What’s the latest?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
What’s the latest?
My latest political obsession is the pushback against guns. Whether it bears fruit remains to be seen, but there is a different sense of energy this time. People are asking questions about the NRA and how gunmakers are influencing the NRA, which then influences our politicians and our government. Companies are getting demands from consumers to eliminate ties to the NRA. I know it’s a huge mountain to climb, but at least we’re in motion.
The politicians and Trump will pretend that they’re aaddressing the gun proliferation crisis with weak amendments and laws that don’t do much, but it’s a step forward and it’s a new wave of determination and enthusiasm with the youth movement.
I’m hopeful for once.
Just banning the AR 15 would be a small victory. That weapon causes catastrophic damage to the body. I saw some companies pushing back against the NRA. Maybe that and the kids can get something done, more than prayers or arming the teachers.
A semi-automatic weapons ban, at least at the same level we had before would be a step in the right direction.
The problem is the gun control folk have allowed themselves to be bamboozled in the most ridiculous of ways when it comes to this issue. For example, take the assault weapons ban. Clearly, if this type of weapon, designed to kill en mass, wasn’t so easily available, gun massacres like what happened at the Parkland school and Vegas wouldn’t have occurred, at least not to the extent of damage they did.
The NRA and gun nuts will respond to this with, since banning assault weapons won’t prevent mass murders (and that is true) even though it will make them less deadly and more difficult to pull off, they’re not worth doing at all. They set, and the gun control side accepts, the phony bar for any step towards a solution with that of an ultimate solution, and a high bar at that: not only must any step in the right direction must stop all shootings, but guarantee that they are stopped. Thus unless anything that is to be done will guarantee an end to mass shootings, its not worth doing anything at all. As if the gun nuts would actually support something that would accomplish that high standard.
Here’s how insane this argument is. For example, I need my car to go as fast as 120 MPH while getting 35 MPG. There is no one thing I can do to the engine of the car to get there, but several things I can do that will get me there. What the gun nuts are saying is, if there is no one thing I can do that will get me there, its not worth doing at all. End result is, I never get there!
The Parkland kids seem to have seen through that nonsense, and hopefully others are starting to see that as well.
The problem with a simple ban, is that people will manufacture the weapons themselves. Without registration numbers, and absolutely zero paper trail.
Think Prohibition and Alcohol. How many problems did that ban solve?
For example, we already have 3d printing and the ability to print guns from publicly available blueprints.
And, you already have this out and about.
https:/www.80percentarms.com
Just purchase a pre-made jig, and an almost solid block of metal. And voila, you have an untraceable gun ready for sale on the black market.
I don’t think a ban accomplishes anything, and I think like Prohibition, makes it worse.
You can bet your ass that 80% Arms is seeing a MASSIVE increase in business with talk of banning semi-automatic rifles.
Maybe reducing the availability of purchasing semi-automatic weapons online and at gunshows or down the street makes it harder to purchase the weapons. But it doesn’t seem as if people who want to commit mass murder just go about it on the spur-of-the-moment notion, but plan it out to some extent.
I’m not trying to shit on the notion of making it harder to get these weapons of mass destruction, but it comes down to whether or not it really is going to make a difference. And I’m not sure an outright ban will make a difference in preventing a lunatic who wants to commit mass murder, from getting ahold of a semi-automatic rifle, or handgun, etc. It would just make them go to the black market, which will start out on day one as absolutely saturated and ready-to-go.
Do we want future mass murderers operating in the shadows? Or is there a way to shine a spotlight on future purchases? Personally, the spotlight sounds a lot better to me.
Make their own weapons???
Do you have any idea how insane that is? Yeah, they might try, but when an entire generation of right wing nuts are known as “Two Fingered Lefty” it will end.
We’re not talking about bathtub gin. The pressures generated by modern bullets are enough to kill you if you don’t get right.
And stupid people can’t get it right.
Yes.
They make their own weapons.
3D printable weapons.
Pre-made jigs and 80% complete receivers.
Not knowing that this exists doesn’t stop it from existing. It doesn’t take an engineer to make your own semi-automatic weapon.
Perhaps see what actually exists all around you that you don’t pay attention to.
Not eliminate it, obviously, but reduce it, which means it’s worth doing, a net gain, a positive.
Because some potential perps won’t be aware of that technology. Others won’t have the resources to get access to it. Others won’t be able to figure out how to make it work. Etc., etc. So they enter the school in their rage with a knife. And fewer innocent people die pointlessly.
It’s not a solution.
It’s still an improvement on the status quo.
is a whole hell of a lot better than nothing. Whatever action is needed to make the situation just a little better – an AR-15 ban is just such an action. It won’t completely eliminate mass murder nor gun violence more broadly, but it will help a bit. That ban would be a success and one that could be built upon – even as technology changes.
. . . the anti-incrementalism that seems en vogue in some quarters (which is really a form of defeatism/nihilism) that takes the purist position that if the problem can’t be solved completely by the proposal in question, that proposal is not worth pursuing . . .
. . . thereby condemning to death innocent persons who would otherwise have survived. Really not a morally defensible position.
