Miscellaneous News

Zool · Jun 14, 2016

solarz said:
I predict that until the US finally enacts sensible gun control, these kinds of attacks will continue. It is simply unrealistic to expect authorities to be able to pre-emptively identify lone wolf attackers like the Orlando or San Bernandino shooters. These people have no prior criminal records, and they get their weapons through legal channels. Aside from their religious allegiance and fervor, they are no different from the millions of "law abiding gun owners" that the NRA likes to tout.

I would like to assume what you meant to say is that there is currently no practical way to differentiate between a fanatic legal gun owner bent on violence for whatever cause, versus the majority legal gun owners who are peaceful hunters and sport shooters. Because they way you have worded it, you are lumping millions of decent people in with terrorists and the mentally ill.

Statistically the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are from illegal weapons, illegal handguns in particular. Usually gang violence in the major cities, Chicago being one of the worst. I personally support much more stringent licencing with background checks and a mental health test. But while that may help with some of these more public incidents, it does nothing for the majority gun violence which is via illegal ownership.

PanAsian · Jun 14, 2016

Zool said:
I would like to assume what you meant to say is that there is currently no practical way to differentiate between a fanatic legal gun owner bent on violence for whatever cause, versus the majority legal gun owners who are peaceful hunters and sport shooters. Because they way you have worded it, you are lumping millions of decent people in with terrorists and the mentally ill.

Statistically the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are from illegal weapons, illegal handguns in particular. Usually gang violence in the major cities, Chicago being one of the worst. I personally support much more stringent licencing with background checks and a mental health test. But while that may help with some of these more public incidents, it does nothing for the majority gun violence which is via illegal ownership.

I'm pretty sure Solarz meant the difficulty in differentiation.

In terms of illegal weapons that requires regulating the second hand gun market with background checks and perhaps have weapons makers make individual weapons more trackable.

plawolf · Jun 14, 2016

In countries with strict gun laws, illegal gun violence is also correspondingly significantly reduced compared to American figures.

Easy and plentiful supply of legal guns feeds the illegal gun market and makes illegal firearms far more abundant and cheaper to purchase by criminals.

You can never eradicate illegal guns, but you can vastly reduce its supply and raise the cost of procuring them by controlling legal guns better. Simple supply and demand economics.

solarz · Jun 14, 2016

Zool said:
I would like to assume what you meant to say is that there is currently no practical way to differentiate between a fanatic legal gun owner bent on violence for whatever cause, versus the majority legal gun owners who are peaceful hunters and sport shooters. Because they way you have worded it, you are lumping millions of decent people in with terrorists and the mentally ill.

Statistically the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are from illegal weapons, illegal handguns in particular. Usually gang violence in the major cities, Chicago being one of the worst. I personally support much more stringent licencing with background checks and a mental health test. But while that may help with some of these more public incidents, it does nothing for the majority gun violence which is via illegal ownership.

Yes, I mean from a law enforcement point of view with regards to gun ownership, there are no practical ways to identify these people from the millions of other legal gun owners in the US.

I think we should not be lumping these kinds of mass shootings together with gun deaths that result from gang wars, robberies, and other criminal acts. The two are fundamentally different.

In non-mass shooting gun crimes, the gun could easily be replaced by any other weapon. However, the same logic does not apply to mass shootings. A man armed with a knife or a machete, or even a handgun, is not going to inflict the kind of casualties that someone armed with an assault rifle can inflict.

Zool · Jun 14, 2016

solarz said:
Yes, I mean from a law enforcement point of view with regards to gun ownership, there are no practical ways to identify these people from the millions of other legal gun owners in the US.

I think we should not be lumping these kinds of mass shootings together with gun deaths that result from gang wars, robberies, and other criminal acts. The two are fundamentally different.

In non-mass shooting gun crimes, the gun could easily be replaced by any other weapon. However, the same logic does not apply to mass shootings. A man armed with a knife or a machete, or even a handgun, is not going to inflict the kind of casualties that someone armed with an assault rifle can inflict.

I understand your perspective but the last point you make is one that has been made before by the anti-gun lobby to demonize assault rifles which is not exactly true.

