Ten shot, 2 dead near New York's Empire State Building

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by 32green

May you walk a mile in their shoes.


-

Hey, if anything it's a good wake up call for the wannabe vigilantes who say, "if only I was strapped I'd have been able to end the spree before it began."

If highly trained professionals spray bystanders whilst trying to take down a gun toting psycho, imagine how well the weekend warrior would do with the snub nosed .38 that he keeps in his tube sock.

[32green]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I, for one, find 19 shootings in Chicago, a regular occurence in our big cities, in one night vastly more newsworthy than one guy killing his boss in an obvious revenge killing, then playing the age old sucicde-by-cop routine.

Most folks know that those 19 shootings are more than likely gang/drug related....with the victims very often criminals themselves. To put it horribly, you've seen one....you've seen them all. It is what it is. People read what's interesting or sexy...

Newspapers/TV are in the business of advertising dollars. People will pick up a paper specifically to read about an "unusual" event like the ESB shootings, so that gets the headlines while the kid shot on W119st over a drug deal doesnt.

Doesnt make the media horrible (in this regard) or make the people who find the ESB shootings more interesting than a Harlem homicide horrible either.

Originally Posted by brady's a catcher

Hey those weren't easy shots, those targets were all moving.

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

If highly trained professionals spray bystanders whilst trying to take down a gun toting psycho, imagine how well the weekend warrior would do with the snub nosed .38 that he keeps in his tube sock.

Every cop will tell you that accuracy is inversly proportionate to the amount of training one receives. Perps. and untrained gun owners always hit what they shoot at. Cops....not so much.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by 32green

Most folks know that those 19 shootings are more than likely gang/drug related....with the victims very often criminals themselves. To put it horribly, you've seen one....you've seen them all. It is what it is. People read what's interesting or sexy...

Newspapers/TV are in the business of advertising dollars. People will pick up a paper specifically to read about an "unusual" event like the ESB shootings, so that gets the headlines while the kid shot on W119st over a drug deal doesnt.

Doesnt make the media horrible (in this regard) or make the people who find the ESB shootings more interesting than a Harlem homicide horrible either.

See, thats where I disagree.

I think it does make us (all of us) pretty horrible, and generally hypocritical to boot.

Reminds me of animal farm, all life is equal, but some are more equal (and media worthy) than others.

It's a problem that in part responsible for why these things don't get fixed. It's easy to let it be if we (society) simply don't care.

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by Warfish

See, thats where I disagree.

I think it does make us (all of us) pretty horrible, and generally hypocritical to boot.

Reminds me of animal farm, all life is equal, but some are more equal (and media worthy) than others.

It's a problem that in part responsible for why these things don't get fixed. It's easy to let it be if we (society) simply don't care.

Death isn't newsworthy -- it happens every day and no one is immune. It's the CIRCUMSTANCES that determine how much coverage it gets.

Like 32 said, "death in Chicago" carries its own stigma. You can say that's not fair -- I say it's reality. The second you want to highlight those deaths, you've opened the door to THOUSANDS of deaths equally tragic, and equally deserving of attention.

"Shooting outside the Empire State Building"? That turns heads. Not because it's a bunch of rich white people, but because it's unexpected. People visit there, work there, expecting tragedy as much as someone would in a movie theater in Colorado.

Do you really think reporters waited to make sure this tragedy had "appropriate victims"? That if a bunch of poor black women got shot, it wouldn't have been covered?

If so, we'll have to agree to disagree . . .

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

See, thats where I disagree.

I think it does make us (all of us) pretty horrible, and generally hypocritical to boot.

Reminds me of animal farm, all life is equal, but some are more equal (and media worthy) than others.

It's a problem that in part responsible for why these things don't get fixed. It's easy to let it be if we (society) simply don't care.

Do you support banning assault rifles?

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Do you support banning assault rifles?

=============================================


What is an assault rifle?

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=============================================


What is an assault rifle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

==========================================

So you don't know?

Fine we will use the wiki definition.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

For all intents and purposes "Assault Riffles" have been banned since the mid 30's, so if they are already banned then what good is a further ban?

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by gunnails

==========================================

So you don't know?

Fine we will use the wiki definition.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------

For all intents and purposes "Assault Riffles" have been banned since the mid 60's, so if they are already banned then what good is a further ban?

How did the Aurora shooter legally purchase an AR-15 with a 100 round drum clip then?

Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008.[23] Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons.

That's right, if an AR-15 is semi auto, then it's not an assault rifle, am-i-rite?

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

How did the Aurora shooter legally purchase an AR-15 with a 100 round drum clip then?



That's right, if an AR-15 is semi auto, then it's not an assault rifle, am-i-rite?

=============================================

First I should apologize for the tone of my post, no personal disrespect meant.

The Aurora shooter purchased a legal firearm from a gun store, then ordered a legal drum magazine, over the net I think? Regardless according to your link it was not an assault rifle.

An AR-15 in semi auto is not an assault rifle by definition, it fall under the ambiguous category of "assault weapon" which can be used to describe almost any semi auto rifle.

Here is a little rifle I own


Here is the same rifle with a bunch of bolt on's.
[IMG][/IMG]

Neither is more dangerous (IMHO) then the other, yet one is black and scary looking so we might call it an assault weapon, while the other functions the same yet we would just call it a .22 plinker.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Do you support banning assault rifles?

I feel a strong sense of De-Ja-Vous. They must be changing something in the Matrix, cause I think we've been here before.....

Yes, I would be willing to accept a ban on "Assault Rifles" as defined above IF AND ONLY IF it came along with a new Constiuional Amendment specificly defining and protecting the absolute rights of Americans to own and operate (i.e. have ammo for) Handguns, Rifles and Shotguns. The rights would be the same (and work the same) as you think our right to vote does, i.e. no Photo ID required, no Government tracking, only revoked upon being found guilty of a felony, etc.