And I say that as one whose inner realist is always at war with my inner idealist.
long ago. I have none at this point, although I suspect you sussed that out long ago. I’d rather at least try, or bare minimum stay out of the way of those who want to try, than curl up in fetal position and moan that nothing can be done because it can’t be done perfectly or completely. Something of value can always be done, even if only incompletely, and even if only tentatively. There is a reason I came to value that old slogan “the struggle continues” – because, well, it continues, more often than not bit by bit.
Who is curling up in a fetal position?
Banning just the AR-15 is worthless.
There are a hundred other, cheaper semi-automatic rifles you can purchase instead.
This problem requires a lot more than a token reform that accomplishes nothing.
And if you’re saying that you want ALL semi-automatic rifles banned, then you need to clearly delineate it.
There are hundreds of brands of semi-automatic rifles. Or, to put it another way, banning Tide detergent isn’t going to stop people from washing their clothes with detergent. They’ll just use another brand than Tide.
Banning AR-15s is a start. It sets a precedent. Whether something like that can get through Congress is another story, but is more feasible than what you are suggesting if I am reading you correctly. And it beats the heck out of simply throwing up one’s hands and saying, “heck, there is nothing we can do” or “just that one thing just ain’t good enough.” I’ve had it with both of those approaches. In the meantime, I will be getting up in just a few hours wondering if I will see my kids for the last time, like I do each and every weekday morning. I’m tired of that, too.
Banning the AR-15 means that a lunatic purchases an AR-10, or an AK47, or any number of other rifles instead.
They fire the same ammunition, they have the magazine capacity, and they cost the same, or less, than an AR-15.
Banning the AR-15 stops nothing. It is a meaningless token. Either you ban all semi-automatic rifles, or you ban none of them.
In the meantime, effective background checks using infrastructure already in existence, decreases the likelihood that someone who is obviously unstable, such as the last shooter, is able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle.
Banning just the AR-15 is throwing hands up in the air and saying you can’t do anything. Because it does nothing to prevent someone from purchasing a cheaper AK-47 that does the same exact thing that the AR-15 does.
Are a lot more AK-47s available than AR-15s? Why are AR-15s so darned popular if the AK-47 is so much cheaper? Which of these two is responsible for the majority of the worst mass shootings we’ve experienced as a nation over the last few years? At this point you have not convinced me. In the meantime, I just said goodbye again to my kids. Maybe I’ll see them this afternoon.
So, you’re at least admitting that you don’t know very much about semi-automatic rifles. A good first step.
Yes, AK-47s are at your local gun store. And they’ll do just as much damage as an AR-15.
You not being convinced of something that you have absolutely no idea about isn’t a very good way to go about legislating.
How about calling up a local gun store and asking what types of semi-automatic rifles they have available?
How about going online to see how many semi-automatic rifles there are available, other than the AR-15.
You are attempting to ban Tide detergent in order to get people to stop using detergent. You’re doing it wrong.
The reason I asked was that I am under the impression that the AR-15 is considerably more popular than the AK-47, has a greater range (ideal if you’re a sniper), and is generally lighter than the AK-47. I get the impression that the AK-47 is better as a general all-terrain firearm, and I suppose that’s wonderful if one were in the sorts of combat situations where that would come in handy. I generally am not a fan of semi-automatic or automatic rifles as a rule, though. Given the damage they can do, no civilian needs to be anywhere near one. I refuse to allow one in my home. Antique pistols – well that’s another matter, but then again I am a collector.
Beyond that, we’re going to disagree on this, I am afraid. No way around it, I suppose. At least my kids made it home safely today. There is that.
It’s like you’re attempting to not understand what I’m saying.
The AR-15 and AK-47 are both semi-automatic rifles. They are firing the same type of ammunition, at the same power, and at the same rate.
You can purchase an AK-47 or an AR-15 at your local gunstore.
I don’t know how many more analogies I can use here.
Banning the AR-15, while allowing people to purchase an AK-47, is useless in the same way that, for example:
Preventing a drunk driver from driving a Dodge Challenger, while allowing the drunk driver to drive a Chevy Camaro.
The AR-15 is a brand of semi-automatic rifle.
If someone shoots you with an AK-47 at 20 feet, it’s just as destructive as an AR-15. Full stop.
Again. Banning the use of Tide detergent doesn’t prevent people from using detergent.
It’s. A. Brand.
Fine. You win. Happy?
Your cognitive dissonance isn’t a win for anyone.
Protip: I’m not the enemy.
There’s no cognitive dissonance. You intended to drag this out until you finally get your way. You got your way. Be happy.
Yes, that’s what I wanted.
Nailed it.
Far out, man.
The AR 15 has less of a recoil and therefore a shooter can fire more shots, more accurately. It’s a start. Love to take them all out with a ban on all semi automatics. If you can’t shoot your deer with another rifle, maybe you shouldn’t be hunting, besides the velocity of the bullets could ruin your meat.
Have you ever fired either an AR-15 or an AK-47? I’ve fired both. The recoil is irrelevant when you’re firing off 300 RPM at a distance of 20 feet or less against unarmed people.
Actually, instead of reading what I wrote as “idealist” or “defeatist”, try reading it carefully.
Banning the AR-15, by itself, accomplishes the same thing in the semi-automatic rifle crisis as banning heroin has done in the opioid crisis.
