dagblog - Comments for "Megan McCardle Writes Sandy Hook Op-Ed Based on Return Of The Jedi..."

DF, the fact is this, two

tmccarthy0 — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:13:38 +0000

In reply to As much as I have criticized

DF, the fact is this, two women ran at the gunman in Connecticut and they are dead. Running at a gunman is a death sentence and a fantasy that piling on someone with a gun is somehow going to stop them.

McArdle is a true idiot, she is obviously a person who has never been around anyone with an actual gun.

There is a tyranny here with the gun nut crowd, one that is keeping us captive. And because of this 20 babies are dead and 7 adults.

McArdle is wrong, entirely, completely, totally wrong and to top that off she is as dumb as a rock. Has she ever been scared because some drunken ass has pulled his gun on a bunch of people? Not likely reading that blog of idiocy. Being from Montana I've seen this countless times, drunken fools displaying their weapons when they are drunk, playing with it like it is some toy, and these are people who have all taken the NRA gun safety training, and in some cases have taught those classes. So they are well trained, they shoot with accuracy.

There are no simple solutions, because too many people believe they might need their guns to take on our legally elected government. Legally elected, let's ponder that for a moment, legally elected. But no one has seriously taken on the federal government with weapons since 1860. So with all the mythology of guns saving us from an oppressive government, the only people who we end up killing is each other, that is the sad fact, we just end up killing each other.

What is the ultimate solution? Australia of course, a thriving democracy big rules for gun ownership.

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibers are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

These are adequate regulations. What is the height of ridiculousness is the idea of training our children to run right at the human being who is firing a weapon, that is a death sentence as proven by the latest episode in Connecticut.

You're welcome. Glad to be of

MrSmith1 — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:49:44 +0000

In reply to Thanks for your contribution.

You're welcome. Glad to be of service.

Thanks for your contribution.

DF — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:40:09 +0000

In reply to It is only hard to see

Thanks for your contribution. It's all so clear now.

It is only hard to see

MrSmith1 — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:58:30 +0000

In reply to Fleeing is the best option,

It is only hard to see because you're bending so far over to avoid the obvious that your head is in no position to see anything clearly.

I'm saying that based on what

DF — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:11:19 +0000

In reply to Think about this. How would

I'm saying that based on what I've read of these incidents and what law enforcement has tried to determine in how best to protect students. I think this is the wrong question for that reason. There haven't been students piling up at doors. By and large, the students who can flee survive. Conversely, the students who pile up in lockdowns end up getting shot up like proverbial fish in the barrel. To me, that means the question is why we keep banking on lockdowns when they keep failing the test. Lanza went right through the security measures in Newtown.

I think we ought to be giving advice that gives the best chance of survival. I don't think you do that by basing it on what-ifs. I think you do that by examining what we know about how these events typically transpire. In almost every event of this nature, hiding has been a death sentence.

Think about this. How would

erica20 — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:46:10 +0000

In reply to Fleeing is the best option,

Think about this. How would you prevent pileups at the doors?

Yes, they are. AR-15 lower

DF — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:27:52 +0000

In reply to Are people 3D-printing guns?

Yes, they are. AR-15 lower made of plastic in this video. It only survives a few shots, but that's enough to kill.

I think fabrication is primarily a concern with regard for weapons being sold on the black market. Especially when it comes to weapons used in crime, disposable, untraceable guns would be very desirable.

Are people 3D-printing guns?

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:16:27 +0000

In reply to I'm sure they would love

Are people 3D-printing guns? What are they made of?

"Whitelisting" is what I had in mind. That's basically what the FDA does for drugs. We can't do it federally right now but maybe we can expand the states that do. And if enough states do it, manufacturers would have less incentive to produce non-approved guns.

I'm not so worried about fabrication. We're never going to eliminate homicide, but we can hopefully reduce it by making it harder to do. The question is how hard it has to be to make a difference.

Fleeing is the best option,

DF — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:58:51 +0000

In reply to McArdle wrote: "I'd also like

Fleeing is the best option, but failing that it's hard to see why fighting back is any worse than attempting to hide in a faulty lockdown or playing dead. Those are last resorts.

I'm sure they would love

DF — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:56:44 +0000

In reply to I'm not advocating, repeat,

I'm sure they would love it!

Look, I'm not trying to pin your for supporting the AWB when you don't. In your last statement, it sounded like you were basically saying we should do it anyway because high-cap mags might be dangerous on the margin. I think the evidence on that is speculative, though I don't really have a problem with 10-round magazines. To me, the point is this: if you really believe that high-cap mags severely multiply lethal force, then you want to pass a law that actually regulates them. I tried to describe my first-hand experiences with how these laws have failed in California. It doesn't matter that they're "illegal" here. They're not illegal to possess and easy to obtain, full stop. I don't want to see the left push more ineffective laws here, partially because I think it alienates people who are already suspicious about "gun grabbing" and reactionary gun laws.

I'm for gun laws that can work. The point of my latest post is to detail some ways in which they've failed. Again, that would seem to be of materially interest to people who actually want to curb gun violence as opposed to just pass placebo laws.

California supposedly had such a process for updating its assault weapon blacklist, but it just can't be updated fast enough. One lesson here is that blacklists, especially where the law requires the specification of both make and model, are too difficult to maintain.

For reasons I'm not entirely sure of, California has a whitelist for handguns. This means that all new weapons have to be on the approved list before they can be sold, rather than requiring that the list is updated for every new model that doesn't meet criteria. For instance, the latest Glock is currently not legal for sale in California. It probably will be made legal eventually, but it's new so it's not on the list. You can still buy one of the first three generations.

This is a much better law for two reasons: it allows the government the necessary time to maintain an effective list and it doesn't piss off shooters as much because it doesn't seem so arbitrary. Banning the AR receiver but not the Ruger makes no sense to anyone who understands guns. It only makes sense to people who think black rifles are scarier because they're not made of wood.

That might not matter to you or a lot of people who would like stricter gun control, but it has a decidedly negative affect on the perception of these laws by law-abiding gun owners. Given that we're talking about almost half the country in a nation that's practically split down the middle on any issue you can name, it should be of concern that we might be creating laws that not only fail to increase safety, but also diminish the prospect of passing effective gun laws in the future.

And then there's the placebo effect of just doing something to do something. That lets people off the hook for doing something that might actually prevent this from happening again.

Regulating ammunition is a potential option, though it's going to come down to the specifics. One hurdle here is that it's not difficult to learn how to reload ammunition, especially shotgun shells. It's definitely easier to fabricate than a gun, although 3D printing is changing that.