Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,230 Year: 5,487/9,624 Month: 512/323 Week: 9/143 Day: 9/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4064 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(1)
Message 46 of 236 (668668)
07-23-2012 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
07-23-2012 3:10 PM


Re: Death penalty
Despite the fact that I'm from Texas, and I can still see that in some circumstances the death penalty seems more than warranted... I can no longer support it, for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the gusto with which is enacted in some states more so than others, and sometimes in circumstances that are by no means "beyond reasonable doubt". I.e. any system run by humans will have failures, and I don't want my grandchildren or other loved ones to end up one of those accidents.
The European Convention on Human Rights prohibits capital punishment, and I personally believe that is a stance which the world as a whole ought to eventually adopt. That's just my opinion.
excerpt from European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia
quote:
ECHR: (European Convention on Human Rights)
Protocol 6 - restriction of death penalty
Requires parties to restrict the application of the death penalty to times of war or "imminent threat of war".
Every Council of Europe member state has signed and ratified Protocol 6, except Russia who has signed but not ratified.
Protocol 13 - complete abolition of death penalty
Provides for the total abolition of the death penalty.[30] As of May 2011 the majority of the Council of Europe has ratified Protocol 13. Poland and Armenia have signed but not ratified the protocol, whilst Russia and Azerbaijan have not signed it.[31]
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.
Edited by Briterican, : added to the quote and credited it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 07-23-2012 3:10 PM onifre has not replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 188 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 47 of 236 (668670)
07-23-2012 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Modulous
07-23-2012 4:57 PM


Re: Gun control question
Thanks - educating myself a little more now. The civilian AR-15 is apparently only capable of firing one round for each pull of the trigger.
I had misunderstood "semi-automatic" - I had thought it meant firing three rounds per burst, as distinct from a continuous burst until the magazine ran out of ammunition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 4:57 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 5:27 PM vimesey has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 236 (668671)
07-23-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by vimesey
07-23-2012 4:41 PM


Re: Gun control question
I don't know whether the reports over here are accurate, but I understand that one of the weapons used was an AR-15 assault rifle.
My understanding is, that's correct. But the AR-15 is a popular rifle simply because of its versatility - it's light, accurate, and chambered for a variety of popular rounds. It's a highly modular weapon, allowing for a wide variety of customization of the receiver, forestock, buttstock, and accessory rail.
Here's a picture of what is legally considered an individual AR-15:
Everything else that you would need to construct a functional rifle around this is, legally, an aftermarket accessory.
What rationale do the NRA and other opponents of gun control offer, in support of the public being able to buy assault rifles ?
What do you think an "assault rifle" is? Weapons that can fire on any fully-automatic or multi-shot mode have never been legal for civilian purchase. What's the legal determination you would put forward to determine whether a rifle is an "assault" rifle or not?
If a guy kills his wife and children by smashing their heads in with a Craftsman 12" framing hammer, does that make it an "assault hammer"?
There's 100 reasonable justifications for which someone would own an AR-15, not the least of which is that, statistically, it's a lot less deadly than a handgun. But having said all that, I can't think of a single reason why anyone not in the service or the police should be allowed to purchase a magazine that holds more than seven rounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 4:41 PM vimesey has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 49 of 236 (668672)
07-23-2012 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by vimesey
07-23-2012 5:07 PM


Re: Gun control question
Calling a gun an "assault weapon" based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine is completely retarded.
You can put a pistol grip, folding stock, and banana mag on a .22 and there'd be no good reason to call it an "assault weapon".
What we're dealing with is people who know nothing about guns trying to write laws about them. Its like the people who back SOPA not knowing anything about the internet.
The civilian AR-15 is apparently only capable of firing one round for each pull of the trigger.
I had misunderstood "semi-automatic" - I had thought it meant firing three rounds per burst, as distinct from a continuous burst until the magazine ran out of ammunition.
Er... you can still bump fire with semi. They even make a sliding stock for it now!
Military Gun Supply
This is a semi-automatic AR-15:
Only one bullet per trigger pull

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 5:07 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 5:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 57 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-23-2012 6:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 59 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-23-2012 6:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 188 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 50 of 236 (668673)
07-23-2012 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2012 5:27 PM


Re: Gun control question
Aah ! My education continues.
Bump firing is distinguished technically from fully automatic fire, I take it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 5:42 PM vimesey has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 51 of 236 (668674)
07-23-2012 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by vimesey
07-23-2012 4:41 PM


Re: Gun control question
An AR-15 rifle that someone can buy in the USA without special licensing is still a semi-automatic rifle and not an assault weapon. For each shot you need to pull the trigger, there is no automatic or even three shot burst mode.
The media is as usual simply showing its ignorance by calling it an assault rifle.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 4:41 PM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Briterican, posted 07-23-2012 6:05 PM jar has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 236 (668675)
07-23-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by vimesey
07-23-2012 5:32 PM