Wait, you mean heroin was already illegal?
Instead of taking heroin, here, take this oxycodone.
Instead of shooting the AR-15, here, take this AK-47.
Being a realist means understanding that there is more than just an AR-15 when you’re discussing semi-automatic rifles. Anyone who proposes banning JUST an AR-15 is making an argument for token reform that actually does nothing to prevent the next lunatic from purchasing a A̶R̶-̶1̶5̶ Ak-47 and committing mass murder.
And, if we’re now moving on to banning ALL semi-automatic rifles, how likely is that? How long is that going to take? That, is the true “idealist” situation that isn’t particularly realistic.
So, let’s be realistic.
If you want to purchase an AR-15, or ANY semi-automatic weapon, make it so that a security clearance level interview process occurs for everyone attempting to purchase one, whether from a store, online, or a private dealer. In other words, interview the family, friends, employer/coworker, teacher/students of the potential purchaser, before any weapon can be sold. It adds time to the process, and it will flag people who should clearly not own a semi-automatic rifle.
That seems realistic to me. And possible.
Just think, we already have security clearance interviewers working for the Federal government. I know, I’ve been interviewed on a few occasions because of a friend who required security clearance.
Token incrementalism like banning just the AR-15 is useless, because there are hundreds of variants of semi-automatic rifles.
This isn’t a “we can’t do anything, so let’s do nothing” argument.
It’s a, is a token ban of one particular brand of semi-automatic rifle really what we’re going to spend energy on, argument.
Given the endless bad faith of the gun manufacturers, an AR-15 ban would just result in the production of a lot of “BR-15″s. A bill should target the performance characteristics of the AR-15: things like magazine size, rate of fire, etc. A bolt action gun that looks just like an AR-15 would be radically less dangerous. OTOH a semi-automatic rifle with a 40 round magazine could be styled (to some extent) to look like an old smoothbore musket and still be an incredibly deadly weapon for mass shooters.
You’re the only one who appears to understand what I’ve said.
Ban the AR-15. And now people just buy an AR-10. Or an AR-9.
Or an AK-47. Or an AK-74.
Or a hundred other variant of semi-automatic rifles, currently on sale at your local gun store. And this, of course, ignores that there’d still be millions of these things on the black market. Or, you know, the ability to just mill one at your house.
It’s like making the argument that if only we made heroin illegal, it’d, like, totally end the opioid crisis. Because apparently now I’m an “idealist” or some such non-sense.
You start out strong but then end with the stupid conclusion that it’s pointless to do anything. By the time you get to calling out the black market and home manufacturing you’ve lost the plot.
I’ve commented multiple times, in this here thread, that we need to implement a background check that is essentially the same as a security-clearance background check, where government interviewers go and interview family, friends, employers/coworkers, teachers/students, to determine if the person is stable.
This, unlike banning a single model of semi-automatic rifle, is more realistic, and should have stopped the last shooting. Multiple tips to federal and state agencies. And then a massive red flag: application to purchase semi-automatic rifles.
You can keep saying that I’m throwing my hands up in the air because I’m saying out loud that banning one type of semi-automatic rifle is a token and will do nothing, but that’s not even remotely accurate.
The AR-15 isn’t the problem. Semi-automatic rifles on sale in without any type of comprehensive background check is.
I’m not sure how many times it has to be said. The AR-15 is one of hundreds of variants of semi-automatic rifles that have the same power, capacity, killing power, etc.
Ok, so as I just said earlier in this thread: focusing on branding is a waste of time and focusing on function is where gun laws need to be.
Semi-automatic or automatic rifles with high capacity magazines should be banned.
Literally nobody but gun humpers care if they’re called AR-15s or AK-47s. Nobody cares about the shape of the stock or the barrel or the receiver or if the gun has a pistol grip or sniper scopes or whatever the fuck.
Rate of fire, magazine capacity.
Reduce it, reduce it, reduce it.
Ammo hoarding, private arsenals.
Reduce it, reduce it, reduce it.
Gun show assault rifles, 18 year old kids with 4 glocks and a pair of sig-sauers,
Reduce it, reduce it, reduce it.
Squid ink cloud of bullshit can’t hide the public desire to reduce the amount of lead one maladjusted dipshit can spray around with “legal” guns.
. . . you’d comprehend that I applied “realist” and “idealist” to . . . wait for it . . . me!
So you can quit acting like an oh-so-offended adolescent over it.
There’s a world of difference between a 3D printed gun you can make with an affordable printer that might fire one or 2 bullets before it fails and/or explodes, and a gun that can reliably fire 50-100 rounds in a short time- which requires a large number of pre-machined actual gun parts and/or a hugely expensive metal laser sintering printer.
3D printing is possible but it’s not a cheap and easy workaround against gun control laws.
Ignores the ability to mill your own gun from steel, from home.
Have been for sale, currently for sale. Right now.
https:/www.80percentarms.com
And, that’s just one manufacturer.
All of that is significantly more costly than “home 3d printing” and easily interdicted by the same laws that could be written to restrict high-ROF guns.
Nichols, I’ve not only designed 3d printed weapons, I’ve actually made them on the 3d printer that I build with my own two hand … (I used primarily black locust scraps from my CNC build).
