Conquer Club

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.


It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

tzor wrote:Shortly after the gun massacre, all the schools were closed down. Was it more guns? No it was a bomb threat.

The terrorists who shot all those people also had a plethora of pipe bombs. What should we do, prevent citizens from access to plumbing supplies?

Everyone complains about the "vast number of guns" out there. The bulk of them being in collector's safes never being fired because that will lower the collector value.

If you really want National Outrage ... it's against the shoddy reporting and outright lies of the New York Slimes.

Symmetry wrote:What do you think was an outright lie in the editorial?

tzor wrote:Shortly after the gun massacre, all the schools were closed down. Was it more guns? No it was a bomb threat.

The terrorists who shot all those people also had a plethora of pipe bombs. What should we do, prevent citizens from access to plumbing supplies?

Everyone complains about the "vast number of guns" out there. The bulk of them being in collector's safes never being fired because that will lower the collector value.

If you really want National Outrage ... it's against the shoddy reporting and outright lies of the New York Slimes.

Bernie Sanders wrote:It's much safer to buy a assault rifle anonymously at a gun show and blast away at school children.

tzor wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:It's much safer to buy a assault rifle anonymously at a gun show and blast away at school children.

It would be if anyone actually did that. Odd how no one has actually done that. Well perhaps its not so odd at all.

tzor wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:It's much safer to buy a assault rifle anonymously at a gun show and blast away at school children.

It would be if anyone actually did that. Odd how no one has actually done that. Well perhaps its not so odd at all.

Bernie Sanders wrote:BTW Tzor

Real "weapons of war" are land mines, cluster bombs, and nuclear weapons. They are not illegal, but people still try to make IED and pipe bombs anyway and no restriction of weapons to the average American is going to prevent that.

They are illegal and if you get caught with these items, you'll be prosecuted as a terrorist.

Nuclear weapons???? You can get your hands on them? WARNING-WARNING-WARNING TSA, Homeland Security, FBI and the CIA is watching you!

rishaed wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:BTW Tzor

Real "weapons of war" are land mines, cluster bombs, and nuclear weapons. They are not illegal, but people still try to make IED and pipe bombs anyway and no restriction of weapons to the average American is going to prevent that.

They are illegal and if you get caught with these items, you'll be prosecuted as a terrorist.

Nuclear weapons???? You can get your hands on them? WARNING-WARNING-WARNING TSA, Homeland Security, FBI and the CIA is watching you!

Technically it is not illegal in the state to research or produce nuclear weapons. But neither are many other things, but as a lawyer you should know that. Will the government take them away if they know that you have them? Yes. But if you manage to produce a nuclear bomb by yourself they might take it away before hiring you as a scientist.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:BTW Tzor

Real "weapons of war" are land mines, cluster bombs, and nuclear weapons. They are not illegal, but people still try to make IED and pipe bombs anyway and no restriction of weapons to the average American is going to prevent that.

They are illegal and if you get caught with these items, you'll be prosecuted as a terrorist.

Nuclear weapons???? You can get your hands on them? WARNING-WARNING-WARNING TSA, Homeland Security, FBI and the CIA is watching you!

Technically it is not illegal in the state to research or produce nuclear weapons. But neither are many other things, but as a lawyer you should know that. Will the government take them away if they know that you have them? Yes. But if you manage to produce a nuclear bomb by yourself they might take it away before hiring you as a scientist.

rishaed says:Technically it is not illegal in the state to research or produce nuclear weapons.


Any civilian who can produce a nuclear device would need processed uranium or plutonium. And, you say it's legal?

Excuse me as I go outside and scream, don't want to upset my wife.

Bernie Sanders wrote:Any civilian who can produce a nuclear device would need processed uranium or plutonium. And, you say it's legal?

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:What do you think was an outright lie in the editorial?

Where do I begin?

"But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not."

They just mean the United States hasn't done what they wanted. It is a lie to say the United States has done nothing. They admit that others have failed but we are at fault for not wasting our time with things that fail.

"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership."

But these slightly modified weapons are already illegal in California. It's like prohibiting shotguns because someone can make a sawed-off shotgun from one.

"It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency."

NO really, it is the moral thing to do to purchase weapons that kill people slowly and with great inefficiency?

"These are weapons of war ..."

I own a "weapon of war." It was a WWI bolt action rifle that was "sporterized" by my father for use in deer hunting. "Weapons of war" is one of the biggest nonsense lies that I've heard in a while. Just because a thing can be used by G.I. Joe doesn't make it a weapon of war. Real "weapons of war" are land mines, cluster bombs, and nuclear weapons. They are not illegal, but people still try to make IED and pipe bombs anyway and no restriction of weapons to the average American is going to prevent that.

Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States -- two of them by someone who's now under investigation.
Meredith Davis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives says investigators are now working to make a connection to the last legal purchaser.

