Er, examples of where it has ended badly? The drug war/alcohol prohibition I grant you, but those are outright prohibition. Blood alcohol limits when driving, for instance, have not ended badly.

I could quote a couple people that have stated otherwise in the last few pages but I'm on a phone for the remainder of my interest in this topic

I think banning thalidomide worked out well.

1) autism is a very wide spectrum disorder, Asperger's is part of that. First, autism isn't classified a mental disorder, it's a developmental disorder. A person with autism could certainly also have a mental disorder though. It's no different than someone with diabetes could have a mental disorder. One is not tied to the other though.

2) I'm not sure if popular is the right word. It has certainly become more prevalent. In the case of the increase in aspergers that could be partially due to increased knowledge of diagnosers, but rates have gone up dramatically on kids with classic autism also. You can trust me on this one. It's not hard to spot a kid with classic autism. It's not something that was just missed in the past. There has been a real and dramatic increase, likely due to increased levels of pollution of some sort.

3) there are no diagnoses that we use to assess the danger individuals pose, we use criminal records for that. If a person has a history of violence they are more likely to be violent. If they don't they aren't. Wither the person is bipolar or schizophrenic doesn't really change that any.

4) some could be switched over to bow or crossbow, some could not.

5) it's in the constitution in america, so it is mostly a supreme court issue. If congress tomorrow passed a law outlawing the possesion of all guns it would be struck down by the supreme court.

Banning large capacity magazines, etc, is certainly workable and would likely get passed the supreme court. I wouldn't care either way tbh. My point was that taking those out of the picture entirely doesn't prevent any of these tragedies and would not have had a dramatic effect on the outcome. A person in a classroom with no opposition is going to kill lots of people with a 10 round clip or a 30 round clip.

I have no answer to how to prevent a random person with no history of violence from killing lots of people if he decides to and doesn't mind dieing in the process. I don't think that is something that can be legislated away.

Since 1945, every single mass public shooting in America has been carried out in a "Gun Free" zone (with the exception of Ft. Hood).

Just sayin'.

Oh, and it's Holly Jolly time in my new thread. Merry Christmas to all my friends. Safe and Happy Holidays to all!

Maybe guns weren't allowed on campus at the University of Texas, but Texas can't really be counted as a gun free zone.

Columbine had an armed guard. He fired 6 shots at one of the shooters and missed. Va Tech has a swat team.

Not sure what your point is.

Salami. It's what you get old men for Christmas.

Suzzer just proved a point.

Despite knowing that they would be facing armed opposition at every turn, for over 65 years, people intent on committing mass murder have been able to do so. Mostly in "Gun Free" zones.

Thanks for clarifying.

The Thurston Shooting happened across town when i was in high school. Kinkle was subdued when he went to reload. So i think in that case the number of rounds he was able to get off before reloading had a huge effect on the outcome.

The Newtown killer had a lot more time and less resitance but from the point he fired the first shot there was a countdown to when the police would get there, and he killed himself right when the first responder got there. I dont see how the number of rounds he could get off per minute and how often he needed to reload wouldnt affect the number of casualties.


Guns could still be banned if a new amendment was passed to repeal the 2nd but i dont know if theres a single issue that 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states would be willing to agree on right now, let alone one that controversial.

coroner said each victim was shot 3 to 11 times. If you slowed the rate of fire he probably would have taken the time to aim. Like I said, if people feel safer without 30 round clips, and that would get past the supreme court (and it likely would), then go for it. It just wouldn't have mattered much in this case, and wont matter at all in the vast majority of cases of gun violence.

fortunately this guy didnt go from class to class through the whole school trying to shoot everyone. if he had it would have been far worse. in that case rate of fire would have made a difference.

My personal story I tell myself is it was all "wag the dog", no kids died. I'm wrong, but I like that story better.

Haven't posted for a while since I've been having my own mini mid-life crisis while dumping bankroll at a hideous rate, however ...

I know GtrHtr didn't mean his comment this way, but IME life is valued pretty much the same everywhere in the world. The poorest Indian slum dweller is as hurt by the loss of a child as any middle class Western parent would be. In some countries killing is culturally much easier than in others, and in that sense, I do agree with him - in some places life is cheap.

Back in the day when Northern Ireland looked unsolvable, we used to talk about the concept of an "acceptable" level of violence.

Here's what I think is the bitter truth - this horrific event is just part of the background level of "acceptable" violence that you have to learn to live with in the USA.

There aren't any laws that your politicians can pass that will stop these things from happening in the future. Not to say that new laws couldn't reduce the probability, but they would have to be so draconian that they would breach the constitution or be unable to get sufficient political support to pass both houses or if they did pass would fail to garner enough popular support for then to be enforceable.