A plastic gun currently MIGHT shot 3 times before it erupts in your face.
I have no idea why you and Voice wish to mimic the cries of “If it ain’t perfect you shouldn’t do it” of the ammosexuals and kneejerk NYT liberals … but you are.
Step back and look at who supports your talking points.
You really want to be with them?
I’ve already posted this. But, uh, nevermind 3d printed guns.
And, ignore the millions of already existing semi-automatic rifles.
You also have this.
Not plastic.
https:/www.80percentarms.com
There are a multitude of various semi-automatic rifles besides the AR-15. Unless you ban all semi-automatic rifles, banning the AR-15 is equivalent to banning morphine while there are a dozen other opioids for sale.
In essence, it would be pointless.
Look beyond the lower and upper receiver. What makes those weapons the preferred choice of lunatics who want to kill as many people as possible?
Bullet caliber? Bullet characteristics? Magazine capacity? Semi-automatic fire? Price-point? Availability?
The more general the ban, the more closely you get to banning the factors that make it easy for lunatics to commit mass murder. But, the harder it will be to get legislation passed.
So, is it being really specific, banning the AR-15 as a token, with it not really affecting the ability of lunatics to commit mass murder? Or is it being as general as possible to make it more difficult to commit mass destruction, so to speak, which then becomes infinitely more difficult to do legislatively?
This isn’t an easy issue, regardless of this current Occupy-esque moment.
For example, what do you do, legally, about the millions of already existing semi-automatic rifles owned by the public? Ban resale? Allow resale? Any buy-back program just increases the value of the rifles to the public, especially if resale isn’t an option.
Let’s be clear, any “roundup” of semi-automatic rifles already owned legally is essentially the next civil war, so that option should, hopefully, be beyond an option.
Shaming politicians for accepting NRA money is inherently good, but it won’t affect the chance that semi-automatic firearms will be banned generally for sale/resale.
So, perhaps a better background check would be more effective, e.g. having a federal and state background check similar to how security clearance is granted.
Imagine if purchasing a gun required the purchaser to apply for a weapon, which triggers a security clearance-like interview process, where family, friends, employers/co-workers, teachers/students are interviewed about the potential weapons purchaser.
Could that have stopped the last shooter?
What if AR-15s, or all semi-automatic weapons, had been banned a week before the latest massacre? Would that have stopped the last shooter?
Banning the sale of all semi-automatic weapons (especially just the AR-15) in the future is more of a token than an actual substantive move to prevent lunatics from committing mass murder.
At this point, there are so many weapons out and about without a paper trail, and with 3d printing becoming easier for the massess…there needs to be a hands-on human component to prevent mass murder.
My favorite libertarian blog refers to the AR 15 as a rifle with a high capacity magazine. Labels are a trap. It is time to stop selling military grade weapons to civilians. The ban may not stop the next mass murder in the near future but you got to start somewhere.
Sure.
So, where do we start?
Just the AR-15? Does it include the AR-10?
How about the AK-47?
Etc, etc, and here we go.
Labels aren’t a trap. They’re a key function of human beings – applying a commonly-held notion to an idea or object. A word.
My post asks, where do we start? With an AR-15 ban?
Does that actually change anything besides which semi-automatic rifle someone purchases? Or, builds at home?
The Australian option or GTFO. If they can do it, we can do it; their politics are as bad as ours, not quantitatively, but the same kind of bad, viz. the irreconcilability of urban and rural. No lesser outcome is worth pursuing — and this is not a piece of perfectionism; any lesser measures would actually make the situation worse, by creating the kind of implementation/enforcement quagmires that other commenters have pointed out, and by increasing the rural sense of grievance. If you strike at the king, you must kill him; half measures will not do here.
I seriously doubt even the weakest, most symbolic measure will make it through the wall of NO that is the GOP majority. Seriously. They’re really no longer in touch with the majority of American voters and will complacently assume thi will blow over in a week. And it says something that I can’t be sure they’re not right.
It’ll be interesting to see how this all unfolds. There’s even been some talk (although I remain skeptical until I see action) that banks may well force the issue of curbing sales of assault rifles if Congress won’t. All it would take is refusing to do business with merchants who sell them, or continuing to extend credit to manufacturers of those weapons. It would be something else if gun control came to us via the forces of what our more conservative friends call the “free market.” As noted, this may be more talk than anything else.
Missouri Governor Greitens. Once again a born-again, family loving, staunch freedom defender is shown to be a facil, domineering extortionist.
The difference here, tho, is that it appears that he’ll face at least a trial, if not be convicted.
Once again, Clair McCaskil lucks out.
she basically engineered her last opponent, I wouldn’t doubt she has something to do with all this coming out this time again
she obviously knows how to play hardball in a GOP state
I tend to doubt that any D had much to do with this coming out. I lived in MO for years, and politicos play serious hardball, but not that way. Glass houses and all that.
What Clair did last time was basically tell the yahoos that she wasn’t scared of the 3 of the R candidates but she was terrified of the “real” conservative.
Said Yahoos bought it hook, line and sinker. I still maintain that this is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone obviously game the system and come out ahead.