Re: Gun control question
Yeah, one bullet per trigger pull is semi-automatic. Automatic is multiple bullets per trigger pull. When you're bump firing, you're pulling the trigger each time a bullet comes out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 5:32 PM vimesey has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4064 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 53 of 236 (668676)
07-23-2012 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
07-23-2012 5:36 PM


Re: Gun control question
quote:
An AR-15 rifle that someone can buy in the USA without special licensing is still a semi-automatic rifle and not an assault weapon. For each shot you need to pull the trigger, there is no automatic or even three shot burst mode.
The media is as usual simply showing its ********* by calling it an assault rifle.
  —jar
I still wonder why anyone would need such a thing, if not to kill human beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 07-23-2012 5:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:26 PM Briterican has not replied
 Message 61 by jar, posted 07-23-2012 6:28 PM Briterican has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 54 of 236 (668677)
07-23-2012 6:06 PM


You know, this is quite, quite insane. Assault rifle, bump firing, banana magazine....it's all an incomprehensible euphemism and pedantry.
Why would any civilised society allow these sort of weapons to be legally owned by its citizens? And why fein surprise when a fruit-loop uses them for their intended purpose?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4064 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


(1)
Message 55 of 236 (668678)
07-23-2012 6:14 PM


Frontier mentality
In reply to no-one in particular... when will America shed its frontier mentality?
Why are guns so worshipped, their ownership being viewed as a god-given right?
Every society draws the line somewhere on what "arms" it allows to proliferate within its borders. You can't have nukes. You can't have a patriot missile in your garden. So why the F should you be able to have a weapon like this?
It's a legitimate question. I spent 35 years in Texas, and NEVER cared for guns. Never understood why something that has only one real purpose (killing living things) was considered so glamorous. Sure, I went hunting... single shot shotgun... you can own one of those here in the UK for hunting with a permit. What are you guys hunting that you need an AR-15 for? And, you're honestly comfortable with the ease with which such a compact death machine can be obtained by your fellow citizens? Even knowing those fellow citizens the way you do?
I just don't get it... I never did when I lived there... I definitely don't now. And I'm definitely not the only one.
The argument ignores reality. The argument says "you can kill someone with a brick, should we ban bricks?" The argument boils it down to "who is the government to tell me I can't have this?" for many of you. Well guess what, there's a lot of things the government tells you you can't have. That's the price you pay for living in a (relatively) civilised 21st century society.
So... tell me again why you need an AR-15 any more than you need a cruise missile battery?
Edited by Briterican, : "you're" not "your", dumbass

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 56 of 236 (668679)
07-23-2012 6:14 PM


Weaponry covered by the 2nd Ammendment
The writers of the Consititution and the Bill of Rights, could not fathom that the 2nd Ammendment would later allow automatic and semi-automatic weapons with such deadly accuracy and lethality to be legal. I believe they would be the first to ammend it to prevent such lethal weapons from being legalized. The Ammendment stated the right to form militias and bear arms not the right to have weapons of mass destruction.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:36 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 57 of 236 (668680)
07-23-2012 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2012 5:27 PM


Re: Gun control question
What we're dealing with is people who know nothing about guns trying to write laws about them. Its like the people who back SOPA not knowing anything about the internet.
There are many people who have experience with weapons who want tougher gun laws, myself included. Stop speaking from ignorance.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:45 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 58 of 236 (668681)
07-23-2012 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2012 2:31 PM


Re: Death penalty
CS writes:
I just read online that the prosecution is going to wait to see if they're going to pursue the death penalty until after speaking with the families of the victims. I think that's a good way to go about it; If the families of the victims think they'll feel better if this guy gets the death penalty, then that's reason enough for me.
I have a problem with this.
The deal we have with the state is that we hand over the punishment of crimes against us to the state on the understanding that they will independently and objectively deal with the offence.
One reason we do this is to prevent knee jerk and violent retribution by those who are understandably distraught by their loss. It seems to me to be an abrogation of the state's role in playing out their disinterested role of justice to ask the victims families how they should proceed.
How many finger nails should we pull out before we flay him, 1, 3, 7 or 10?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 1:08 PM Tangle has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3216 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 59 of 236 (668683)
07-23-2012 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2012 5:27 PM


Re: Gun control question
The AR-15 is the predecessor to the military's now adopted M-16. It is the semi-automatic version of the M-16 which is used in all branches of service.
Again. There is no reason this weapon should be able to be purchaced legally in the same way you should not be able to legally purchace an RPG launcher or live hand grenades. These are not covered under "the right to bare arms" of the 2nd Ammendment.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 11:27 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 60 of 236 (668684)
07-23-2012 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Briterican
07-23-2012 6:05 PM


Re: Gun control question
I still wonder why anyone would need such a thing, if not to kill human beings.
Such a what thing? A rifle?
Rifles are legitimately used for target shooting and hunting. The .223 caliber that the AR-15 is chambered for is a perfectly legitimate hunting round; it's not a weird military round or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Briterican, posted 07-23-2012 6:05 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-23-2012 6:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024