She says all four guns were bought four years ago but she's not saying whether they were purchased out of state or how and when they got into the hands of the two shooters.
Davis says California requires paperwork when guns change hands privately but many other states don't.

She also says the rifles involved were .223-caliber -- powerful enough to pierce the standard protective vest worn by police officers, and some types of ammo can even plow through walls.
In a Thursday morning media briefing, investigators revealed that the suspects Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook fired dozens of rounds inside the conference room at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino. The suspects also had access to 1,600 rounds when they were confronted by law enforcement officers later that day, police said.
The house in Redlands on which police converged and where the suspects’ SUV was initially reported was found to contain 12 pipe bombs, 2,000 9mm rounds, more than 2,500 .223-caliber rounds and “several hundred” 22 long rifle ​rounds, San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said.

In the state of California, there is no limit law for ammunition on most firearms. There are certain restrictions on types of ammunition. For example, California generally prohibits sale, possession or transportation of any fixed ammunition greater than .60 caliber.
Also, California does not require a license for the sale or purchase of ammunition nor does it keep records for long gun ammunition sales.

There was a law enacted in 2009 requiring the sales of handgun ammunition be recorded.
A 2011 law prohibiting sale of handgun ammunition over the internet or through the mail has been put on hold pending legal appeal

Metsfanmax wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:Any civilian who can produce a nuclear device would need processed uranium or plutonium. And, you say it's legal?

Uranium actually occurs naturally in very small amounts even in the soil in your backyard. Maybe a couple parts per million. In principle, at least, you don't need to to get uranium from a designated mine. If you had enough private resources, you could enrich it yourself.

thegreekdog wrote:

tzor wrote:

Bernie Sanders wrote:It's much safer to buy a assault rifle anonymously at a gun show and blast away at school children.

It would be if anyone actually did that. Odd how no one has actually done that. Well perhaps its not so odd at all.

Yes, Stalin forbid we make factual statements.

tzor wrote:Shortly after the gun massacre, all the schools were closed down. Was it more guns? No it was a bomb threat.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:Shortly after the gun massacre, all the schools were closed down. Was it more guns? No it was a bomb threat.

This! Not to mention that your basic bow and arrow is about as deadly as a gun in the right hands.

Metsfanmax wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:Shortly after the gun massacre, all the schools were closed down. Was it more guns? No it was a bomb threat.

This! Not to mention that your basic bow and arrow is about as deadly as a gun in the right hands.

Number of people killed in the US by guns each year: 34,000
Number of people killed in the US by arrows each year: 135

PLAYER57832 wrote:More indicative -- number of deaths due to accidental shooting 700. http://www.interstatesportsman.com/arti ... ing-really

My point is that there is a big difference between guns for hunting and violence.

Also, to decide what will and will not work to reduce deaths from violence we need more research.
Those statistics don't tell why the numbers are what they are, and the why matters if you want to lower them

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:More indicative -- number of deaths due to accidental shooting 700. http://www.interstatesportsman.com/arti ... ing-really

My point is that there is a big difference between guns for hunting and violence.

Also, to decide what will and will not work to reduce deaths from violence we need more research.
Those statistics don't tell why the numbers are what they are, and the why matters if you want to lower them

What more research is needed?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:More indicative -- number of deaths due to accidental shooting 700. http://www.interstatesportsman.com/arti ... ing-really

My point is that there is a big difference between guns for hunting and violence.

Also, to decide what will and will not work to reduce deaths from violence we need more research.
Those statistics don't tell why the numbers are what they are, and the why matters if you want to lower them

What more research is needed?

Among other issues, data is not collected at all uniformly, so even comparing statistics of violence between locations is not truly possible in any accurate way.

then you can begin to look at whether gun controls work and which ones work best (no , we do NOT have enough data to show this, we have data that moves all over the place).

How to better determine who is and is not likely to cause violence with guns. (we are very shaky on this)

Whether controlling guns leads to other types of violence (and under what circumstances).


Steps we can take to minimize violence AND whether that is even what we should do. Let me clarify that last point. Some early studies, for example, showed that young kids in daycare were more likely to show aggression than kids who were not. Without going into all the parameters, one of the things it really showed was that toddlers who are around other toddlers a lot are more likely to hit. When you looked at whether those kids continued to be more violent or not, you found no difference OR that kids kept in quality care showed less overall aggression. In other words, toddlers will hit, but they learn not to do so more quickly when other kids are around. (or, as I used to say, it is one thing for me to say "no" and something else when you discover that this other little person will not just complain, but will likely hit back!). I the case of things like workplace aggression, policies often key in on very superficial things like swearing, etc. Ironically, those same things may well serve as outlets to control aggression. Its the old story.. the one you worry about is not the one who is screaming and yelling, but the one who seems quiet and never reacts. Not always true, but enough true that it illustrates what I mean by misguided attempts at control.

and.. those are just a few, quickly thought up, examples. Given time, I could no doubt come up with many, many more.