'Automatic' assault rifles are by and large banned across North America from general civilian ownership. Which is why even in these mass shootings if you look past the assault rifle bogeyman, they are semi-automatic rifles - functionally no different than any wooden furniture rifle where you shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, but they look the same as a military issue weapon. In some cases the capacity may be higher, but magazine limits are already pretty common as a form of gun control.

So a 9mm handgun which is infinitely more concealable, with an equally high capacity and same rate of fire as a semi-automatic weapon, does just as much damage. I would guess a reason why the mentally ill and terrorists choose a rifle over a handgun is as much about making a statement with what appears a large threatening weapon. A targeted killer who wants to get in and out alive would choose a handgun, as many criminals do.

Anyway I don't intend to argue gun control much further than that. People who have served or hunt or have needed to defend themselves will have a polar opposite view to those who have never held a gun in any capacity and don't see what the big deal is in a total ban. I personally agree with restrictions where they are common sense and do not infringe law abiding citizens while neglecting the majority criminal ownership and use. But its a complicated issue.

plawolf · Jun 14, 2016

Zool said:
I understand your perspective but the last point you make is one that has been made before by the anti-gun lobby to demonize assault rifles which is not exactly true.

Im sorry, but I'm going to have to call mass BS on pretty much everything in this post. Nothing personal.

'Automatic' assault rifles are by and large banned across North America from general civilian ownership. Which is why even in these mass shootings if you look past the assault rifle bogeyman they are semi-automatic rifles

Jesus, can you not even see what you have wrote IN CRITICSING gun control?! Just follow your own line of reasoning.

Would criminals, fanatics and terrorists use semi-autos if they could easily get ahold of full autos? You can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn't! Why don't they get full autos then? Oh, because they are BANNED. Ergo, banning firearms works to keep said firearms out of the hands of bad guys.

Funny how the much hyped illegal firearms market red herring isn't magically flooding the streets with full autos isn't it? The demand is most certainly there, so why isn't supply meeting it? Because full autos are BANNED!

Extend the ban to cover more guns and you take more guns away from the bad guys! Yes, illegal guns will still always be available, just as full auto assault weapons are still available in the US today if you know the right people and have a huge bag of money to give them.

But the point is those weapons would be extremely hard to get ahold off with effective gun control laws, and that will, without a shadow of a doubt, save many many lives.

functionally no different than any wooden furniture rifle where you shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, but they look the same as a military issue weapon. In some cases the capacity may be higher, but magazine limits are already pretty common as a form of gun control.

Total BS! Have you ever even held a semi auto and a hunting rifle? True hunting rifles are bolt actioned, not semi autos. Hunting rifles also tend to have long barrels, full, solid stocks, and weigh a fair heft. That not only massively limits their firing and reload speeds, it also negatively impacts on how quickly and easily someone could wield and aim it in a cramped, crowded urban space as opposed to the great outdoors.

Mass shooters turn to assault rifles as their gun of choice because assault rifles are especially designed to kill humans, not animals as hunting rifles are designed to kill.

So a 9mm handgun which is infinitely more concealable, with an equally high capacity and same rate of fire as a semi-automatic weapon, does just as much damage.

Which is why any sensible gun control policy should also serverly restrict handgun ownership and availability. Indeed, in most countries, handguns, especially semi autos, are controlled far more strictly then most rifles.

I would guess a reason why the mentally ill and terrorists choose a rifle over a handgun is as much about making a statement with what appears a large threatening weapon. A targeted killer who wants to get in and out alive would choose a handgun, as many criminals do.

You say 'I guess' but I only hear the NRA.

In case you haven't been following the news closely, pretty much all mass shooters use both assault rifles and handguns.

By equating and linking them, all you are doing is making the case that handguns should also be banned even more urgently than assault rifles.

Anyway I don't intend to argue gun control much further than that. People who have served or hunt or have needed to defend themselves will have a polar opposite view to those who have never held a gun in any capacity and don't see what the big deal is in a total ban. I personally agree with restrictions where they are common sense and do not infringe law abiding citizens while neglecting the majority criminal ownership and use. But its a complicated issue.

