Orlando Shootings

[Mark_]

The hunting food argument is frankly weak. Just how many people actually rely solely on the great outdoors to feed themselves, yet still regularly manage to get to the gas station to fill up their truck?

For his people it is traditional. Then again his people are native to Alaskan, one of the few indigenous peoples left that can practice their traditional way of life.

 

[Mark_]

MarkK,

Real question is "Do people like others being killed" VS "Greedy politicians". I don't think you'll find anyone who's going to say "We love having people killed", but you will see plenty of cases where politicians do things that cause other's to suffer because it furthers their own agenda.

Also, do you really think over 300 million people will agree on much of anything, let alone "Lets all kill each other so we can have guns?". I'll go with incompetence and ignorance fueling political decisions that take resources away from where they need to be before I paint an entire population as gun loving violence addicts. Far too many examples world wide of this being the case.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As one of the Orlando survivors pointed out, he would have killed far less people with a knife, a point too simple for most Americans to grasp.

When the miscreant (I'm using a polite term here) wants to do a lot of damage, he will never turn to a knife. It would take him longer to arrange it, but guns ARE available illegally now, you know. That also appears to have been missed by the gun-control crowd. And as was proved during the Prohibition Era, you CANNOT stop people who are determined to get what they want. Look at the "War on Drugs" as a modern example. At best you can slow down the miscreants - unless it is your intent to start killing people because they want something illegal.

Frothy, hold on to your hat. I'm more or less in agreement with you that we could probably do without AR-15s or AK-47s or Vulcan Gatling cannons being in the hands of the general public. HOWEVER, the problem is that street gangs have two out of three of those things already, so in some neighborhoods it might be necessary for guards to carry those things as a matter of parity. Thankfully, the Vulcan gun is too bulky to carry in one's back pocket.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The hunting food argument is frankly weak. Just how many people actually rely solely on the great outdoors to feed themselves, yet still regularly manage to get to the gas station to fill up their truck?

Watch The History Channel with shows like Swamp People and Mountain Men. You will see the answer. I admit that they represent a fraction of the USA population, but I personally have known many people who supplement their meals by hunting. My wife's family IS Cajun and DID hunt alligators as shown on the Swamp People show. They DO use guns to put food on the table and money in the pocket. The fact of the show being televised and the fact that the hunters are paid for allowing themselves to be recorded is an example of the Heisenberg principle in action - the act of measurement affects that which is measured. However, my wife and her cousins all have affirmed that the hunting culture shown on those programs is reasonably reflective of their experiences and remembrances of reality for their families from two or three generations ago.

One of our dear friends throws a Cajun Christmas party every year, complete with a small bonfire - and some of the best gumbo you've ever tasted. But it is a Cajun "hunter's gumbo" - which means you could have wild boar or deer sausage in the mix as well as duck meat. It is because he empties out the freezer to make room for the next hunting season's kills.

My brother-in-law supplements HIS meat supply by hunting. It isn't a replacement for going to the grocery. But he says it is still cheaper to eat what you can kill. Before anyone says anything about cost to process the meat, don't forget that in this same culture, you give the butcher his cut and he'll take care of the rest for you - no money involved.

Therefore, I have to say that for many people, the hunting argument is DECIDEDLY not so weak as you seem to think.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

For those of you who think "cowboy mentality" is in force in the USA, that is a mistaken opinion. In the "real Wild West" the gunslingers knew better than to go on a rampage because many people were armed. You'd get your dead arse handed to you on a platter. The people were polite to each other because they knew that impolite behavior was very much a life-shortening attitude. NOW we have a situation where the odds are that the gun-slinging idiots KNOW they are unlikely to run into armed opposition, so they make their plans and run amuck.

This of course does not count the Darwin Award winner from Houston who ran into a gun store, fired a shot at the ceiling, and said "Gimme all of your money." He instead got shot by two cops who were there in uniform with their patrol car parked outside. They were there buying ammo. Then there were the two licensed concealed-carry citizens who were looking for new holsters. They offered a shot or two. And the shop owner and his hidden security guard chimed in with their vote to nominate the guy for the Darwin Award. The voting was unanimous in favor. Of course, the award was presented posthumously.

