badly.

The US doesn't have crime problem it has a gun problem

Here is something I posted a few years back –

First up I should point out that statistically in nearly all developed countries crime seems to be on the wane and nobody seems to know why although there are many theories here are just a few - the reduction of lead in petrol (lead poisoning increase violent behaviour) , women getting more rights and entering the workplace (which some claimed has ‘feminised’ society, calming it) liberal abortion laws. (a theory advanced by the authors of Freakonomics who argued that making it easier to get an abortion has diminished the number of children born into the underclass.) an ageing population (oldies are less violent) even the popularity of computer games (people are getting their aggression out on pixals rather than people).

Even so the general crime figures for the US are roughly the same as many other nations the only really big anomaly is gun related deaths.


Even taking out gun related homicides from the general homicide rate gives a figure for the US that is roughly the same as these European nations (1.2).

Now it is very difficult comparing crime figures form differing countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the US do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation,and threats within their definition of violent crime while New Zealand does and these offences comprise nearly half of all violent crime in that country (NZ MoJ). And there are problems with population density the US has a much lower population density overall than in European countries although urban areas can e similar.

But let us do a bit of a broad overview.

Police Recorded Rape Cases per 100,000 Population

US – 28.6

England and Wales -27.7

France 16.2

Germany 8.9

Cases of Robbery per 100,000 Population

US – 133

England and Wales -137

France – 181

Germany – 60

Police Recorded Cases burglary 100,000 population

US – 715

England and Wales - 986

France – 513

Germany - 456

Police Recorded Vehicle Theft Cases per 100,000

US – 258

England and Wales - 215

France – 333

Germany – 106

Number of prisoners per 100,000

US – 716

England and Wales – 148

France – 101

Germany – 80

*

It seems to me that the fear and intimidation based ideas prevalent in the US (largest number of privately owned guns, large prison population) isn’t really working very well.

It hasn’t reduced general crime in any significant way but has led to much larger numbers of gun related crimes compared with others and all the problems associated with high prison populations

 

. . . . .

 

As far as the rate of fire, no semiautomatic weapon is an assault rifle. A folding stock does not make a weapon more deadly. And as far as I know, there's been no rash of bayonet deaths; in fact, I can't recall any. Also, the angle at which I hold my wrist when shooting a rifle doesn't affect my accuracy. In the White Paper I provided, the ATF clearly assesses the AR-15 as a sport rifle that is now standard for hunting activities.

I told you that "as of February of last year" there were 1,297,670 silencers. Why would you mention the number from 2015? And your speculation that their cost keeps them in the hands of the wealthy who are less likely to commit crimes is nonsensical conjecture. The fact is that they pose so little of a threat that the ATF recommends deregulating them. And frankly, if someone is shooting up a school or airport, etc., I'd prefer to be warned by hearing the shots; not that the silencer would make that much of a difference.

How did the silencers help in the crimes committed by those who used them. Again, the ATF has put the danger into perspective. Also, the ATF did not say that understaffing and underfunding is the reason for wanting to deregulate silencers. I don't know how you could get that from what you had read. What you really read was that the ATF sees the regulation of silencers as archaic and a waste of both time and money because . . . they're not a threat.

For everyone else, take a look at proposal 8 in the link below, and see for yourself the reasons why the ATF does not consider them a threat to public safety.

Read the white paper on firearms regulations

​

 

What, if anything, does this have to do with mass school shootings, a majority of which have been done by whites? Is it just an effort to change the subject from practical solutions to reduce a serious form of gun violence to another, far more complex problem of gun violence in urban inner cities that is far more difficult if not impossible to solve. Where does your warrior gene theory get us in terms of practical solutions, or is it your point that there are none? Remember the song " Whenever they got his Irish up, Clancy lowered the boom"--a reference to the stereotype that Irish were inherently hot tempered prone to violence. Do Irish have the warrior gene? Why don't we here as much about Irish violence as we did at the turn of the last century when they occupied some of the same neighborhoods now occupied by blacks. Why aren't Chinese who are also high in the offending genetic allele also violent? When was the last time we heard of them being involved in gun violence? Why are the Africans in Malawi enjoying a rate of violent crime much lower than ours? At the regional level, why do Southern white males have a higher rate of violence than their northern counterparts? Nisbett and Cohn (1996) traced it to settlement of the South by Scotch Irish herders who settled the region and brought with them their propensity for violence to protect their property. Subsequent research has falsified this theory and concluded that really poverty was behind it.Is Southern violence due to a culture of honor? Which is why it is always dangerous for people with thin grounding in genetic and social scientific research to engage in arm-chair theorizing about racial roots of social problems. If there were such roots, where would that get us in terms of solving the problem of mass school shootings, or of violence in general? Never any proposed solutions, just big obfuscating questions.

 

Contrary to your belief that a person can pull the trigger of a rifle faster with a pistol grip, the fact is that it's more a matter of preference or comfort. Pistol grips aren't the part of the gun that kills. You just have an aversion to the erganomic evolution of rifles. I believe that's what the ATF was referring to when they cited archaic standards as the reason for villifying such things. How did you interpret what they said? Do you think they're full of shit? Do you think that they were lying? And if your answer to those questions is yes, do you feel that your archaic bent concerning pistol grips is at the bottom of your disregard for the recommendations of the ATF?
Like all rifles, the AR-15 can be used for hunting. That's right. Here again you are assuming the role of dictator, implying that as long as there are alternatives, no one needs to use an AR-15. Well how about this: As long as there are AR-15s, no one needs to use alternatives.

And now you are trying to blame the a backlog of applications for silencers as the reason for the ATF's recommendation that they not be regulated. You're playing blind to the fact that they made it clear that they pose no threat to the public. They didn't say that, because of understaffing, they are forced to recommend deregulating an item that is a danger to the public. They said that regulation in the case of silencers is unjustified. You are simply being ineffective in your effort to spin the ATF's input.