It's a disingenuous argument to suggest only people who don't care about guns se the need for gun control.

Hunting rifles, and I mean real hunting rifles, not assault rifles with wooden furniture masquerading, are perfectly fine to own, and have seldom been a source of public danger.

The self defence BS story holds zero water, because for every fluke case where some conceal carry bravo have saved the day, they are many times more cases where victims are killed by their own guns, either through accident or where an intruder or attacker took their guns from them and shot them dead with it.

If you absolutely need s gun in the house to feel safe, a shotgun is a good enough compromise. Again, most countries with even strict gun laws like the UK allow those with zero case of them being used for mass shootings.

Gun control is only a complicated issue in America because the likes of the NRA make it so. In every other developed, and most developing nations, it's a very simple problem that is easily fixed, even in many notable cases of countries emerging from civil wars or full on foreign invasion and occupations which left the country awash with guns.

solarz · Jun 14, 2016

Zool said:
I understand your perspective but the last point you make is one that has been made before by the anti-gun lobby to demonize assault rifles which is not exactly true.

'Automatic' assault rifles are by and large banned across North America from general civilian ownership. Which is why even in these mass shootings if you look past the assault rifle bogeyman, they are semi-automatic rifles - functionally no different than any wooden furniture rifle where you shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, but they look the same as a military issue weapon. In some cases the capacity may be higher, but magazine limits are already pretty common as a form of gun control.

So a 9mm handgun which is infinitely more concealable, with an equally high capacity and same rate of fire as a semi-automatic weapon, does just as much damage. I would guess a reason why the mentally ill and terrorists choose a rifle over a handgun is as much about making a statement with what appears a large threatening weapon. A targeted killer who wants to get in and out alive would choose a handgun, as many criminals do.

Anyway I don't intend to argue gun control much further than that. People who have served or hunt or have needed to defend themselves will have a polar opposite view to those who have never held a gun in any capacity and don't see what the big deal is in a total ban. I personally agree with restrictions where they are common sense and do not infringe law abiding citizens while neglecting the majority criminal ownership and use. But its a complicated issue.

In addition to what Plawolf has mentioned, there certainly is a huge difference between a semi-automatic assault rifle and a 9mm handgun. The assault rifle has a much greater muzzle velocity, therefore it has greater accuracy, longer range, and stronger penetration.

In the case of Orlando shooting, I have no doubt the assault rifle's stronger penetration contributed significantly to the high death toll.

Zool · Jun 14, 2016

plawolf said:
Im sorry, but I'm going to have to call mass BS on pretty much everything in this post. Nothing personal.

I see a lot of emotion in your post plawolf, which has led you to some interesting remarks about me personally and shows a little lack of knowledge on your part about the use of firearms. I don't take it personally though and hope you feel the same of my reply.

plawolf said:
Jesus, can you not even see what you have wrote IN CRITICSING gun control?! Just follow your own line of reasoning.

Would criminals, fanatics and terrorists use semi-autos if they could easily get ahold of full autos? You can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn't! Why don't they get full autos then? Oh, because they are BANNED. Ergo, banning firearms works to keep said firearms out of the hands of bad guys.

Funny how the much hyped illegal firearms market red herring isn't magically flooding the streets with full autos isn't it? The demand is most certainly there, so why isn't supply meeting it? Because full autos are BANNED!

Extend the ban to cover more guns and you take more guns away from the bad guys! Yes, illegal guns will still always be available, just as full auto assault weapons are still available in the US today if you know the right people and have a huge bag of money to give them.

But the point is those weapons would be extremely hard to get ahold off with effective gun control laws, and that will, without a shadow of a doubt, save many many lives.

Context is king. If you re-read my reply to Solarz I was specifically referencing the demonization of assault rifles over a wood furniture semi-auto rifle based on appearance alone, where there is functionally little difference, and his comment about assault rifles being essential to mass shootings and how hand guns could not be substituted to achieve mass casualties - which I noted they can. Everything I have said is factual.

Now you seem to want to convert my reply into a different argument, about how banned civilian automatics proves that a ban on all legally owned guns will somehow significantly remove access from criminals as well, yes? That is an incorrect understanding of the problem and only serves to penalize millions of legal and responsible gun owners.