Also, new to me at least: Some Fox News executives under the gun for possible malfeasance of coporate $$$. What’s nice about this is that not only is it a crime to DO it, it is a crime to know about it and not report it IF you are a “responsible person” … which apparently means you are some kind of caretaker for the shareholders.
I guess that means Murdock and Co might be in for some rough times??? Lord only knows where this will go, but hey, follow the unicorn farts!!!
I think the Schiff memo’s been pretty interesting.
Not necessarily from the content, though it’s interesting that the redactions concern multiple accusations that Steele made that were independently confirmed by the FBI.
But more the Republican and Trump’s twitter-twatter response. They just straight-up lie and claim the memo vindicates them. It demonstrates such a deep level of contempt for their supporters. They know these people are suckers. They don’t even try to make plausible arguments.
Eventually, repeatedly insulting the intelligence of your supporters leaves you with only the most gullible supporters. This has been the direction of the Republican party since at least Reagan but these guys are putting it on steroids.
Yeah, they lie and their supporters keep coming back for more. Hear Trump at CPAC and the loud cheers he received? It reminds me there is no hope for those people. Plausible is not a word in their vocabulary.
It’s a cult in all but name. As with all cults, the leaders are always believed, the followers are taught to disregard all information that comes from outsiders.
The definition of “credible” is “said by our team.”
. . . should fix that! Name it!
Listen to Lakoff et al., and start referring routinely to “The Trump Cult”, “The Second-Amendment Cult” (applies equally there).
Couldn’t hurt, right?
Except it’s not the Trump Cult, it’s the Conservative Cult. Long before Trump, Rush Limbaugh was telling his listeners, on every episode of his show, to disregard the NYT and CNN.
It took time, but the indoctrination has come to fruition.
. . . Cult” tacitly endorses “conservative” as an accurate descriptor of that cult.
It isn’t.
Exhibit A: “conservatives against conservation” is both an oxymoron and a core “value” of “The Conservative Cult”. I dunno, maybe ‘The “Conservative” Cult’ (i.e., “scare quotes” consistently applied to “conservative”) would fix that?
But I don’t see a need to choose. Accurately label all the rightwingnut cults as cults: The Trump Cult, The Second-Amendment Cult, The “Conservative” Cult, etc. I certainly wasn’t intending my 2-item list to be exhaustive.
And yet…and yet…that continues to be an absolutely sure fire way to win elections for them. That says volumes, not so much about the GOP. They’re just doing what for them is the needful so much as it demonstrates the extreme epistemic closure of the GOP electorate.
I finally had a chance to watch “Get Me Roger Stone” yesterday. It’s incredible that these ratfuckers have not been caught and brought to some sort of justice until the appointment of Mueller.
Speaking of Stone, Marcy Wheeler believes he is “one of the five” who were numbered in the Schiff memo.
I thought the footnote that wasn’t blacked out listed 4 of the 5, with Page being #5. Roger Stone was not listed in the footnote.
She’s got it as Manafort, Flynn, Stone, and Page. Adam Goldman of NYT also has Stone among them.
Sunday morning news shows are dominated by gun control. I heard an absolutely bizarre paranoid statement by Wayne La Pierre this morning that convinces me that he should never be allowed near a gun.
Go ahead and hit me with both-siderism, but I hear NRA and other right wingers exposing total nonsense like La Pierre’s “It’s all a plot to disarm the population so Liberals can run a dictatorship and pollute our precious bodily fluids” and various Democrats that think just tightening a few loopholes and more background checks will solve the problem which is NOT that crazy people can get guns but that crazy people who want to shoot kids are walking around loose. Take the guns away and the loons will go to homemade bombs, maybe suicide bombs. They are nuts after all.
AR-15’s aren’t the problem, either. As I pointed out after Sandy Hook, as much or more carnage could be committed with a pump shotgun and it’s easier to use. Ban AR-15’s and the school shootings will continue.
Trump’s vision of every teacher a John Wayne is almost as crazy as La Pierre’s paranoid fantasy. That guy should not be in charge of an ice cream stand, much less the nuclear football.
What’s my answer? I don’t have one. Maybe a total civilian gun ban would at least reduce the number of these tragedies, although I suspect that today’s gangs would just go back to sticking each other with switchblades, although that would be improvement. At least we wouldn’t read about little girls killed at their birthday parties by random bullets coming through the walls of their house. But timid Democratic proposals to marginally increase the number of background checks are just feel-good political ploys. The ones that have teeth like permanently banning gun sales from anyone who ever threatened anyone won’t pass Constitutional muster as they punish someone for crimes they might commit without even a trial.
. . . declared vote in the last presidential election responding to you re:
Your recognition of the blindingly obvious is a bit tardy, given that you helped enable the current catastrophe.
The AR 15 is the M 16 minus the automatic part. It comes as a semi automatic. And the creative folks like in Las Vegas can fix that too. It is a killer, leaves a hole the size of an orange on exit and can turn bone to dust. It will rupture and damage arteries and organs that it just passes nearby owing to shells that travel three times the speed of a handgun. That little gem should be banned. That’s just to start. Maybe the kids, like Emma Gonzales, can make it happen.