 

[Minty]

I stand corrected, although I still question the need for an automatic rifle for that purpose, even if it is "Nicer" to use.

And I happily concede that if someone in a gang really wants to get a weapon they will, but if it requires a great deal of illegal effort then it's less likely to happen en-mass.

These statements are from some reasonably sound organisations;

The US has one of the highest rates of death by firearm in the developed world, according to World Health Organization data.

Calculations based on OECD data from 2010 show that Americans are 51 times more likely to be killed by gunfire than people in the United Kingdom.

Most American gun owners (two-thirds) say a major reason they own a gun is for their personal protection, according to the Pew study. However, the majority of America's firearm-related deaths are attributed to self-harm.
Gun-related suicides are eight times higher in the US than in other high-income nations.

You can't honestly tell me that the proliferation of guns isn't contributing to these type of statistics?

 

[Mark_]

Minty,
I can only speak to your first question at the moment. A semi-auto is much more effective for hunting if your goal is to feed a village rather than put a trophy on your wall. Second shot at same or different game to ensure a kill prevents having to follow a wounded animal if the first shot wasn't a kill shot.

Even an experienced hunter can miss from time to time. Some of the best with bolt action can get off accurate shots within a second of each other if there is an internal magazine. A semi isn't that much faster but allows the shooter to concentrate more on their aim for a second shot, thus allowing a less accurate hunter a better chance to ensure a quick kill. As my friend is not looking to put up a trophy he'd rather the animal not suffer and him not having to spend hours tracking it.

 

[ColinEssex]

Many people in the UK can't see the attraction of killing a living creature for fun. Also, many people think that it's to satisfy the killer instinct in American people, it's generally also accepted Americans wound an animal and watch it die in agony.

I suppose if they didn't do it they'd shoot people instead.

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Or maybe it's the reverse.

Killing or wounding an animal fires up the killer instinct so the next step is to kill or wound people just for fun.

Col

 

[Steve R.]

The gun debate, is a subset of a greater debate. Focusing on eliminating certain types of guns will not address a variety of issues.

1. The trend towards eliminating many individual rights in the name of "security" will continue.
   
2. Government will continue to aggrandize power asserting that individuals are incapable of being responsible and thereby need to be regulated.
   
3. Taking away guns does not address the mental issues of those who become mass shooters.
   
4. The bureaucracy failed, despite several citizens raising a red-flag, to refer the individual to an appropriate facility for help/restraint.
   
5. A police officer was at the school, but failed to take appropriate action against the shooter.

Simply focusing on eliminating guns deemed inappropriate in today's society will not address the mental/social issues that individuals face in today's society. Nor will will it make the government/bureaucracy act in a responsible manner.

 

[Mark_]

@Minty,

For the previous comment on automatic weapons, they are NOT used in most attacks. What the media portrays and what is reported by law enforcement do not agree. Per law enforcement, most often semiautomatic weapons are used. Per the media, MACHINE GUNS. This is because if they reported that a hunting or sporting rifle was used it wouldn't have the same impact. Most of the problem is few who do not shoot can tell the difference in which weapon is or is not considered an "Assault Rifle".

I've attached 4 images. From looking, can you guess which one or ones fall into the "Assault Rifle" category as outlined by United States Federal law for the Federal assault rifle ban? Per the media, they would probably label all of them "Assault rifles" even though the state of California (one of the strictest for gun regulations) considers one not to be.

Most of the problem stems from reporters wanting as sensational a headline as possible. Calling one of these a "Hunting rifle" wouldn't play as well for the media.

 

[ColinEssex]

Could an American explain to us simple folk, what is the attraction of -

a) owning a gun and
b) what is the thrill or point of killing either an animal or a human.

Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

Could an American explain to us simple folk, what is the attraction of -

a) owning a gun and ...
Col

For all the "simple" people as Col calls you, owning a gun is like owning a hammer. Its a tool, one you hammer a nail and the other you hammer tin cans and paper targets.

