First of all, you have the right to have an opinion, and I'm glad that you do have one rather than none at all.
Secondly, I propose nothing at all; but since you ask, my suggestion is that a good start is:
1. limit people with a criminal history from legally owning firearms 2. for fully automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons should be legally kept in a locked and secure gun safe. Most gun related murders are spur of the moment decisions and not having them handy does reduce incidences without making life difficult for people that decide to own them for legitimate purposes (whatever the fuck that is for assault rifles). 3. Mandate the sort of weaponry that is apparopriate for personal and home defence. A fucking assault rifle or RPG is hardly legitimate home defence, but a hand gun or shotgun is reasonable (considering America's violent civil history).
Not the end of the world, the Russians still won't invade, and the number of gun related murders will decrease. It won't stop crazy shit like the Breviks of the world, but it will reduce the incidences and will make things like Columbine less likely to happen again.
Until the US citizens change how they think, this sort of thing will always happen on this sort of scale.
Now I only bother typing this because you asked. I don't expect to change anyone's mind or any bandwagoning to occur either way.
None of the measures you proposed would have even reduced the probability of the Aurora massacre.
1. limit people with a criminal history from legally owning firearms
Holmes had no criminal record. And in most states, felons are normally barred from legally obtaining firearms.
2. for fully automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons should be legally kept in a locked and secure gun safe.
At what times? How would anyone ever take a weapon stored in such a fashion to a gun range, to hunt, or for whatever other legitimate purpose (including self or other-defense) he might have?
Furthermore, how would this have deterred Holmes, who obviously prepared this attack well in advance? And who was obviously prepared to meet the far stiffer penalties for multiple murders?
2. 3. Mandate the sort of weaponry that is apparopriate for personal and home defence. A fucking assault rifle or RPG is hardly legitimate home defence, but a hand gun or shotgun is reasonable (considering America's violent civil history)
This is already the case.
Also, the term "assault rifle" is functionally meaningless: it's just the legal term for a category of weapons which the passers of a bill decided to lump a bunch of "military-styled" firearms.
(I have no idea what a "fucking assault rifle" would be -- possibly one with a dildo in place of the bayonet?)
I'm not sure that America's "civil history" is more violent than that of most European nations, unless you rather arbitrarily limit the historical time frames (for instance, forgetting about everything in Europe before the late 1940's and everything in Eastern Europe period.
Also, the term "assault rifle" is functionally meaningless: it's just the legal term for a category of weapons which the passers of a bill decided to lump a bunch of "military-styled" firearms.
I'd argue that this distinction is not that arbitrary as you try to make it. Rifles are tools and as with any other tool you have different categories of this tool specialized for different purposes. I argue there are 3 distinct such categories with differing requirements: warfare, hunting, defence.
Assault rifles are built for modern war combat. You need to be able to attack an enemy at typically 100 to 300 yards, while at the same time you need to be able to fight inside houses. You want high capacity magazines and ease of changing them. You want high penetration power in case your enemy hides behind a wooden wall or lightweight brick wall. You also want to be able to break personal armor where possible. The ammunition is designed to disable an enemy with one hit to any part of the body; preferably you do not kill the enemy but only wound him such that two or more people are needed to get that guy out of combat zone and his recovery binds rescources in his home base for months to come. Users are being trained for months for effective usage.
What are the requirements for a hunting rifle? You want to kill the buck with a single shot, you do not want it to run away, often with a shot to the internal organs, the heart especially. You want to be able to kill a north facing buck from the south end. Wildlife tends to not wear personal armor, or so I have heard. Let's assume that to be true. You do not need high rates of fire, as a single shot should get your kill and usually you do not try to exterminate the entire herd in one go. You don't want your ammo go too far in case you miss and you might hurt others. You have time to take aim and you want to be able to kill game over long distances, say 1000 yards. Military sniper rifles have an overlap with this category, but those are distinct from the above mentioned assault rifles anyway.
Finally you have self defence. You want an untrained individual to be able to defend himself against a single attacker or a small group of attackers at short range, close quartes in an unexpected encounter. Point in the general direction, shoot, and that single hit should have taken the target out of action. Low penetration power as you don't want to shoot your neighbors at the same time. Shotguns with inbuilt magazine for say 6 shots are ideal. If you have not taken down your attackers by the last shot, chances are that either they have come close enough in the meantime to overwhelm you or you have time to reload.
So these are in my unhumble opinion three categories that require distinctly different designs of rifles.
So would you please tell me, for what purpose a civilian in a country like the US needs an assault rifle as set out above: high rate of fire, high penetration power, limited armor piercing capacity, low accuracy on the long range, fast interchangable high capacity magazines. In what kind of situation do you expect them to be advantagous over a shotgun or revolver/pistol in self defence and in what kind of hunting scenario do you consider an assault rifle to excel over a dedicated hunting rifle?