You’ll get that kind of damage out of pretty much any long gun. What makes the AR-15 and its relatives different is the (comparatively) lessened recoil and the large magazine.
perhaps. I was reading an account of the AR 15 after the Orlando shooting. And the damage it caused was specific to that weapon and the velocity of the shell.
I can only sigh deeply when people try to make some kind of equivalence between the AR-15 and various other weaponry which is used for hunting or sport shooting. The AR-15, like most all of the civilian-ized military armor that has flooded the market in the last decade, is uniquely attributed for one purpose only. And it is not to kill wildlife or varmints on the ranch.
When on shoots an AR, it becomes very obvious what it has been designed to accomplish.
Shotguns were used for combat in VietNam. They are not safe peashooters.
WHAT THE FUCK???
Yeah, shotguns are badass dudes.
Are you being paid by the NRA to equate shotguns and AR-15s????
OK, keep your delusion that this is only about AR-15s. Get rid of them and everything is fine.
Yet another assertion-as-fact from you that evokes skepticism in reasonable people.
. . . assert anything as fact that’s . . . ya know . . . actually factual? As in “true”? Verifiable?
Cuz your record here screams “no” to that, too.
No argument on the ban. Just pointing out that it won’t stop or even slow down school shootings.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere: before the JFK assignation gun laws were a joke. Anyone could buy guns mail order. You had to self-certify that you were of legal age and not a mental patient nor a felon. NOBODY CHECKED! As long as they had that piece of paper they were legally off the hook. Even the GOVERNMENT through DCM sold military weapons mail order. They ENCOURAGED ownership of military weapons. Yet I never heard of a school shooting until Columbine. It’s not the inanimate object. It’s the wackadoo holding it and using it. Believe me there were plenty of wackadoos in the ’50s and ’60s still we didn’t have these mass shootings. There was the Texas tower shooting but that was college. The type of nut that guns down little kids because he’s jealous of his mommy’s attention was locked up, not roaming the streets. In my opinion what changed was Reagan’s dumping of the mental health facilities to save money. But I can’t cite academic rigor on that.
So go ahead, believe that banning the AR-15 will solve the violence problem. I don’t care. I don’t want an AR-15. Expend all that political capital. But you are not solving the problem.
Banning assault rifles is a good first step. I’m sure there are any number of other things that can be done, like increased regulations. I also wonder how exactly that kid got in the school and what more could be done to lock down schools. In our schools, you ring a bell and answer why you are there. Then you are buzzed into a second room and from there to the office. You can’t get in the school.
Early reports said one deputy heard the shots but did not go in. This morning the news said three deputies heard the shots but didn’t go in. It doesn’t bring anyone back but it sure looks to me like a tort lawsuit based on loss on the police failing to do their duty.
Sheriff is denying the reports on the other two and refuses to resign as some wanted.
Not surprising. He fired the first one but three of them points to bad management. His backs to the wall. And if he quit or is fired, who would hire him?
What has changed is the fact that the makers and retailers of guns now have absolutely no liability for guns. The makers and retailers of laundry soap that looks like candy have more liability exposure.
I believe by the end of the 10-yr ban on the sale of AR 15’s in 2004 there was a significant drop in the number out there. I haven’t heard numbers on the number killed by them in the early 2000’s, but I believe that dropped as well.
Why are you so certain it won’t work, given time?
This isn’t supported by the facts:
“As I pointed out after Sandy Hook, as much or more carnage could be committed with a pump shotgun and it’s easier to use.”
Bushmaster says the AR-15 can fire 45 rounds per minute. I have read of some models with a capacity to fire 60 rounds. And this is without a full on auto or bump stock modification.
Then you have high-capacity magazines. With a pump shotgun there is the pump that has to be done before you can shoot, and the highest shell capacity is 10. Automatic rifle capacity is between 15 to 30 rounds, and they have custom magazines that hold up to 100.
Paddock couldn’t have done the damage he did in Vegas with a shotgun, nor could Cruz do what he did in the three minutes its said it took him to kill and wound all those people with a shotgun.
There is no one solution that is guaranteed to prevent mass shootings, but when we set the bar for doing anything that might at least mitigate the situation as high as it must prevent all mass shootings, a straw man if ever there was one, and then argue its not even worth trying because it won’t prevent all mass shootings, as a basis for doing nothing, it guarantees mass shootings will continue.
It traps us in the insanity that this gun situation is.
. . . on that myself. You saved me the trouble.
Adding, not only could Paddock not
he couldn’t have done any consequential damage (i.e., even as bad as Cheney inflicted on his “friend” when he shot him in the face), since a shotgun’s destructive power dissipates somewhere close to exponentially with distance.
From Paddock’s perch, a pump shotgun would have had all the destructive effectiveness of a MIRV BB gun.
. . . I knew decades ago who trained his bird dogs not to chase after rabbits, etc. — when they were supposed to be going on point for pheasants — by letting them get far enough away to not cause any real injury, then unloading a cartridge of birdshot into them.
Somehow I doubt that’d work with an AR-15. Not that it wouldn’t stop the dog from chasing rabbits. But that it would stop her from chasing after anything, ever again; much less ever going on point at a pheasant again.