The problems generally speaking are to do with loopholes in sales laws and illegal sales (on the criminal side) and individual checks and qualification (on the mental illness side). Terrorism is a separate issue in and of itself as evidence by attacks around the world like the AK's used in the Paris shooting.

Reform is clearly needed, as I have said in my last two posts now, but an all out ban on legal ownership does nothing to solve the problem of gun crime. Its a feel good idea by people who could care less because they don't own a firearm or live in another country where they don't have the right or the threat of a well armed criminal element. It has zero negative impact in the view of those folks so they think 'why not'. By the way, you might not be aware of just how illegal guns enter the system so here is a quick link going into more detail if you are really interested on why banning legal ownership would not work - Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

plawolf said:
Total BS! Have you ever even held a semi auto and a hunting rifle? True hunting rifles are bolt actioned, not semi autos. Hunting rifles also tend to have long barrels, full, solid stocks, and weigh a fair heft. That not only massively limits their firing and reload speeds, it also negatively impacts on how quickly and easily someone could wield and aim it in a cramped, crowded urban space as opposed to the great outdoors.

I had to Lol when I read this. True hunting rifles are bolt and not semi huh? News to me and millions of others. Care to tell us what a true target rifle is for when we go up to the range too? Its shooters choice. The more important question is the caliber, grain and type of bullet. And that depends on what you are shooting.

Since you asked so nicely lets be clear: I hunt duck and usually get a deer tag every year or join a buddy, and I'll shoot coyote every now and then. I own a Tikka T3 Tactical (Bolt), Browning BAR (Semi), DPMS MOE Warrior (Semi), Citori White Lightning OU (Shotgun) and a Glock 22 Gen4 in my personal collection, and I'll inherit my grandfathers old Enfield he used over in Europe during WWII and the Luger he brought back, when my father dies. When I'm not hunting I'm at the outdoor range or indoor pistol range. You need pictures with a note on some paper to prove it? Now what personal firearms knowledge do you have to share with us since you brought it up?

plawolf said:
Mass shooters turn to assault rifles as their gun of choice because assault rifles are especially designed to kill humans, not animals as hunting rifles are designed to kill.

Seriously? All rifles were designed to kill period. Hunting rifles used today are new and old depending on the owner, and they are all based on or in fact are firearms used in wars past or present. They all have the same purpose irrespective of the target. The person chooses the target, which comes back to what I was saying about where the real problem lies - not with legal and responsible gun owners. Address the real problems with real solutions, not feel good solutions that you are fine with and I am not.

plawolf said:
You say 'I guess' but I only hear the NRA.

In case you haven't been following the news closely, pretty much all mass shooters use both assault rifles and handguns.

So I can't voice my own thoughts without getting labelled 'NRA'? Here's something you might want to consider: You would not appreciate being called a CPC Mouthpiece for agreeing with a Chinese position right? I saw that happen to someone in one of the SCS threads not long ago by Janiz I think. Same thing. Less emotion and argue the merits not rhetoric please.

Of these mass shooters have you also noticed how they almost never try to get away either? They are there to be seen as powerful (and to feel that way probably), do their damage, and then die. Which is why I have the thought about the use of large intimidating weapons as the preferred option of these damaged individuals.

plawolf said:
By equating and linking them, all you are doing is making the case that handguns should also be banned even more urgently than assault rifles.

I disagree. For the reasons I have already stated the solution is not a whole sale ban on legal ownership, in my opinion.

plawolf said:
It's a disingenuous argument to suggest only people who don't care about guns se the need for gun control.

Hunting rifles, and I mean real hunting rifles, not assault rifles with wooden furniture masquerading, are perfectly fine to own, and have seldom been a source of public danger.

The self defence BS story holds zero water, because for every fluke case where some conceal carry bravo have saved the day, they are many times more cases where victims are killed by their own guns, either through accident or where an intruder or attacker took their guns from them and shot them dead with it.

If you absolutely need s gun in the house to feel safe, a shotgun is a good enough compromise. Again, most countries with even strict gun laws like the UK allow those with zero case of them being used for mass shootings.