 

You don't have to trust Turk. I provided you with the ATF's statements. I believe they represent the whole ATF.

But to be fair, I should have asked you if you've heard of anyone from the ATF who has voiced opposition to Turks proposals. So, have you?

 

The ATF is a law enforcement agency in the United States’ Department of Justice that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products.

A White Paper is an authoritative report or guide that informs readers concisely about a complex issue and presents the issuing body's (the ATF's) philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision. If the proposals are not shared by the entire body of the ATF, then let them voice, or otherwise document, their opposition. Have you heard anything?

If you have some information concerning members of that issuing body who have dissented from, or otherwise opposed, the ATF's second highest-ranking official's proposals, then you should make them known. Otherwise, your complaint amounts to rambling about who is in cahoots with who.

If I show you that silencers are rarely used in the commission of a crime, you respond with some speculation that only the rich can afford them and that the rich commit less crimes. You know how that comes across, right? Do you have any statistics that are counter to those of the ATF concerning the number of crimes committed involving silencers? They give an average of 44 prosecutions involving silencers per year. What have you heard?

Also, you don't seem to realize that your comment about pistol grips being useful for assaults on people also proves that it's also useful for hunting.

 

Some ideas presented already to try and lessen the harm from guns

From MeAgain

Educate people about what the new legislation is about and would entail (Not taking away all guns, the goal is to reduce harm by limiting easy access to the criminal and irresponsible)

Reinforcing, enhancing, and mandating back ground checks.

Immediate destruction of any weapon, ammunition, etc. used or acquired illegally.

Limiting the amount of legal ammunition that can be bought and retained.

Buyback programs - to get rid of or lower the number of midnight specials, assault weapons, etc.

All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence and responsibility to get a gun licence (part of which would be to pass a psychological evaluation)

A gun owner would need an up to date licence and insurance to carry on owning a gun.

Mandatory records of all sells or transfers of all firearms and immediate destruction of any that are discovered to be not recorded.

Let me add, the immediate confiscation of all private weapons that hold more than 6 rounds

From Balbus

Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

From NotMyRealName

Enhance the requirement to obtain a license to carry a gun. In some states, no training is required. You simply fill out a form, pay your fee and you get a license to carry a weapon. That needs to stop.

Raise the age limit of gun ownership. A person who has served on active duty military could be exempted, but the rest no.

If evidence of drug or alcohol use becomes a recorded problem, or a mental instability flag gets reported, it should not only be a red flag to purchase , it should be at the least a temporary loss of privilege to posses a weapon, until such time as that condition has resolved. Issue a restraining order on the spot and make them turn in or sell their weapons.

Make the gun buyers pay a school fortification fee or tax. Use that tax as a way to fortify schools using the very same people that are buying guns.

Don't allow the private sale of guns to anyone that you haven't run a background check on. Make a national database a required to be documented before a private sale can take place.

Take away the illegally owned guns. Place the illegal gun owners in prison.

Make a crime committed using a gun, hard time in prison. No 3 strikes your out, one strike and you won't get out for a minimum of X years.

Make the attorneys who gets these slime balls off be part of a process whereby they are forced to pay a tax of some sort if they choose to represent them. Penalize them for helping get them off. If an attorney doesn't wish to represent them, too bad.

*

These would be national laws the same through all the states and a department would be set up to monitor them and make sure they are been enforced equally throughout the country.

 

More pages, more crap and misdirection from the gun lobby side.

Still no rational or reasonable arguments against prudent gun control just more tangents, more quibbling, more bluster and more hot air.

I think and I hope Americans have reached a Emperor’s new clothes moment, where the people suddenly realise the Emperor is naked that all the NRA tailors anti-gun control arguments, propaganda and lies are seen for what they are – devoid of any worth or content.

And the Emperor is seem for what he is naked.

Oh and remember in the fairy tale it was a child that first saw the truth.

 

There only seem to be two planks on which todays gun lobby stand, everything else seems on the periphery.

These are

1) Personal Defence

2) Defence against ‘bad’ government

That’s it

*

Defence against ‘bad’ government

This doesn’t really stand up to even the smallest scrutiny and when looked at more closely seems could even be dangerous to a democratic society.

Even many of the people that put forwards this ideas know it’s basically crap, a toothless threat, the fact being that even the best armed citizen would not stand a chance against the professional armed services.

But even then the ones putting it forward cling on to the idea that even this rather limp threat is enough in itself to give authorities pause in doing things the right leaning gun lobby wouldn’t like.

And that’s where things begin to give me pause – because what many in the gun owning right seem to be threatening is that if governance moves to the left even if that is democratically voted for they believe they have the ‘right’ to use their guns to cause trouble and disrupted that process.

Personal Defence

Thing is that very few on the US gun control side actually say the law abiding citizens of the US can’t have a gun for personal or home defence, they just believe there should be reasonable limits and certain responsibilities attached to gun ownership.

So it’s a bit of a non-starter for many gun owners that would be happy to go along with reasonable gun control measures, it seems to me to be a much smaller group that, keep claiming that ALL gun control is about taking away ALL guns., and an even smaller group that push the idea that it’s all a liberal/leftie conspiracy.

Yes there are others that while claiming they are all for prudent gun control seem to then put up petty arguments against it but all of which seem to be of the –I don’t want, because I don’t want – variety, that don’t stand up well when looked at on any of the multiple times, multiple people bring them up.

Basically the gun lobby arguments against rational and reasonable gun control seem to be over bar the shouting, the increasingly panicked and shill shouting coming mainly from the gun owning right.

 

What part you think is little?