So here we go again with another shooting at a workplace with an assault rifle.
"An employee of a St. Louis manufacturing plant walked in with an assault rifle and a handgun on Thursday morning and opened fire, killing at least one person and wounding four others, authorities said."
The story broke this morning.
And I'm going to say--again--that we need restrictions on assault rifles because they aren't good for anything but lunacy like this and that they're certainly not for hunting and "Top of the Chain" and the NRA and other people are going to say we need them.
Nonsense.
You know what else is nonsense?
The whole idea that this President or our current government has plans to take away our guns anytime soon.
Horse poop, to be polite.
We'd like to register guns, like at all gun shows, so there is a reduced black market and so lunatics, criminals and felons don't get guns, that's all.
But it ain't gonna happen.
And we're going to continue to have more murderous, killing episodes like these.
And worse.
___________________________________________
Update: 12:10 pm--Correction: Reports now show 8 people were shot and 3 are dead.
Link here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/07/factory.shootings/index.html
But yeah, by all means, let's keep those assault rifles, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
In your opinion, what makes an assault weapon functionally different from a semiauto hunting rifle like a Remington Woodsmaster?
I'm not a weapons authority, period.
If it were up to me, they'd both be banned but it's not up to me.
Are there any guns you would not want to ban?
Do you think that the second amendment puts any restrictions on the government?
I think it's only important to ban the 38 special, which kills, it's estimated 10,000 Americans each year and is almost solely designed for this purpose (holdups, to use a term), assault weapons, as I mentioned earlier, and hollow point, armor-piercing bullets, at the request of the police departments, nationwide, for their protection and safety.
Pretty radical, huh?
Yes, I think the 2nd Amendment puts some restrictions on the government, as other parts of our Constitution does, sure. I don't think it's relevant to most people's everyday lives but sure, yes.
My view of the world isn't shaped, like some cheap network TV show, by guns, day in and day out. I tire of the whole outlook. It's silly. It's absurd. It's not how most of us live, even here, in the US, where we have this ignorant, too-violent "cowboy culture".
Guns firing the .38 may be the most common handguns in the US, and were overwhelmingly the most common police guns from well before WWII until police started switching to high capacity semiautomatics in the 1980's. Saying that they are crime guns is like saying that Chevrolets are responsible for drunk driving, because fewer Subaru drivers are arrested for DUI.
Any time a rifle is used in a high-profile crime, the media is likely to call it an assault weapon regardless of reality. Are there features of assault rifles that you think are particularly dangerous, or are you just allowing your view to be shaped by cheap sensationalist network news?
It sounds like you are combining hollow points and armor piercing, when in fact they are as dissimilar as possible while remaining bullets. A hollowpoint is soft, designed to expand significantly when it hits, reducing penetration. Armor piercing ammo must hold its shape and is therefore very hard, and generally of small diameter and relatively high velocity.
Can you be more specific on what you think the second amendment protects, and what it forbids the government from doing? Whether we still need it is a separate idea from whether it is still in force--I'm not happy about violating even parts of the constitution I don't otherwise care about, because it weakens the rest.
I'm trying not to be antagonistic, I am genuinely curious about why people believe in gun control. I think part is from unfamiliarity, and relying too heavily on media distortions. People don't see reports of good guys with guns. In every case where I've known of a gun news story from sources other than news, I've found that the news version was drastically distorted. A headline of "Family pet shot execution style" should have been "Illegally unleashed adult pit bull shot while attacking leashed lab puppy". I personally know of two armed self defense stories that I was unable to find in either Google or Google News, even though I knew the names, dates and specific small-town locations.
It isn't necessary to be an authority, but someone should know enough to make an informed decision--especially if you are going to propose restrictions.
Sevesteen,
You're right.
Guns don't kill people.
People with guns kill people.
Answers to your questions:
The feature of an assault weapon that is particularly problematic to me and--for the police--is the ability to fire rounds rapidly and repeatedly, simply.
You're right about my accidentally and mistakenly combining hollow point bullets with armor piercing. It's the armor piercing ones that are, again, a problem for me, personally and politically and for the police. I stand corrected.
