CSotD: Minority Report

Comments ¹⁴

1. Dann

   Now please don’t groan. *chuckle*
   What did you see instead of the medal with crossed rifles? Was it a modified star of Malta? Was it a box?
   The crossed rifles are on the “expert” rifle badge. The star is on the the “sharpshooter” badge. I began and ended my career wearing that one. The box is on the “marksman” badge.
   That is also the relative skill level of the awards with “expert” being highest.
   I also agree that we need gun regulation. We have plenty of it already.
   Regards,
   Dann

2. Mike Peterson

   I didn’t lean in or take notes at the airport. Or at the bar at home, for that matter.
   I just knew that everybody who came home from Parris Island had this medal with crossed rifles on it. It seemed so standard that I never asked questions about it. But I guess they were experts, not sharpshooters.
   The only time such things came up was when Danny Smith went in and they made him a cook and everyone laughed, not at him, but at the Marines, since we all knew that Danny could pick the flies off a wall with a 30.06 at 300 yards. But he ended up running a restaurant in civilian life, so … whatever. The big thing was, they all came home, some a little banged up, but home nonetheless.

3. MaggieZ

   We have a friend who is a priest. At some point he told us he is a member of the NRA. Boy, talk about stereotypes bumping into reality! I stared at this gentle, intellectual man and just couldn’t get it. He explained that he is not a hunter, but he liked developing the skill of marksmanship. We haven’t seen him for a while, and when we do, I will be anxious to hear his views on gun control.
   Thanks for the comments on the Vietnam vets. My husband is one, and although he doesn’t talk about it, he served and is proud of it. You are right, he went when drafted because That Is What You Do.

4. Dave from Phila

   Maybe instead of the term “gun control”, we should call it “control of automatic rifles whose sole purpose is to kill a lot of human beings indiscriminately and very quickly” and “contol of magazine clips that are used by automatic rifles whose sole purpose is to kill a lot of human beings indiscriminately and very quickly”. Maybe that would be less threatening to those who support the NRA’s position on these two issues.
   I honestly do not understand why limiting non-military/police use of these weapons is controversial. (And don’t give me the slippery-slope argument. We place limits on lots of rights without eliminating the right. It is called using our heads.)
   And as I wrote a few weeks ago, I also am prepared to discuss the contents of video games. We also need to put on the table dealing with mental health care in a more sane way that includes better treatment and limiting the ability of an impaired person to purchase guns.
   We can do this intelligently as a nation. At least I hope so for the sake of the next group of victims.

5. Dann

   @Dave from Phila
   Automatic rifles are already heavily regulated. It costs a lot of money to have the license to own one. It also takes a lot of patience with the federal bureaucracy and a willingness to accept a certain level of constant scrutiny.
   None of the weapons used in any of the mass shootings of the last 10-15 years was an automatic weapon.
   What is being discussed is additional regulation on weapons that behave precisely like your average hunting rifle. One pull of the trigger = one bullet out the barrel.
   When the cartridge reloads automatically, and you have “one pull = one bullet” then you have a semi-automatic weapon. This is the mode for a lot of hunting rifles as well as pistols. (The balance being single shot rifles and muzzle loaders.)
   The false idea that these are automatic weapons is something that has been propagated by folks that want to ban private ownership of firearms and their friends in the media*.
   *that isn’t to say “all media” or even “most media”, but it is realistic to note that some media folks are quite friendly with gun grabbers and propagate their falsehoods accordingly. Either out of ignorance or malice.
   I agree that we should have an intelligent discussion about these issues. I even agree with some of the proposals that Mr. Biden is kicking upstairs. But that discussion should be based on facts, and most of the anti-gun groups don’t trade in facts very often.
   Regards,
   Dann

