Gunland USA

[HardDrive]

[RANT ON]

Despite my enthusiasm for firearms, there are some very disturbing aspects of American gun culture and the legal landscape.

1. Background checks. Every state in the nation has some kind of background check to make sure that you are not a convicted felon. It is also supposed to check and make sure that you have not ever been involutarily commited to a mental institution. The shootings at Virgina Tech? 100% preventable, as this lunatic had been sent to the nut house in 2005. So what the fack happened?

Well here is where things get disturbing. Federal law (1968)mandates that background checks should check and see if you have been commited. The Brady folks and the NRA BOTH think this is a great idea. Unfortunately, psychologists don't. In fact, in 20 states, psychologists have succesfully managed to ensure that patient records are sealed off from background checks. They claim its a 'privacy' issue. WHAT THE FCK? A person can be completely psychotic, but if they have never commited a felony, they are free and clear to buy a god damn AK47? Now THAT is messed up.

2. Firepower. I own some firearms that present some serious firepower (MAK90(AK47), and a Sig Sauer 226R for example), but these guns are really tame compared with some of the weapons that are on the market.

Example: http://www.kel-tec.com/plr16.html

Look at the third picture down on the page. WHAT THE HELL? What? An AK47 is to much of an 'old school' geezers gun? The god damn thing is only 18 inches long! Yeah, an AK is some serious firepower, but it certainly won't fit in a backpack.

There is this creaping trend toward more and more firepower on the streets. It used to be that if you wanted carry a gun day to day, you got a small revolver, but it seems the trend is towards sub compact semi's that hold 8-10 rounds. For WHAT? What kind of crazy ass armagedon situation are people preparing for?

3. Anyone under 30. I don't trust them with a gun. Look, I'm only 37, but I swear, they put something wacky in the baby food after 1970. Yeah, I generalizing, but do you TOTALLY disagree? Its like they have grown up in a media fantasy land, where guns are just part of your video gaming experience. It doesn't seem like they hunt or have any connection to the land. They don't respect guns. I was in a gun shop in Bellevue, WA today, and there was some kid asking about silencers. And they were prepared to sell him one. FOR WHAT? Hunting rabbits?

All opinions welcome. Maybe its the wine talking but I don't think I am to far off the mark.

[/RANT OFF]

[snbush67]

Is the forward slash really needed to turn the rant off?, and if so then would it be also true to use a back slash to turn the rant on? Just wondering...

Come to think of it... a forward slash should turn rant on and back slash for off.

[on-ramp]

"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra.

crazy Cho does

ha ha

[red-beard]

Cho wasn't as "crazy" as everyone is making him out to be. To be "crazy" in the legal sense you need to not know right from wrong.

He knew exactly what he was doing. He planned it. He picked the building. He taped and wrote his fanatical confession/rant. He wants us to believe that this is "OUR" fault.

There is no question that Cho has mental problems and was a scociological psychopath. He should have been fully commited by the judge. The question becomes at what point do privacy rights end?

I agree that this guy should never have has gun. He complied with all of the checks. But, if he had been prevented from purchasing the guns, he would have done this crime differently. I outlined a way, with well known household chemicals, he could have commited this crime, or worse. I refuse to go into details.

It IS Cho's fault. He planned it. He did it. Any other explanation of fault falls into excuse making.

Do I think that some changes in the laws should be made? Yep. Make the standard for mental/criminal ownership of a firearm more difficult. But also a method for "rehabilatation" should also be included. I also believe that these "gun free zones" should be seriously re-thought. People have the right to protect themselves. If a company or government wishes to deny those rights, it should be explicit that they are now RESPONSIBLE for that protection or lack thereof.

[Tobra]

1. I suspect that the psychologists argument about privacy will fall apart about now. We will see what happens about that.

2. Weapons technology advances, they did not just come up with Black Talon(cop killer, bulletproof vest defeating) ammo yesterday. Choices in firearms are just like a lot of things, you have one, but they want to sell you a new and improved one, sort of like cars.

3. I don't think it is what is in the food, more in media they consume. By media I mean everything, movies, TV, video games, computers. The level of violence that even very young people are exposed to is pretty shocking to me. Parents sort of abdicate their responsibilities and use the TV as a babysitter in inappropriate manners with inappropriate subject matter, let the kids surf the net and see the wrong stuff. You have a caveman(evolutionarily speaking) who is in the 21st century environment. Result is sometimes monsters with guns or truck bombs.