P.S.: Do you want to argue the actions of people most of whom are long dead or do you want to talk about our generation, that can still change the world?
I don't propose to have the answers for Aurora. I will not comment on this specific incident until it has been through the courts. Everything I have mentioned is related to prior events.
1. felons are normally barred from legally obtaining firearms that's good to hear. I had been told otherwise, so I am glad this is the case.
2. At what times? How would anyone ever take a weapon stored in such a fashion to a gun range, to hunt, or for whatever other legitimate purpose (including self or other-defense) he might have? we manage just fine. We keep ALL firearms in locked gun cabinets which are checked annually by the police. When we go to the gun range or hunting trips we unlock the cabinet, put it in the car, go to where we want to use it, use it, then take it back and lock it up again. They don't live on top of wardrobes or behind the front door. I don't see the problem here.
As to your second point, as mentioned I won't comment on this guy until it has been through the courts. However, Norway's Brevik may meet requirements for comparison and yes, a premeditated well planned incident like that is near impossible to avoid, especially in places flooded with easily available advanced weaponry. However, controlling and recording who has what actually makes good use of intelligence services.
3. This is already the case. Really? Good! Also, the term "assault rifle" is functionally meaningless Bullshit. Target, hunting and culling is generally done with single shot or semi auto weapons. Anything fully automatic or designed specifically as anti-personnel is a combat or assault weapon. You'd have to be a pussy to use a fully auto weapon for hunting. Not to mention picking hundreds of bullets out of your kill before you can eat it is stupid.
America's root problem is the right for civilians to bear arms. This will never change. It came about due to your civil wars.
But if we speak of modern times (ie in the last 40 years - my lifetime so far) and disregard history, the figures are still against you.
People generally expect atrocities and moral failure in tinpot despot 3rd world shitholes.
In the last 40 years there have been two killing sprees in Australia (the last in 1996), Three in the UK and three in Finland. In the USA there has been 19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_spree (Wiki is not empirical, but the references at the bottom are)
The USA has a gun homicide rate of nearly 3 in every 100,000 people and a non-gun related homicide rate of about 1.5. Compared with Canada of 0.54 and 1.04 respectively, Australia with 0.31 and 1.26, 0.12 and 1.33, Germany of 0.47 and 0.7. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence) Again, check references at the bottom of the wiki page.
Something in the USA is horribly broken. What is it? It's not Muslims or liberals. It's not Mexicans. It's not Obama.
Secondly, I propose nothing at all; but since you ask, my suggestion is that a good start is:
1. limit people with a criminal history from legally owning firearms
2. for fully automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons should be legally kept in a locked and secure gun safe. Most gun related murders are spur of the moment decisions and not having them handy does reduce incidences without making life difficult for people that decide to own them for legitimate purposes (whatever the fuck that is for assault rifles).
3. Mandate the sort of weaponry that is apparopriate for personal and home defence. A fucking assault rifle or RPG is hardly legitimate home defence, but a hand gun or shotgun is reasonable (considering America's violent civil history).
Not the end of the world, the Russians still won't invade, and the number of gun related murders will decrease. It won't stop crazy shit like the Breviks of the world, but it will reduce the incidences and will make things like Columbine less likely to happen again.
Until the US citizens change how they think, this sort of thing will always happen on this sort of scale.
Now I only bother typing this because you asked. I don't expect to change anyone's mind or any bandwagoning to occur either way.
Reply
1. limit people with a criminal history from legally owning firearms
Holmes had no criminal record. And in most states, felons are normally barred from legally obtaining firearms.
2. for fully automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons should be legally kept in a locked and secure gun safe.
At what times? How would anyone ever take a weapon stored in such a fashion to a gun range, to hunt, or for whatever other legitimate purpose (including self or other-defense) he might have?
Furthermore, how would this have deterred Holmes, who obviously prepared this attack well in advance? And who was obviously prepared to meet the far stiffer penalties for multiple murders?
2. 3. Mandate the sort of weaponry that is apparopriate for personal and home defence. A fucking assault rifle or RPG is hardly legitimate home defence, but a hand gun or shotgun is reasonable (considering America's violent civil history)
This is already the case.
Also, the term "assault rifle" is functionally meaningless: it's just the legal term for a category of weapons which the passers of a bill decided to lump a bunch of "military-styled" firearms.
(I have no idea what a "fucking assault rifle" would be -- possibly one with a dildo in place of the bayonet?)
I'm not sure that America's "civil history" is more violent than that of most European nations, unless you rather arbitrarily limit the historical time frames (for instance, forgetting about everything in Europe before the late 1940's and everything in Eastern Europe period.
