The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Does anyone do any kind of calculation about how much death-by-gunshot is actually criminal on criminal?

 

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hxRlpRcorEU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

commodoré, what of celebrities such as Sean Penn or Micheal Moore===ya know the ones that film biopics or documentaries decrying gun violence?

what did beyonce do, was it the bonnie & clyde video that did her in?

(i don't get the blaming the media part---a) there's no empirical basis with very few studies showing direct correlations between these spurious claims and b) i don't see how calling for less glorification of gun culture and more realistic portrayals of the effects of gun violence is mutually exclusive with ensuring that the mentally disturbed don't get assault rifles. in fact, it's rather complementary---so the scapegoat world only work in a parallel universe, where only x causes only y.)

 

I do understand the undercurrent a bit if you exclusively watch American shoot-em ups. But you know what they say---media is often a reflection of culture.

And a culture that glorifies guns, and "tough self-defense" and one-shot hero bobs will probably see a mirror image of that in the media.

It takes a bit of a broadened perspective to see how good media can counter those perceptions. Depends on what you want to watch, I suppose.

Something like this for example (which I heartily recommend, though it is very very dark---as all portrayals of realistic violence should be.)---

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0nycksytL1A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A pistol shot here, and decades later that still has an effect. This is the real world, not the "I killed 50 dudes in 2 minutes" glorification.

 

It was pointing out the hypocrisy of Hollywood decrying gun violence while glorifying/trivializing gun violence in their art. Pretty much the opposite of how the NRA views guns.

I always liked Unforgiven's take on gun violence. Not realistic necessarily, but the opposite of glorifying.

I keep seeing the trailer for Gangster Squad and wondering, "do people actually think this is cool?" That's certainly the reaction they're trying to get from the audience.

 

It may be usable for hunting and competitive target shooting, but the ultimate purpose of this (like flash suppressors, higher capacity magazines etc) and indeed the purpose of the rifle overall invented, is to facilitate killing people more easily and efficiently.

It's important that you not lose sight of this and you continue to acknowledge this.

 

It's hilarious because the maker of that Commodore video decided to end it with a song which goes..

"Kill a celebrity, in the name of.."

The most voluntarily violent culture of our times. Meanwhile blaming video games and music and movies, but still have the nerve to parade around the "guns don't kill people" theory.

 

This depends on a number of issues, such as the type of silencer/suppressor, the ammunition used, etc. Some weapons with subsonic ammunition have been measured with actions louder than the sound of the round being fired. So, in some cases, the purpose of a silencer is exactly so that a person can sneak around and kill people undetected, Metal Gear style. The Welrod would be an example of a weapon purpose built for that mission.

 

Any concern I may have re: magazine capacity is specifically what number constitutes "high capacity," and how that number was determined. If the number is determined to be 10, for example, it's certainly only a matter of time until the anti-gun crowd says that 10 is too much and they want it lowered to 5, and then 3 and so on and so forth until law-abiding civilians can no longer arm themselves. Some people want this; I do not.

What is it you think I've lost sight of?

Unless I am mistaken, the Welrod, and anything similar, is uncommon, and the suppressors used in the vast majority of situations are there for accuracy and to suppress muzzle flash, not to make the weapon "silent." My intent was to dispel a misconception. If I misspoke or otherwise added to the confusion, then I apologize.

 

Well, one day you'll read what you just wrote about descent into single shot Derringer hell on the slippery slope down to a living nightmare world of no guns and realize how self evidently idiotic it is and see most of the rest of the world would laugh at it.

Second, target shooting is about as relevant to AR 15s and magazines and silencers et al as plots are to pornos. The world will be be a better place when there are less of them, thus is a simple fact, not an opinion, and its due to a minority of folks like you that there are not, unfortunately. And we've seen the result.

No amount of obfuscation about the minutia of gun mechanics can obfuscate that despite the standard deployment of tropes- heard it brah. I have Wikipedia too.

 

I disagree with you; you disagree with me. Not much wrong with that. I'm not sure what your comment re: Wikipedia is in reference to, but whatever.

 

The tendency of gun clowns to delve into technical explanations of firearm mechanics to avoid talking about dead children and to make the ludicrous point that regulation of military style weaponry is so complex as to be virtually impossible. Wrong
. And if you disagree , you are also wrong.

 

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c8nsLcsvoB8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You don't want people to "delve into technical explanations of firearm mechanics" in the context of arguing what legal steps should or should not be taken? Aren't you an attorney?

 

it serves no purpose insofar as they're made to distract and advance the silly argument that guns are too complicated to regulate effectively - given that any idiot without even a high school diploma can figure out how to own and maintain them, and it's a vastly less complicated field than things like nuclear physics or derivative swaps (which are regulated), and that dozens and dozens of other countries have done so effectively, it's not a credible argument.

 

There are several issues

1a. Mental Illness Awareness
1b. Gun Control
.
.
.
3. School Security

In this particular situation
Having guns available to a mentally ill person was the issue.

What percentage of gun violence is due to mental illness?
[Considering some seem to think we have nearly 25% of households with a mentally ill person in it in this country ]

I think we are all seeking the OUNCE OF PREVENTION that would remedy this situation
I don't think it is an either or situation

Rocket River

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TsTqSVbHMBs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

 

Ok.....

Guess what happened in Aurora today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/05/colorado-hostages-armed-man/1810837/

 

case in point, would that those people had arms to defend themselves