Our technology is evolving faster than we are and it is causing problems.

[Joeaksa]

When I was a kid we carried guns to and from school. Went hunting or shooting after school and kept the .22 rifle or .410 shotgun either in the locker or car as I got older. Course either of these would make me a dangerous criminal these days

HD,

Its not age that makes you dangerous, its how you are brought up and whats in-between your ears. A person with intent could kill people almost as easily with a knife if they really wanted to.

One thing you forget. It would have taken ONE PERSON with a CCW permit and a pistol could have stopped this. One teacher, one student over 21 to have ended this.

I have to say that a lot of this is on the shoulders of the school. Cho shot two people early on, then went back to his room for TWO HOURS before doing anything. Where in the world were the campus police in this time? Why werent the local police called in this time?

Yes Cho was wacko but the system should have stopped him a long time before the second set of shootings occured.

[red-beard]

Black Talons are not bulletproof vest defeating ammo. They are regular old hollow points. They are still sold, but under a new name (SXT). The bullet is used in every application from personal self defense to hunting. They are actually an older technology and there are better bullets out there: Conbon DPX. I carry the same as the police, Speer Gold Dots.

Full metal jacket (i.e. target ammo) and tungsten core can be armor defeating. Hollow points have a much tougher time penetrating armor since they are designed to expand on impact. This also prevents the bullet from exiting and hitting someone else. They are "safer" as a self defense round.

Armor piercing ammo also will cause less damage, since the hole is smaller. These are all very common misconceptions, that are mostly pushed by Hollywood.

[sjf911]

Remember, the World Trade Center was taken down by a handful of box cutters.

[Tobra]

What do they call the teflon coated ones then?

I am hip to the penetration thing, incredible the difference in exit and entrance wound sizes with hollow points. ALways shot varmints with 22 hollow points, little "X" cut in the end made a noticable difference in effect.

I remember seeing a CHP car where the officer was attacked with an AK47, there were holes in the car that went from front to back, through a front fender, both seats and out the trunk. Who needs a round like that for deer?

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by sjf911
Remember, the World Trade Center was taken down by a handful of box cutters.

With Rosie's help of course. She was using a spoon...

[red-beard]

The Teflon coated bullets were not armor defeating. They were used, like FMJ bullets, to lessen barrel wear and buildup in the barrels (reducing the cleaning needed!). They were discontinued in the early 1980's BECAUSE Hollywood convinced law makers that these were armor piercing. They were voluntarily removed from the market.

A regular old FMJ (remember, target ammo) will do what you saw in the car. The 7.62x39 rounds used in an "AK47" style rifle will easily penetrate the sheetmetal of today's cars. The muzzle velocity of the 7.62x39 is around 2000-2500 fps, or about double that of most hand guns. Virtually any decent hunting rifle will do the same or better. A .30-06 or .308 muzzle velocity is closer to 3000-3500 fps.

Almost all .22lr rounds are hollowpoint, soft lead with no jacket, so they aren't comparable in the target category.

And while were on the subject of the PLR-16 (original post), the .223 Remington round in a short barrel pistol does not develop anywhere near the speed of a rifle. Most of the energy is wasted. You end up with a round that is going maybe 1500 fps. And it is the same size as the .22 bullet, but about twice as long. A .22 magnum is about the same without the wasted powder.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by sjf911
Remember, the World Trade Center was taken down by a handful of box cutters.

They didn't need box cutters. The Hijackers used the Airlines own hijacking regulations against them. Each airline required the pilot and crew to cooperate. They could have done the same with a PDA, a cardboard box (fake bomb) and duct tape. No weapon was actually needed, just the threat. This was explained to me by an American Airlines Pilot Instructor, within 2 weeks of 9/11

[Moneyguy1]

This thread hits on one of my concerns when it comes to firearm ownership. I can understand and favor a .38 located in the house for protection. I cannot understand how a semi automatic would fulfill the same purpose. It is not the ownership of guns that bothers me, it is the technological advances that have led to increasing lethality that is not needed. Gun advocates do not seem to be able, in many cases, to see the difference, and maintain that the banning of any kind of firearm somehow impinges on their individual freedom. Is this really true? What is the purpose for individual ownership of military hardware? Who would be the intended targets of such weaponry in the real world? Perhaps it is simply a case of "bigger is better", and one feels safer with massive firepower. I really do not know.

