Gun Control Debate #2

[ATasteOfHoney]

Yes I remember that - Miami it was I believe?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/flakka-what-is-it-florida-face-eating-attack-zombie-drug-austin-harrouff-a7195871.html

Flakka turns its users into zombies apparently.

Jupiter/Tequesta area fairly recently

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Horror, Chaos and Heartbreak: Doctors and Nurses Recount Scene in ER After Florida School Shooting
http://people.com/crime/florida-school-shooting-doctors-nurses-speak-out/

Doctor who treated Florida shooting victims: 'When is it going to stop?'
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/doctors-florida-school-shooting/index.html

 

[kaen]

This is an interesting article on the damage a bullet from the weapon used at Parkland can do. I am not sure if it has been posted before. My apologies if it has. This is a radiologist at the hospital where Parkland victims were transported.

"The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle which delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. There was nothing left to repair, and utterly, devastatingly, nothing that could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal......

The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.


I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. I saw one from a man shot in the back by a SWAT team years ago. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Justified to kill: Experts say the psychological aftermath of a self-defense homicide can be profound

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articl...sf/2012/06/experts_the_psychological_afte.amp

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

The psychological impact of having to take a life. Interesting read regarding combat as we discuss arming teachers.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/themes/prep.html

“I think it is a very important thing to understand that when your friends are wounded or dead, it's a real loss. It's a loss of your friend that you trusted and you loved in a very intense way.

“When you personally take another life and you go up to that lifeless body with a hole in it and you look down on it, and you say, "I did that," I think it is a loss of yourself at the same time. And I think that [once] they understand that, they can't go back again. They can't say that it didn't happen, or [that] maybe somebody else did it.

“The enormous fire power that we are currently expending in our modern wars, from Vietnam onward, blurs the line considerably. Because if there's a massed fire and 2,000 rounds are going out at one time, who knows who shot who? But all we know is there's a lot of people in front of us that are dead. That absolves you of the responsibility of looking at that lifeless body and [seeing that] some mother, some son, some father, some uncle, is now dead.

“And that's different than not knowing. Knowing, I think, is the Rubicon. And they talk about it with sadness. It's not something that they're prideful of, it's a profound sadness.”

 

[jillycat]

Respectfully, thats untrue. Let’s be intellectually and factually honest, please.

Semiauto rifles were banned for two decades, from 94-04. I’m guessing you already know that, but just in case, I’ve included some links below.

They didn’t exist for civilian use until 54 years ago, and the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect 20 of those 54 years. That’s not “always,” as ya asserted in your earlier post.

And some 50-somethings might be a little offended when 54 years is conflated with “always” or “forever.” Lol. ❤️ [emoji6]

Links:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ed-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

67% of Americans support assault weapons ban
https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/poll-67-support-assault-weapons-ban-1166076483662

Florida GOP congressman says he would support an assault weapons ban
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...an-says-he-would-support-assault-weapons-ban/

I'm not sure what you mean. In 1989, Bush Sr. banned the import of some semi-automatic rifles. The AWB of 1994 was a 10 year ban on certain guns characterized as "assault weapons" that had certain features. These guns couldn't have more than two of those features. The AWB had a sunset of 2004.

When were all semi-automatic rifles banned for two decades?

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

No problem at all, jilly. That’s why I posted links, including one to more info on the Assault Weapons Ban.

OP and I were discussing the AR15, which came into civilian use 54 years ago. I don’t think all semiautomatic rifles hit the civvy market at that time. I’m assuming OP didn’t, either? Not all semiauto rifles are AR15s. And respectfully, I didn’t say all semiauto rifles were banned; that’s your interpretation and you’re welcome to it, obviously, but it isn’t what I said.

And I won’t get into “right-fighting” when my words are twisted, so, respectfully, I’m also done discussing or defending the semantics of my post.

And I’m grateful the topic of sensible gun control is finally being discussed. It’s important. Most Americans agree.

(Reposting my reply and links, below.)

And I need to correct myself. It was in effect 10 years, not 20. lol. I even put the dates in my post, too. My strong suit is not the maths, apparently! [emoji6]

Thanks for the correction on that blunder, jilly. Thanks for being here.

From the link: “The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act—is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity".

I'm not sure what you mean. In 1989, Bush Sr. banned the import of some semi-automatic rifles. The AWB of 1994 was a 10 year ban on certain guns characterized as "assault weapons" that had certain features. These guns couldn't have more than two of those features. The AWB had a sunset of 2004.

When were all semi-automatic rifles banned for two decades?

Respectfully, thats untrue. Let’s be intellectually and factually honest, please.

Semiauto rifles were banned for two decades, from 94-04. I’m guessing you already know that, but just in case, I’ve included some links below.

They didn’t exist for civilian use until 54 years ago, and the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect 20 of those 54 years. That’s not “always,” as ya asserted in your earlier post.

And some 50-somethings might be a little offended when 54 years is conflated with “always” or “forever.” Lol. ❤️ [emoji6]

Links:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ed-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

67% of Americans support assault weapons ban
https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/poll-67-support-assault-weapons-ban-1166076483662

Florida GOP congressman says he would support an assault weapons ban
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...an-says-he-would-support-assault-weapons-ban/

 

[CADwrest]

Respectfully, thats untrue. Let’s be intellectually and factually honest, please.

Semiauto rifles were banned for two decades, from 94-04. I’m guessing you already know that, but just in case, I’ve included some links below.

They didn’t exist for civilian use until 54 years ago, and the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect 20 of those 54 years. That’s not “always,” as ya asserted in your earlier post.