Was referring to Sandy Hook. A shotgun wouldn’t have done much in Las Vegas. Do you really think more kids wouldn’t have been killed at Sandy Hook with a shotgun? BOOM Teacher dead, ripped apart. BOOM BOOM BOOM All kids in the classroom dead or dying from pellets. And on to the next room. The point being “close” works with a shotgun but not a rifle. Sure an AR-15 can fire faster. But you have to have control as well. Rifles are good for distance. Shotguns for close up. How far is the farthest target in a classroom? Twenty feet?
ummmmmm….I don’t think megacartridge shotguns are common. I can’t find references in a quick google search. Quite frankly, Voice, your argument comes straight out of ammosexual textbooks.
I doubt the activist kids at Parkland would appreciate your comment. If you find yourself saying the same thing as the ammosexuals and opposing kids trying to protect themselves ….. maybe you ought to re-think?
And don’t give me this “if its true it should be said” crap. You shouldn’t EVER give aid and comfort to the ammosexuals.
First, there is no good rational for any citizen to legally own any high capacity weapon. Period.
Hunting and home protection can both be accomplished with guns that have limited capacity magazines.
High capacity guns exist for one purpose only: killing lots of people.
So let’s get rid of the AR-15 — yeah, there are a lot of other semi-auto guns out there, and yeah, shotguns can do some serious damage too, but we have GOT TO START SOMEWHERE.
I am tired of arguments that basically say – “since what you propose will not completely solve the problem, it is not worth pursuing.”
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!
Banning AR-15s is one bite.
Another bite is mental health care. We clearly have a problem in this country with getting good mental health care to the people who need it. The solution? I don’t know, but I do firmly believe that a solution exists.
WHAT HE SAID !!!!!!
Exactly. Start somewhere and build on that success to whatever extent possible. I don’t need an ideal solution. Just a starting point. In the meantime, I am increasingly trusting that our younger generations will manage to clean up the mess the rest of our cohorts managed to make. When I saw those kids from Parkland continuing to speak out, I thought to myself – “I’m looking at the next Greatest Generation.” I may not live to see them really shine, but I am convinced that they will do some tremendously wonderful things under enormously difficult odds.
. . . at least modestly hopeful, for a change. And that at a point when any reason for hope has ever-increasingly seemed to me in extremely short supply for quite some time now.
If they pull it off, though, then indeed
May they succeed where we have failed.
My answer:
Constitutional convention, modify or remove the 2nd Amendment then confiscate all the guns. The present situation is nonsense.
https://www.cagle.com/joe-heller/2018/02/shootings-2
On the home front: participated in a fantastically successful charity event for the Deaf Plus Adult Community (DPAC) who provide support for deaf people with disabilities. Not a dry eye in the house.
100% chance that this never happens.
And as Charlie Pierce reminds us periodically, if a Constitutional Convention happens, guess which party controls what goes on there?
Answer: not the one that is going to rescind the 2nd Amendment.
I’ll just refer to Frank Wilhoit’s comment above and add:
You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
In Australia, they could simply ban all guns because they have no 2nd Amendment and so no “traditional right” to defend. Even though the Framers were very distrustful of a standing US Army, which is why the 2nd Amendment is about forming well-regulated state militias of civilians bearing and paying for their own arms, they never meant for the right to be de-linked from being a well-regulated (and trained) militia. That’s where we went off the rails a long, long time ago.
Given that, the only alternative is precisely chipping and chipping away. Doing something big guarantees failure, unfortunately.
Crazy antisocial teens are everywhere. They don’t use bombs anywhere. In the US they mow down other teens with assault rifles. In other countries they can’t get guns, so they stay home, play videogames and watch porn.
Reading about the latest Manafort indictments brought Vladimir Lenin’s quote to mind: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
A totally non-political Sunday for us, for a variety of reasons. The wife is spending some time today with her sister, who is once again trying to kick her addiction. We have learned over the last two years to always be hopeful, but limit the height of our expectations. Be thankful for the good day, when you can lay your head down at night and know she made it another 24 hours sober. Baby steps.
The damn dog appears to have a bladder infection. On our morning walk I noticed a pinkish hue to her urine. Sure enough, it’s blood. Our last dog, a lab, had regular bladder infections all her life, so we know all the signs and expectations. Will have to capture a urine specimen and drop it off in the morning. This is the second time she this has happened with her. Must have drawn the short straw again on dogs with susceptibility to this condition.
Lastly, a long time friend, Carol, called us yesterday and informed us she found out this week she has terminal liver cancer. Her husband has been fighting leukemia for about three years, and now she finds out she is dying. We had a good cry, which she insisted wasn’t at all necessary. As we ended the conversation she told us, “I don’t want to sound like a nagging philosopher, but you two need to make sure you’re doing everything you want to do, when you can”. So that is still ringing in my ears.
So it’s been a mixed, generally shitty bag this weekend, as far as I’m concerned. So I’m choosing not to pile additional shit on top of it today.
I’m sorry, Mike. Bad news is one thing, but multiple bad things can really wreck us. I wish you and your family and friends some sense of calm, some courage, and all the best healing wishes I have to give.
Hugs, too!
Always seems like when it comes to bad news – when it rains it pours. Going through a few multiple crises myself these days. Have some idea what you’re going through. Only so much one can take.