Reply
I'd argue that this distinction is not that arbitrary as you try to make it. Rifles are tools and as with any other tool you have different categories of this tool specialized for different purposes. I argue there are 3 distinct such categories with differing requirements: warfare, hunting, defence.
Assault rifles are built for modern war combat. You need to be able to attack an enemy at typically 100 to 300 yards, while at the same time you need to be able to fight inside houses. You want high capacity magazines and ease of changing them. You want high penetration power in case your enemy hides behind a wooden wall or lightweight brick wall. You also want to be able to break personal armor where possible. The ammunition is designed to disable an enemy with one hit to any part of the body; preferably you do not kill the enemy but only wound him such that two or more people are needed to get that guy out of combat zone and his recovery binds rescources in his home base for months to come. Users are being trained for months for effective usage.
What are the requirements for a hunting rifle? You want to kill the buck with a single shot, you do not want it to run away, often with a shot to the internal organs, the heart especially. You want to be able to kill a north facing buck from the south end. Wildlife tends to not wear personal armor, or so I have heard. Let's assume that to be true. You do not need high rates of fire, as a single shot should get your kill and usually you do not try to exterminate the entire herd in one go. You don't want your ammo go too far in case you miss and you might hurt others. You have time to take aim and you want to be able to kill game over long distances, say 1000 yards. Military sniper rifles have an overlap with this category, but those are distinct from the above mentioned assault rifles anyway.
Finally you have self defence. You want an untrained individual to be able to defend himself against a single attacker or a small group of attackers at short range, close quartes in an unexpected encounter. Point in the general direction, shoot, and that single hit should have taken the target out of action. Low penetration power as you don't want to shoot your neighbors at the same time. Shotguns with inbuilt magazine for say 6 shots are ideal. If you have not taken down your attackers by the last shot, chances are that either they have come close enough in the meantime to overwhelm you or you have time to reload.
So these are in my unhumble opinion three categories that require distinctly different designs of rifles.
So would you please tell me, for what purpose a civilian in a country like the US needs an assault rifle as set out above: high rate of fire, high penetration power, limited armor piercing capacity, low accuracy on the long range, fast interchangable high capacity magazines. In what kind of situation do you expect them to be advantagous over a shotgun or revolver/pistol in self defence and in what kind of hunting scenario do you consider an assault rifle to excel over a dedicated hunting rifle?
P.S.: Do you want to argue the actions of people most of whom are long dead or do you want to talk about our generation, that can still change the world?
Reply
Reply
1. felons are normally barred from legally obtaining firearms that's good to hear. I had been told otherwise, so I am glad this is the case.
2. At what times? How would anyone ever take a weapon stored in such a fashion to a gun range, to hunt, or for whatever other legitimate purpose (including self or other-defense) he might have? we manage just fine. We keep ALL firearms in locked gun cabinets which are checked annually by the police. When we go to the gun range or hunting trips we unlock the cabinet, put it in the car, go to where we want to use it, use it, then take it back and lock it up again. They don't live on top of wardrobes or behind the front door. I don't see the problem here.
As to your second point, as mentioned I won't comment on this guy until it has been through the courts. However, Norway's Brevik may meet requirements for comparison and yes, a premeditated well planned incident like that is near impossible to avoid, especially in places flooded with easily available advanced weaponry. However, controlling and recording who has what actually makes good use of intelligence services.
3. This is already the case. Really? Good!
Also, the term "assault rifle" is functionally meaningless Bullshit. Target, hunting and culling is generally done with single shot or semi auto weapons. Anything fully automatic or designed specifically as anti-personnel is a combat or assault weapon. You'd have to be a pussy to use a fully auto weapon for hunting. Not to mention picking hundreds of bullets out of your kill before you can eat it is stupid.
America's root problem is the right for civilians to bear arms. This will never change. It came about due to your civil wars.
But if we speak of modern times (ie in the last 40 years - my lifetime so far) and disregard history, the figures are still against you.
People generally expect atrocities and moral failure in tinpot despot 3rd world shitholes.
In the last 40 years there have been two killing sprees in Australia (the last in 1996), Three in the UK and three in Finland. In the USA there has been 19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_spree (Wiki is not empirical, but the references at the bottom are)
The USA has a gun homicide rate of nearly 3 in every 100,000 people and a non-gun related homicide rate of about 1.5. Compared with Canada of 0.54 and 1.04 respectively, Australia with 0.31 and 1.26, 0.12 and 1.33, Germany of 0.47 and 0.7. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence) Again, check references at the bottom of the wiki page.
Something in the USA is horribly broken. What is it? It's not Muslims or liberals. It's not Mexicans. It's not Obama.
I'm all ears, mate.
Reply
Leave a comment