No, I cannot and will not be more specific about what the 2nd Amendment protects, simply because, first, what I think is irrelevant to society unless and until I vote on it and because, frankly, at any given moment, the Supreme Court is virtually constantly trying to decide what it means. It was written so vague as to be nearly indefinable. I will fall back here to what I said earlier and that is that no politician in this country is proposing or has proposed that any government--federal, state or whatever--initiate the taking of weapons from the American people. The whole idea--that someone is proposing that or is about to--is a huge red herring. It's patent nonsense.
I can tell you, S, I believe in some form of gun control because there are people who absolutely shouldn't have them and those are, again, as I said earlier, the insane, people suffering serious, certifiable psychosis and felons, at minimum. I also believe in gun control because we have far too any senseless, senseless murders in our society. That is undeniable. And please don't tell me that if we only have more guns, we'll have less murders, shootings and killings. It's just not true. In that world, it seems we'd all--men and women, at minimum--have guns in holsers on our shoulders or hips.
Sevesteen, while we don't agree on guns, I appreciate your calm logic.
Too many of us in the US just yelll at each other and don't talk out our differences (e.g., Bill O'Reilly, etc.).
Thanks for reading.
frankly, at any given moment, the Supreme Court is virtually constantly trying to decide what (the second amendment) means.
Not really. Until the past few years, the Supreme Court hardly touched on it. Most restrictions were at the state level, and until the 14th amendment weren't overruled by the constitution even in theory. Since the 14th, only 2 cases have been decided that directly dealt with the second--Miller, where the defendant was dead, his lawyer didn't show, and therefore the court ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not shown to be a militarily useful weapon. Had there been a defense, it is likely that trench guns would have been shown to be "useful", since they had been widely used in WWII.
The other case is Heller, where the second was determined to be an individual right as far as the federal government is concerned. The next step is to determine if the fourteenth amendment means that the second applies to the states.
It was written so vague as to be nearly indefinable.
Only if you want it to mean something besides "Because free countries need a militia, the people get to posses and carry guns". The actual meaning might be too lax even for me, and may prevent some "infringements" that I think should exist.
no politician in this country is proposing or has proposed that any government--federal, state or whatever--initiate the taking of weapons from the American people. The whole idea--that someone is proposing that or is about to--is a huge red herring. It's patent nonsense.
It is much safer politically to restrict sale or manufacture of weapons while letting existing owners keep theirs if they register them. That can be almost as effective, while reducing opposition to a later confiscatory ban--See California for example, where several types of guns were first registered and restricted, then confiscated.
I believe in some form of gun control because there are people who absolutely shouldn't have them and those are, again, as I said earlier, the insane, people suffering serious, certifiable psychosis and felons, at minimum.
For serious violent felons within the past few decades and the insane with due process, I agree. We've got a lot of nonviolent crime that is designated felony (apparently Texas has 11 or so oyster-related felonies. I can't verify the exact number, but at least some oyster felonies exist) and most of that should not be a ban, and especially not a permanent ban. Growing a pot plant for instance shouldn't be a ban.
And please don't tell me that if we only have more guns, we'll have less murders, shootings and killings. It's just not true. In that world, it seems we'd all--men and women, at minimum--have guns in holsers on our shoulders or hips.
No, we don't all need to go armed. We need a small percentage to be anonymously armed, so criminals and nuts can't guarantee their safety by properly selecting victims. Somewhere around 2% is probably adequate. This is roughly the number who wind up with a license when a state has non-discriminatory licensing.
We also need the ability of people particularly susceptible to attack to be armed, whether it is someone with a crazy stalker ex husband, someone who carries valuables, or someone who works at a carryout. This should be based on objective criteria and not the whims (or payment to) a bureaucrat. If you look at the record of CCW license holders, you'll find it many times better than non license holders, and better than police.
Sevesteen, while we don't agree on guns, I appreciate your calm logic.
Too many of us in the US just yelll at each other and don't talk out our differences (e.g., Bill O'Reilly, etc.).
I've got the facts on my side, I don't need to yell :)
Sevesteen,
1) I didn't mean all felons
2) the 2nd Amendment is vague
) You may have some facts on your side, but you don't have all facts on your side. That made me smile.
again, thanks,
ke
Post a Comment