Found out last night that my father has prostate cancer that has spread to his spine, shoulder, and one kidney. Not a lot of sleep last night.
So today my wife and I made a spontaneous trip to see our youngest daughter. (Just a two hour drive, but sometimes that seems sooo far.)
Hold close what you hold dear.
California Democratic Convention declines to endorse Diane Feinstein
good to see, though I’m not sure it means much.
Exactly. Doesn’t mean a thing. My Rep routinely fails to secure the Dems endorsement from my part of his district because the screeching left show up in numbers at the first endorsement meeting prior to the primary to tank his chances. Then he always wins the primary and the screeching left stays home for the second endorsement meeting where he secures the endorsement for the general. Rinse and repeat.
This wasn’t just denying Feinstein the endorsement – DeLeon actually came pretty close to getting it himself and was far ahead of her (54-37; 60% needed for an endorsement).
There could be a Machiavellian aspect to this. Feinstein will be in the general no matter what. DeLeon’s polling is much weaker. If the party can pump up DeLeon’s vote enough, then we get a D vs. D for the general, which combined with a likely D vs. D general election for governor will really kill Republican turnout, to the benefit of every Democrat in a competitive race, and really everybody in the country because of the damage to Republicans running for the House.
Do you think DeLeon is polling poorly because of inertia or lack of name recognition?
The normalization of the ugly far right freaks and cranks that make up CPAC. Why isn’t that a top line expose’? Americans are asleep at the wheel.
Trump is still an ignorant, lying sack of shit.
Bernie Sanders finally being asked about his role in the 2016 election. “We knew what we knew when we knew it and that’s all I’ve got to say about it.”
I know Trump is guilty. I can hardly wait to hear what mueller learns about his campaign.
His role:
Some Democratic Establishment Wonks Put Out a Medicare-for-All Plan. And It’s Pretty Good!
Can’t wait until my generation is in power. Sick and tired of centrists whining about the left, and then simultaneously cheering on their own People’s Judean Front.
Me too. If the young and the brown don’t save us from people like me, we’re fucked forever.
Still a ways to go:
Source: link
Gene drive technology as a means of cheaper bioweaponry and breakout from the biological warfare treaties.
Gene drives: The good, the bad, and the hype
Following in the global stabilization results of miniturizing drones….
The realization that the proper frame for Trumpism and its foreign policy is international majoritarianism.
It is the blowback against all efforts under “globalism” at human rights enforcement and ending second-class citizenship in majoritarian countries.
It allows for bad actors who are allied but not actual conventional fascists or nazis themselves to be roped into coalitions.
The current international example is the growing closeness of Trump, Modi, Putin, Duterte, Netanyahu, Erdogan, and Mohammed bin Salman. What looks like an odd coalition is held together with majoritarianism.
Replace “Trumpism” with either “Modern US Conservatism”, or “Republicanism”.
Replace “majoritarian” with “Authoritarian”.
This isn’t some new phenomenon. Shit was running rampant 100 years ago.
Anyway, I couldn’t agree with you more. As long as the voters are able to see that, yes, they need to put out the god damn fire before adding an addition to the kitchen, we might be able to prevent what happened in the past from happening again.
And now we have some extreme nationalism and anti immigration running rampant.under a president and party who deign to hold onto power forever and fuck you if you don’t like it.
The improbable global alliance that might bring US, Israel, Russia, Turkey, India, and Saudi Arabia into collective security of their majorities would be a new thing. And it would oppose more authoritarian nations, some of which have a majoritarian bent themselves — China, Pakistan, Iran, (just look at the first group’s enemies list).
Sold a new project. Can pay mortgage for another year, while the world burns. Yay!?
hey, shit happens and all you can do is keep on keeping on.
If you happend to be in the NE (shit, worcester is no more than an hour from anywhere north of NYC) look me up.
I cook good.
My mother grew up in Worcester, which is where she met my father who was on the GI Bill at Holy Cross. Always liked that city even though it gets a lot of snow.
China has removed its two-term restriction on its president and vice-president. This is being read as a prelude to proclaiming Xi Jiping as President for Life.
‘Dictator for life’: Xi Jinping’s power grab condemned as step towards tyranny
Emptywheel’s latest:
Was the Trump Campaign Full of Spies or Just Idiots?
My favorite part:
“So the latest Memoghazi arguments might best be summarized this way: After Democrats convincingly argued Trump made a suspected Russian asset a key foreign policy advisor, Republicans insisted that doesn’t matter because the suspected Russian asset was a moron.”
Thursday, March 1
England (FIFA-ranked World #3) vs. France (#6; but don’t get fooled, they kicked our asses in this event last year)
4:00p ET, ESPN3, Columbus, OH
United States (#1) vs. Germany (#2)
7:00p ET ESPN2, ESPN3, Columbus, OH
Sunday, March 4
United States vs. France
Noon ET, ESPN2, ESPN3, Harrison, NJ
Germany vs. England
3:00p ET, ESPN3, Harrison, NJ
Wednesday, March 7
France vs. Germany
4:00p ET, ESPN3, Orlando, FL
USA vs. England
7:00p ET, ESPNews, ESPN3, Orlando, FL