If you want to compromise, as I've said in the past, I'm all for it.

Are you?

Are you willing to codify, forever, the rights to handguns, rifles and shotguns, and take away all the excess regulation you'd never tolerate for other rights you like (like voting), in order to get the full and outright ban you want on millitary style Machine Guns, Assault Rifles and Submachine Guns?

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Are you willing to codify, forever, the rights to handguns, rifles and shotguns, and take away all the excess regulation you'd never tolerate for other rights you like (like voting), in order to get the full and outright ban you want on millitary style Machine Guns, Assault Rifles and Submachine Guns?

Yes.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=============================================

First I should apologize for the tone of my post, no personal disrespect meant.

The Aurora shooter purchased a legal firearm from a gun store, then ordered a legal drum magazine, over the net I think? Regardless according to your link it was not an assault rifle.

An AR-15 in semi auto is not an assault rifle by definition, it fall under the ambiguous category of "assault weapon" which can be used to describe almost any semi auto rifle.

Here is a little rifle I own


Here is the same rifle with a bunch of bolt on's.
[IMG][/IMG]

Neither is more dangerous (IMHO) then the other, yet one is black and scary looking so we might call it an assault weapon, while the other functions the same yet we would just call it a .22 plinker.

Regardless of what the law says, do you think a semi-auto AR-15 is an assault rifle?

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Regardless of what the law says, do you think a semi-auto AR-15 is an assault rifle?

=======================================

Absolutely not. Not even close.

[Ruby2]

Originally Posted by isired

I don't disagree that sensationalism is rampant, nor that it's the news that the masses want. But I don't think it's as inherently biased against low income/minorities as you think. If the bloods and the crips start swappin' lead outside of the ESB, I think it's making the news. And, by the same token, if disgruntled workers came back to the ESB and shot their former employers every day for the next 10 or 20 or 30 years, I think it would find it's way off the front page soon enough, and then out of the news entirely.

When a rich kid goes to Harvard, it doesn't make the papers; when a homeless teenager does it, it's news. Go figure. I guess that's why they call it "news", and not "ordinary stuff that happens all the time".

And, yeah, unusual or peculiar stuff draws more interest. But it's not just from us plebians - it happens in science, literature, art, etc., etc., etc. It's not even just us dumb humans - it happens in the animal kingdom too.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly, just summed up a lot better.

Great post.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=======================================

Absolutely not. Not even close.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

=========================================
Not impressed.

.22 rifle rapid fire.




We could go round and round. My point and concern is that most all modern semi auto hunting rifles would also be considered assault weapons.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by gunnails

=========================================
Not impressed.

.22 rifle rapid fire.

A .22 calibre is a lot less destructive than a 5.56 calibre?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

A .22 calibre is a lot less destructive than a 5.56 calibre?

Yet both are, by definition, rifle rounds being fired (in the above) by Semi-Automatic Rifiles. They are not "Assault Rifiles".

See, I wish I could believe you when you and I seemingly had agreement aove, I really do. But I fear that that agreement only comes with the foreknowlegde that by use of terminology and descriptive reassignment, the quest to ban almost everything would simply roll on. Dislike something, call it something else, and hence, it's banned.

How do you define a Rifile, the object you say you would permit above? Must it be only a subset of rifiles, like single shot bolt action? Any other would be banned? And for handguns, only revolvers under 7 rounds, any sem-auto or revolver over 6 rounds would be banned as "assault handguns"?

The trouble with complicated topics is the answers are often equally complicated. So straiten it out for us, as you see it.

You're writing the law you want to see, keeping in mind what you agreed to above. What does that law say, specificly?

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Yet both are, by definition, rifle rounds being fired (in the above) by Semi-Automatic Rifiles. They are not "Assault Rifiles".

See, I wish I could believe you when you and I seemingly had agreement aove, I really do. But I fear that that agreement only comes with the foreknowlegde that by use of terminology and descriptive reassignment, the quest to ban almost everything would simply roll on. Dislike something, call it something else, and hence, it's banned.

How do you define a Rifile, the object you say you would permit above? Must it be only a subset of rifiles, like single shot bolt action? Any other would be banned? And for handguns, only revolvers under 7 rounds, any sem-auto or revolver over 6 rounds would be banned as "assault handguns"?

The trouble with complicated topics is the answers are often equally complicated. So straiten it out for us, as you see it.

You're writing the law you want to see, keeping in mind what you agreed to above. What does that law say, specificly?

I don't know enough about guns to write that law.

I simply think an AR-15, a gun I shot at a Vegas range during my brother's bachelor party, shouldn't be legal. To my admittedly amateur eyes, that gun is made for shooting people and would not be sport in hunting. Even if it is not technically an assault rifle, as it cannot go burst/auto, it is a military grade weapon, in my opinion even if it is classified otherwise. This is a complicated issue, but I see the AR-15 as not really standing the test of being a home-defense weapon / hunting weapon, I see it as a soldier's weapon.

I have no problem with semi-auto pistols, no issue with shotguns and no issue with bolt-action hunting rifles. But if you look at those videos above, that weapon, and I'm sure there are other weapons out like that on the market, are far more dangerous, in terms of combination of firepower, range, clip size and speed between rounds, than any shotgun, bolt action rifle or semi-auto pistol.

I cannot write the law as I don't know enough, and perhaps someone can convince me I'm wrong in this thread - I'm willing to learn - but right now, if we're talking about common sense approaches to enforcing the 2nd amendment in the 21st century, I think guns like the AR-15 should be illegal.