And some 50-somethings might be a little offended when 54 years is conflated with “always” or “forever.” Lol. ❤️ [emoji6]

Links:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ed-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

67% of Americans support assault weapons ban
https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/poll-67-support-assault-weapons-ban-1166076483662

Florida GOP congressman says he would support an assault weapons ban
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...an-says-he-would-support-assault-weapons-ban/

So, several things:

One, the AWB was in place 1994- 2004. That’s ten years, not 20.

Two, the “ban” didn’t do anything about possession or sale of existing rifles. The ones manufactured before the ban were legal to sell and own. There was a big rush of manufacturing before it went into effect in anticipation of that.

Three, all that was required for a new “post ban” rifle to be legal to manufacture and sell were a few cosmetic changes. Once the ban named its specific models (which, to reiterate, were still legal to own and sell), it had to define what an “assault weapon” was, which it did by naming 5 characteristics: If a semi automatic rifle had a detachable magazine, it could only have one of the following: collapsible stock, bayonet lug, grenade launcher (don’t get excited, explosives to go with it aren’t available), pistol grip, and flash suppressor. A gun with one of those things was completely legal. Manufacturers made those minor changes and pumped out new rifles for sale.

This is first hand knowledge, FYI. I bought an AR-15. Made during the ban. In 2001. In Maryland. The exact one difference was that it had a fixed stock and not an adjustable one.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

So, several things:

One, the AWB was in place 1994- 2004. That’s ten years, not 20.

Two, the “ban” didn’t do anything about possession or sale of existing rifles. The ones manufactured before the ban were legal to sell and own. There was a big rush of manufacturing before it went into effect in anticipation of that.

Three, all that was required for a new “post ban” rifle to be legal to manufacture and sell were a few cosmetic changes. Once the ban named its specific models (which, to reiterate, were still legal to own and sell), it had to define what an “assault weapon” was, which it did by naming 5 characteristics: If a semi automatic rifle had a detachable magazine, it could only have one of the following: collapsible stock, bayonet lug, grenade launcher (don’t get excited, explosives to go with it aren’t available), pistol grip, and flash suppressor. A gun with one of those things was completely legal. Manufacturers made those minor changes and pumped out new rifles for sale.

This is first hand knowledge, FYI. I bought an AR-15. Made during the ban. In 2001. In Maryland. The exact one difference was that it had a fixed stock and not an adjustable one.

I’m aware of all of this, my friend. [emoji106]

 

[bears10]

I’m aware of all of this, my friend. [emoji106]

So which is accurate? I’m confused. It seems like you guys had very differing posts and as someone who isn’t well versed in gun law history, I don’t know which posters statements are accurate because they seem very different.

 

[Inthedetails]

In response to high schools threatening to punish student protesters:

"UConn would like to assure students who have applied or been admitted to the University that disciplinary action associated with participation in peaceful protests will not affect your admission decision in any way."

https://twitter.com/UConn/status/967209241235939328

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

No decision made in lawsuit seeking to implement Nevada gun control law

http://news3lv.com/news/local/no-de...t-seeking-to-implement-nevada-gun-control-law

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Defying N.R.A., Florida Lawmakers Back Raising Age Limits on Assault Rifles

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/florida-gun-control.html

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Poll: Majority back stricter gun laws but public split on arming teachers

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/23/poll-gun-control-florida-shooting-422736

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

How the Florida School Shooting Turned Into a Gun-Control Movement

Digitally savvy students naturally turned to social media, invoking #NeverAgain to campaign for change in wake of attack

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-th...turned-into-a-gun-control-movement-1519416915

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

About 1,500 Austin students protest, demand stricter gun control laws

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loc...cter-gun-control-laws/b60yVlhJytqpC8cxUZtA1I/

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

http://kval.com/news/local/oregon-takes-big-first-step-in-nations-gun-control-fight

Oregon lawmakers passed a bill banning people from buying or owning guns if they have been convicted of stalking and/or domestic violence crimes.

The ban would also apply to people who are under court restraining orders.

 

[jillycat]

No problem at all, jilly. That’s why I posted links, including one to more info on the Assault Weapons Ban.

OP and I were discussing the AR15, which came into civilian use 54 years ago. I don’t think all semiautomatic rifles hit the civvy market at that time. I’m assuming OP didn’t, either? Not all semiauto rifles are AR15s. And respectfully, I didn’t say all semiauto rifles were banned; that’s your interpretation and you’re welcome to it, obviously, but it isn’t what I said.

And I won’t get into “right-fighting” when my words are twisted, so, respectfully, I’m also done discussing or defending the semantics of my post.

And I’m grateful the topic of sensible gun control is finally being discussed. It’s important. Most Americans agree.

(Reposting my reply and links, below.)

And I need to correct myself. It was in effect 10 years, not 20. lol. I even put the dates in my post, too. My strong suit is not the maths, apparently! [emoji6]

Thanks for the correction on that blunder, jilly. Thanks for being here.

From the link: “The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)—officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act—is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity".

I wasn't discussing AR's, and I'm familiar with the AWB and its feature restrictions on some guns.

Apologies, I read your statement: "Semiauto rifles were banned for two decades, from 94-04.", as a reference to all, not particular, semi-automatic rifles restricted under the AWB. No worries.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Minneapolis City Council declares support for stricter gun control laws

http://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-city-council-declares-support-for-stricter-gun-control-laws

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Madigan to advance gun control legislation next week

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180223/madigan-to-advance-gun-control-legislation-next-week

State House Speaker Mike Madigan plans to advance a package of gun control legislation next week, including stricter regulation of gun dealers and restrictions on the purchase of military-style assault rifles, the speaker announced Friday.