Guns do not give me a boner, but neither does hammers. Thanks for the opportunity to explain to the simple people.

 

[Mark_]

For b, not sure, what thrill do YOU get from killing either an animal or human?

For those that I know who hunt, the only thrill tends to be from knowing there will be food on the table. For some strange reason knowing your family won't go hungry is a high priority for some.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Colin, your questions are fair. I will add my opinion to the mix.

The attraction for owning a gun is that with it, you are somewhat better able to defend yourself and family, and you also have a chance to bring more food to the table. The degree of that "somewhat" depends on how much training you have had with said firearm and what kind it is.

As to the reaction to killing an animal or human? Again, it is situational. The one person I know who killed a human with his handgun was exhilarated because the guy he killed was aiming a gun at his wife at the time. So he was pretty pumped about a successful defense of family. The police investigated, declared it a justifiable homicide, and gave my friend his gun back.

My brother-in-law, who is a hunter, and a friend of the family who is also a hunter both tell me there is an adrenaline rush when killing an animal intended to be used for food. I am not a hunter so must take their word for it. However, I can recall a certain rush when hauling in a fish (using rod and reel). An anthropologist might be able to better explain the rush.

 

[ColinEssex]

As always, a logical reply Doc.

I was confused by the hammer reply, I guess hammering tin cans could be beneficial if you use them as birds scarers to protect vegetables growing.

Anyway, back to my questions. It seems the answer to a) is - protection for family, and b) is - for food or just sport.

I do find it hard to believe that one of the most advanced countries in the world, who gave us fast food, diners and supermarkets are still in a Neanderthal state in having to go out and kill animals just to put food on the table. Are supermarkets and butcher shops that rare?

Protection for family - against intruders I suppose - but it begs the question when to shoot and when not to. If an unarmed teenage homeless girl broke in to get food, would it be a good thing to shoot her? When do you shoot? And what at? To kill or wound?
Or is it the American motto shoot first, ask questions and lie later.

Personally, I think it's cultural, American culture allows guns and killings, it always will. The NRA will dominate because they have massive power over politicians and pay well to get it. The British will never understand this level of lunacy and violence so prevalent in the USA.

There will be many more Collumbines, Sandy Hooks and a dozen others, that's yanks for you, you sleep with snakes you get bitten, but Americans love it so that's all that matters.

Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

I was confused by the hammer reply, I guess hammering tin cans could be beneficial if you use them as birds scarers to protect vegetables growing.

Hamming tin cans is a euphemism for plinking, a "cowboy" term for target practices. Usually with small caliber rifles or handguns like 22's. If this is beyond your sensibilities let met know and I will further break the terms down.

 

[ColinEssex]

If this is beyond your sensibilities let met know and I will further break the terms down.

Alot of Americanisms are beyond sensible.
That's why we have this discussion every few weeks, almost every time there is a mass killing spree.

Just remember that the majority of British people have never even seen a real gun, and as for the size, 22 means nothing.

I've heard of a Magnum though, Clint Eastwood uses one, but in the UK it's an ice-cream.

Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

Alot of Americanisms are beyond sensible.
That's why we have this discussion every few weeks, almost every time there is a mass killing spree.

Just remember that the majority of British people have never even seen a real gun, and as for the size, 22 means nothing.

I've heard of a Magnum though, Clint Eastwood uses one, but in the UK it's an ice-cream.

Col

It's fascinating to a lot of Americans that the British Empire suddenly knows nothing of guns. Didn't you chuckle heads use guns to rule the planet?

In fact South Africa, India, China and aborigine's and many others would probably say you were quite skilled at the use of fire arms.

 

[ColinEssex]

It's fascinating to a lot of Americans that the British Empire suddenly knows nothing of guns. Didn't you chuckle heads use guns to rule the planet?

In fact South Africa, India, China and aborigine's and many others would probably say you were quite skilled at the use of fire arms.

Quite possibly, but we saw the light and left it to the yanks to make fools of themselves in gun use.

Why don't we take bets on the next USA serial killing, where, what, when, death toll etc. Could be interesting. May as well make light of it, not many in the USA seem to care.

Col