[tabs]

Technology has made Guns lighter, perhaps more reliable, more ergonomic. However John Brownings last design was the HP which had a 14 shot capacity, and that was 1935.

Red...Cho wasn't a Psychopath, he had a conscience..he was exacting revenge for all the slights that he suffered in his life. Instead of dealing with the slights as they came he internalized them one building upon another each twisting him a little more more until he could take it no more and set out on a course retribution.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by tabs
Technology has made Guns lighter, perhaps more reliable, more ergonomic. However John Brownings last design was the HP which had a 14 shot capacity, and that was 1935.

I'm not rushing to trade my Hi Power in on a Glock...

[red-beard]

Glock makes a very good gun, but I do not like the angle of the grip. To each his own, which is why there are choices out there.

To Tabs point, the basic breech design hasn't changed since WWI. Gas operated guns existed at WWI. Locked breech pistols existed at WWI. The materials, the style, size, manufacturability and weight have changed. But the basic design has not. There has been refinement and evolution, but nothing revolutionary. Browning was the Einstein of guns.

TABS: Cho knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong. I guess I should have diagnosed him as Disorganized Episodic Aggression disorder. You are right. He does not rise to the level of Sociopath or Psychopath. He had a "reason".

[tabs]

Red I totally agree he knew what he was doing, and right from wrong to boot. But he just got to the point where he didn't care what happened anymore, and wouldn't take the slights real or imagined.

[Rick V]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
This thread hits on one of my concerns when it comes to firearm ownership. I can understand and favor a .38 located in the house for protection. I cannot understand how a semi automatic would fulfill the same purpose. It is not the ownership of guns that bothers me, it is the technological advances that have led to increasing lethality that is not needed. Gun advocates do not seem to be able, in many cases, to see the difference, and maintain that the banning of any kind of firearm somehow impinges on their individual freedom. Is this really true? What is the purpose for individual ownership of military hardware? Who would be the intended targets of such weaponry in the real world? Perhaps it is simply a case of "bigger is better", and one feels safer with massive firepower. I really do not know.

Bob, I carry a .45acp for the reason of personel protection. I also leave it loaded all the time, it doubles as home defence. I use "homemade" ammo in it. My father reloads for me. It is a hollow point, extra deep, with a half jacket. It will not go through a person, not with any speed, since it is a sub-sonic round to begin with. This is a good set-up for me.
Compaired to the .38 you refer to, it is newer, bigger, and more effective for it's intended use.
Sometimes bigger can be better, you just have to "taylor" it for the situation.
When it comes right down to it, if you have to shoot someone, you don't want them getting back up.

[artplumber]

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder Fri Apr 20, 8:16 PM ET



WAYNESBURG, Ky. - Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder.

ADVERTISEMENT

Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.

Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.

Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, Deputy Dan Gilliam said. The man's hometown wasn't immediately available. Three other people were questioned but were not arrested.

After winning the pageant with her singing, dancing and comedic talents, Ramey sold war bonds and her picture was adorned on a B-17 that made missions over Germany in World War II, according to the Miss America Web site.

Ramey lived in Cincinnati for several years and was instrumental in helping rejuvenate Over-the-Rhine historic buildings. She returned to Kentucky in 1990 to live on her farm.

"I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another," she said

[jyl]

There's a lot of political attention paid to passing gun control laws, but not as much attention paid to enforcing them. The former gets headlines, the latter not so much.

The VT killer could not have purchased his gun as he did, if the law had been enforced (mental health background check).

In general, I think we have more than enough gun control laws. Although I would support mandatory gun safety education for gun purchasers (I've stated this before) to include safe handling and storage.

When considering further regulation, we have to look at the actual characteristics of gun crime. Demented mass killers are an insignificant percentage of unlawful shootings. I know that sounds insensitive right now, but it is the factual truth, you're talking about an average of 5 people or so a year I'd think (if someone wants to search the news archives and actually count it, that would be interesting).