6. Mat

   I feel as though so much of the talk about guns is misguided and won’t lead to anything meaningful. People seem to rage on about assault weapons and high capacity “clips” (magazines). Neither of which I see as being a big problem. From time to time, we see someone using the big guns (no pun intended) for something spectacular, such as the DC sniper or the Aurora shooter or the Newtown shooter.
   But, all things considered, the AR-15 platform (and other military rifles) is probably a minority in the day-to-day shootings. Even then, limiting the size of the magazines is probably a small consolation for people when you consider that nuts spend time with “tactical mag changes” (go ahead and look up videos on youtube of people showing how fast they can change their magazines).
   However, the facts are fairly clear that Pistols account for the vast majority of gun deaths in the US (according to wiki, that number was 94% in 2010). I’m sure there are several reason, but the ones that stand out to me are due to size, price and purpose
   Handguns are relatively small. While a Glock 17 may be difficult to hide, a Glock 26 is a conceal carry weapon meant to be hidden. Snub-nose revolvers are also very small and nowadays fairly reliable. These guns are kept on the person of people, kept in car consoles and hidden throughout houses. People are able to hide their guns and access them whenever they want.
   Handguns are inexpensive. A Taurus revolver can be had for $350 ($300 on sale). The aforementioned Glock 26 can be had for $570 or thereabout. Several other small pistols can be had for about the same price. Compare this to the AR-15 platform, where a low end version will probably retail for $1100 at the cheapest and can become quite a bit more expensive. A gangbanger looking for a disposable pistol will probably go for the cheapest hand gun that works. They can hide it easily and use it without worrying about cost.
   The other problem is that people are using guns to solve issues that shouldn’t require guns. It’s not uncommon to read news stories about people resolving disputes with guns. While I could cite a ton of situations where people used guns in the most asinine ways (especially terrible when people use “stand your ground” as rationale), I’m sure everyone here has already read plenty themselves.
   I don’t believe arming MORE people is a good solution either. Most people lack the training (and mentality) to react well in a stressful situation like being caught in the middle of a shooting. I can’t help but think that if there were people packing in the Aurora movie theater, more people would be dead. It’s not like you would readily be able to figure out which person in the theater is the shooter and if you have multiple people firing, two bystanders could mistake each other. Or the police can easily mistake a bystander as a perpetrator. It makes a confusing situation even worse.
   I do support more background checks as well as more control of the sale of arms (even as the owner of a gun). I also support accountability for the arms dealers.
   I also like the idea of firearm insurance and enforcing it in the same manner as auto insurance. Especially if you adjust rates depending on the type of gun. Hunting bolt-action rifles cost less to insure than small caliber (.223 / 5.56mm) semi-auto rifles which cost less to insure than handguns of most calibers. At least the victims of gun violence can collect from the gun owners.

7. Dave from Phila

   Dann …
   Your comment back to me is reflective of why we cannot seem to have an intelligent discussion.
   You are correct. I should not have used the term “automatic”. I was wrong. So instead, let’s discuss “control of semiautomatic rifles capable of firing at a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode whose sole purpose is to kill a lot of human beings indiscriminately and very quickly”. Now that we have that glaring inaccuracy cleared up, I still have my basic question. How could a ban for non-military/police ownership of these assult weapons be controversial?
   To Mat – if I thought that broader true gun control (not elimination) were politically possible, that would be great. You are also correct. Banning semi-automatic assult rifles is barely a start – but at least it is a start.
   Firearm insurance – I have never heard of that and I like that. Solve the issue with the use of free market – let the insurance companies decide whether to underwrite. I suspect their application and underwriting standards would be much more stringent than anything that would ever pass legislatively. But, it enables reasonable people to possess guns. Curious to see how many people currently eligible for gun ownership could not get a policy …

8. Mat

   @Dave
   I meant the piece to indicate that our current “discussion” is misguided. It won’t yield much except a bunch of 2nd amendment people raging about their freedoms. It will be ineffective in preventing violence and will be used as “evidence” that “gun control doesn’t work”.
   Serious scrutiny needs to be placed on to the subject, rather than platitudes.