Gun control is only a complicated issue in America because the likes of the NRA make it so. In every other developed, and most developing nations, it's a very simple problem that is easily fixed, even in many notable cases of countries emerging from civil wars or full on foreign invasion and occupations which left the country awash with guns.

Again, I disagree in general, and now you are selectively suggesting what firearms may or may not be appropriate for people to own based on reasons YOU think might be okay. And if you would care to show official statistics on that bit about there being many more victims from their own gun during instances of self defence versus a successful self defence encounter, I would love to see it.

Bottom line is we will probably not agree. But I think everyone who wants to offer up an opinion should be aware of the facts when it comes to how different or similar some of these firearms really are in capability, what the laws are and what the gun death statistics really show which to me indicates where the real problems are. The media doesn't cover what's really going on by a half. And I'll say it once more, there absolutely needs to be reform in the areas I've mentioned.

I'll leave it there as response to Solarz' latest post as well and let you guys have the last word. No offense taken/given. Wanted to avoid a drawn out post like this earlier but your enthusiasm and my general respect for you as one of the good posters on this board warranted a reply. Cheers.

kwaigonegin · Jun 15, 2016

Zool said:
I see a lot of emotion in your post plawolf, which has led you to some interesting remarks about me personally and shows a little lack of knowledge on your part about the use of firearms. I don't take it personally though and hope you feel the same of my reply.

Context is king. If you re-read my reply to Solarz I was specifically referencing the demonization of assault rifles over a wood furniture semi-auto rifle based on appearance alone, where there is functionally little difference, and his comment about assault rifles being essential to mass shootings and how hand guns could not be substituted to achieve mass casualties - which I noted they can. Everything I have said is factual.

Now you seem to want to convert my reply into a different argument, about how banned civilian automatics proves that a ban on all legally owned guns will somehow significantly remove access from criminals as well, yes? That is an incorrect understanding of the problem and only serves to penalize millions of legal and responsible gun owners.

The problems generally speaking are to do with loopholes in sales laws and illegal sales (on the criminal side) and individual checks and qualification (on the mental illness side). Terrorism is a separate issue in and of itself as evidence by attacks around the world like the AK's used in the Paris shooting.

Reform is clearly needed, as I have said in my last two posts now, but an all out ban on legal ownership does nothing to solve the problem of gun crime. Its a feel good idea by people who could care less because they don't own a firearm or live in another country where they don't have the right or the threat of a well armed criminal element. It has zero negative impact in the view of those folks so they think 'why not'. By the way, you might not be aware of just how illegal guns enter the system so here is a quick link going into more detail if you are really interested on why banning legal ownership would not work - Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I had to Lol when I read this. True hunting rifles are bolt and not semi huh? News to me and millions of others. Care to tell us what a true target rifle is for when we go up to the range too? Its shooters choice. The more important question is the caliber, grain and type of bullet. And that depends on what you are shooting.

Since you asked so nicely lets be clear: I hunt duck and usually get a deer tag every year or join a buddy, and I'll shoot coyote every now and then. I own a Tikka T3 Tactical (Bolt), Browning BAR (Semi), DPMS MOE Warrior (Semi), Citori White Lightning OU (Shotgun) and a Glock 22 Gen4 in my personal collection, and I'll inherit my grandfathers old Enfield he used over in Europe during WWII and the Luger he brought back, when my father dies. When I'm not hunting I'm at the outdoor range or indoor pistol range. You need pictures with a note on some paper to prove it? Now what personal firearms knowledge do you have to share with us since you brought it up?

Seriously? All rifles were designed to kill period. Hunting rifles used today are new and old depending on the owner, and they are all based on or in fact are firearms used in wars past or present. They all have the same purpose irrespective of the target. The person chooses the target, which comes back to what I was saying about where the real problem lies - not with legal and responsible gun owners. Address the real problems with real solutions, not feel good solutions that you are fine with and I am not.

So I can't voice my own thoughts without getting labelled 'NRA'? Here's something you might want to consider: You would not appreciate being called a CPC Mouthpiece for agreeing with a Chinese position right? I saw that happen to someone in one of the SCS threads not long ago by Janiz I think. Same thing. Less emotion and argue the merits not rhetoric please.