IMO it would be a mistake for politicians do anything other than mourn the loss of these children. If we expect our politicians to stop these things, we are just going to be disappointed; they can't do it.

btw Ditch Digger's comment about imagining if your kid was in the half that wasn't there was chilling.

And good to see you're still around ChrisV - one of the all time best cash game strategy posters!

Well, in the context of guns, the "very worst types of weapons" presumably refers to what are commonly called "assault weapons". That would have had no impact on the Newtown situation...because he didn't use an "assault weapon" and because there was already an assault weapon bad (which was obeyed) in the state of Connecticut.

Countries such as Israel and Switzerland are not entirely dissimilar in that way. In both those countries, however, there's compulsory military service which (I assume) includes gun training. Maybe compulsory national service might reduce the frequency of gun deaths?


fyp

No, the legislation wasn't "just poorly written". We know this for two reasons:

a) It was pretty much a duplication of the previous Federal laws on the subject. This gun didn't get through an obscure typo loophole, no assault weapon ban ever intended to ban this weapon; and

b) Something in the order of 5% of all guns in the US are similar to this one. It's one of the most popular hunting rifles in the country. It's not practical to ban this weapon, because it is too popular and common.

The weapon used here wasn't some marginal extreme assault weapon that snuck through in some obscure detail. It is one of the country's most popular and commonly used hunting rifles. It's not an "assault weapon" if you mean "assault weapon" to distinguish it from other guns.
Why do you say they are no real use for hunting? They are one of the most (if not the most) popular hunting guns in the USA.

You seem to be (deliberately?) misunderstanding me tbh

Switzerland and isreal are not particularly similar to the US in terms of gun culture imo, though they have one its not grounded in a particularly similar history. I mean its prob a fruitless disscusion and a matter of opnion

2nd your last point i was obviously referring to semi auto/assault rifles as you to classed them not this exact rifle thats used for hunting by many (as u stated).
I.e. There are a chunk of guns that are not really fit for purpose or any purpose that are widely available.

Lastly a very quick google search reveals that this rifle is basically a slightly demilterized version of a m16 (the US army rifle is based on this rifle). And contray to what your saying many feel that the federal laws banning assault rifles targeted this exact weapon quite precisely. I am on phone so cant post links but there are a few time articles which are easy to find.
Whether or not they should be or are targeted is ofc something else

Tbh i dont really see the point your making or why exactly you feel that any restriction wouldn't make a difference (i mean i understand what ur saying, i just dont agree i geuss) But we disagree obv and i think agree to disagree in general

Though i do very much agree with you that cultral change is key (though there does seem to be a shift imo somewhat) not just goverment enforcing something which is when you get a disaster like prohabition etc

Anyway Happy Xmas everyone!

Josem, having hunted in the USA for most of my life I can assure you the rifle used is rarely used in hunting. I have never seen a person actually out in the field hunting using a rifle of that type.

edit-this is the gun used btw bushmaster.com

From http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us...n-newtown.html

Presumably when your gun dealer asks why you want to buy an AR-15 style rifle, "Errrr... hunting?" sounds better than "The apocalypse is coming, man, you wait and see. Judgment Day - and those gay-marriage-lovers in Connecticut will be the first to be judged. You best be ready boy!".

Either that or when a sports shooting foundation asks gun dealers what the guns they sell are used for, they get all "What? Sports shooting? I mean, oh, yeah Sports Shooting. Sure, our customers do a lot of that. Definitely. You mean like hunting and ****? Sure, lots of that going on."

Vegas was fun just got back but cash games didn't go well for me. Got stacked with top set 3 times in three days lol so that part of it wasn't fun.

Live poker confirmed rigged.

Yeah, your documented source is much better.

The contents of the last few pages of this thread might as well have stopped along with the mayan calendar.

I don't have a horse in this race, just giving on the ground type knowledge.

the .223 (caliber in question) is too powerful for small game hunting (rabbits, squirrels), you use a .22 caliber for that, and too small for big game hunting, actually illegal to use for it in most states. That leaves only varmint and predator hunting, a very small percentage of hunting activity.

the typical big game rifle, at least here in the western us, is scoped bolt action rifle, probably 85% of all rifles you will see people actually hunting with here, with a the rest lever action, hunting type semi-autos (looks pretty much like the bolt action-five or so round clip) and pump-action.

typical small game rifle is a .22 cal bolt action or semi-auto rifle with a 10 round or so clip (the .22 cal cartridge is really small)

the bolt action is the most popular for hunting because it is the most accurate and trouble free.

edit to add- the other reason is probably that you can buy a bolt action rifle for 1/3 the price or less of an assault type rifle, with pretty good ones under $400, and the cheapo bolt action will still be more accurate.

Most of the rest of hunting is done with shotguns.

I have no reason to lie to you Josem, the AR-15 type riffles are just not what hardly anyone hunts with, although the NRA etc tries to make it seem that way.

Hey, Merry Christmas everyone!