9. Dann

   Dave,
   Every semi-automatic rifle…including just about every semi-automatic “hunting” rifle…is capable of firing 45 rounds per minute and is therefore designed to kill a lot of human beings.
   There is no functional difference between a magazine fed, semi-automatic hunting rifle and an AR-15.
   Add to that the fact that these weapons are used in an insignificant portion of crimes on an annual basis. The result of that being that the now expired “assault weapons” ban had no effect on crime.
   So we have the question, how do you differentiate an “assault weapon” from a “hunting rifle”? What are the differences between the two that make the former more lethal than the latter?
   Also, how does banning “assault weapons” reduce crime?
   B/R,
   Dann

10. Dann

    Hi Mike,
    I get the point. More folks shot back in those days. Ironically, the folks in charge of marksmanship training in the Corps at one time felt that it was easier to teach non-shooters because they hadn’t picked up any bad habits.
    I’m glad all your friends came home. Mine, too.
    B/R,
    Dann

11. Dave from Phila

    First, if it stops one Newtown … that is good enough for me. An assault weapons ban would have prevented what happened. The weapon would not have been in the house. Second, comprehensive gun control is not politically possible. So, we do what we can do.
    Third, focusing on mass shootings, since 1982 there have been at least 62 mass shootings (as defined by Mother Jones as 1) the killer, in accordance with an FBI guideline, had to have taken the lives of at least four people; 2) the attack must have occurred in essentially a single incident, in a public place; and 3) excluded crimes involving armed robbery or gang violence. Sadly, twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map The guns used in these mass shootings were 68 semi-automatic handguns, 35 assault weapons, 20 revolvers and 19 shotguns. That is 142 guns – of which were 72.5% were semi-automatic. This is not insignicant. And I suspect the semi-automatic weapons were the first ones shot.
    I note you have not answered my question. If you are opposed to a ban on semi-automatic rifles for non-military/police possession – why? What is the balancing need versus the need of society to protect itself from these weapons easily coming into the hands of people who are willing to use it against helpless victims.
    Finally, I have been told by my friends who hunt … if someone needs a semi-automatic rifle to take down a target – they do not belong in the woods. The sole purpose of a semi-automatic rifle is to kill people.
    Dave
    PS In preparation of an assertion that Mother Jones is part of a conspiracy to take away Americans’ gun rights … one of its lead reporters in this subject area, Adam Weinstein, is a Navy veteran and third-generation gun owner and multiple other Mother Jones staffers are experienced with guns. Mother Jones wrote, “The debate over guns in the United States is extremely contentious and polarizing, and we think the more reporting and clear data available about guns, the better. That mass shootings keep happening is an undeniable fact. Why they do, and how to stop them, is a matter for further investigation.”

12. Mike Peterson

    Dann, back home (the Adirondacks), there’s been no real drop in the number of people who shoot. Ditto with Western Maine, where I lived for a couple of years and felt 100 percent completely at home.
    If you want to see a show that makes me homesick — for my real home but also for western Maine — check out “North Woods Law” when it pops up on Animal Planet. That’s home to me. And you’d be thrilled to have one of those Wardens (or a Moose Guide) next to you in the mud.
    It’s not nostalgia. It’s just a part of the country that nobody acknowledges.

13. Sherwood Harrington

    “It’s not nostalgia. It’s just a part of the country that nobody acknowledges.”
    Chenango County where I grew up — down on the other side of the Mohawk Valley from the Adirondacks, but on the wilder side of the Catskills — was like that. My understanding is that it still is like that.
    One of my San Francisco-born wife’s lasting memories of her first (and, so far, only) trip back there with me was her astonishment at the life-size cardboard deer targets set up in the Whaupaunaucau State Forest. Beats shootin’ up road signs.

14. Dann

    Hi Mike,
    But would you join us in the mud? You could even have first shot at a moose!
    Sounds like a great place to be from.
    Regards,
    Dann