Of these mass shooters have you also noticed how they almost never try to get away either? They are there to be seen as powerful (and to feel that way probably), do their damage, and then die. Which is why I have the thought about the use of large intimidating weapons as the preferred option of these damaged individuals.

I disagree. For the reasons I have already stated the solution is not a whole sale ban on legal ownership, in my opinion.

Again, I disagree in general, and now you are selectively suggesting what firearms may or may not be appropriate for people to own based on reasons YOU think might be okay. And if you would care to show official statistics on that bit about there being many more victims from their own gun during instances of self defence versus a successful self defence encounter, I would love to see it.

Bottom line is we will probably not agree. But I think everyone who wants to offer up an opinion should be aware of the facts when it comes to how different or similar some of these firearms really are in capability, what the laws are and what the gun death statistics really show which to me indicates where the real problems are. The media doesn't cover what's really going on by a half. And I'll say it once more, there absolutely needs to be reform in the areas I've mentioned.

I'll leave it there as response to Solarz' latest post as well and let you guys have the last word. No offense taken/given. Wanted to avoid a drawn out post like this earlier but your enthusiasm and my general respect for you as one of the good posters on this board warranted a reply. Cheers.

I think both Zool and wolf made cogent logical points. I'm all about sensible gun laws as well. It's no different than why the avg joe can't simply purchase a M60, SAW or MANPADs at your local Dick's. The banning of these weapons I believe are sensible to most everyone unless you're a criminal kingpin or just insane.

As to the question of 'gun culture' that is much harder to dissect. It is very difficult for non Americans to understand. The gun itself is deeply ingrained in American culture. The very foundation and birth of this country owes it's very existence to the mass usage of firearms.

America essentially was born around the same era as the proliferation of the modern firearm. Most countries in this world do not have that profound connection. Certainly not in most european or even Asian countries spanning a thousand or more years where swords, shields, arrows and spears forged those nations.

The single most important event in US HISTORY since 1776 was also tied intimately to the gun and through the barrel of millions of muskets and other long rifles an entire nation was whole for the first time and unified.
The westward expansion and the west was conquered through firearms.
The gun is forever tied to the DNA of Americans and America.
The constitution of the US makes reference to firearms. While one can debate the merits or intentions of the authors, the fact is the 'gun' is so deeply ingrained that it was mentioned. How many nations on this earth is firearm mentioned let alone a topic in the constitution?

With all that being said, I am certainly not a koolaid drinking NRA stooge either. While I believe that orgs like the NRA is necessary to hedge against ultra liberal policies or extreme gun grab scenarios, I also think that they overstep their boundaries on occasions. For example this Omar guy should not have passed his background checks in acquiring the Sig MCX rifle he used however he did despite his various 'red flags' because of certain revisions and lobbying done by the NRA that allowed this loophole to be compromised.

At the end of the day this is a very complicated topic to even discuss in the US especially when it is also forever tied to the political arena not to mention the economic aspect I.e profit$. There is no separating that for reasons I stated above. Guns are part of the American DNA and people need to realize that however I also believe that common sense laws can and should be implemented.

TerraN_EmpirE · Jun 15, 2016

Whatever, the case I think we have given this debate more than enough pages. It's not a subject likely to change any minds and falls into the category of punditry. You will see those who argue for or against the second Amendment of the US constitution based on Ideology and interpretation. Added bonus points as this was a Politically motivated action, An Act of terror meaning that even if not for a gun He would likely have used other means like Explosives. So were all spinning our Proverbial Wheels. which brings me to my intended point we are I think in need of a reminder of the Forum Rules of behavior.

Stay on topic. Off-topic discussions, if they persist, will be moved or deleted.
Post any purely political comments of any sort.
No discussion of purely political issues.

Gun Control of the US is not a breaking news story, It's a long time debate and purely political in scope.

Miscellaneous News

Zool

Junior Member

PanAsian

Major

plawolf

Lieutenant General

solarz

Brigadier

Zool

Junior Member

plawolf

Lieutenant General

solarz

Brigadier

Zool

Junior Member

kwaigonegin

Colonel

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King