Another gun control argument

[bwilson4web]

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/03/vienna-shooting-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-attack

• Three people have died in the Vienna attacks on Monday night, including one attacker.
  
• At least one gunman remained on the run at 1am Vienna time, Nehammer said. He warned the assailants were “heavily armed and dangerous” and urged the public to stay indoors until the all-clear was given. Nehammer told broadcaster ORF: “We have brought several special forces units together that are now searching for the presumed terrorists. I am therefore not limiting it to an area of Vienna because these are mobile perpetrators.”
  
• 15 people were injured and taken to hospital after the attack that beganshortly after 8pm local time on Monday. One of the injured is thought to be a policeman. Seven of the injured were in a serious condition, Vienna’s mayor Michael Ludwig, said.
  
• The attacks began with volleys of gunfire and the injury and death tolls are expected to rise.
  ...
  
  

My sympathies.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/03/vienna-shooting-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-attack

• Three people have died in the Vienna attacks on Monday night, including one attacker.
  
• At least one gunman remained on the run at 1am Vienna time, Nehammer said. He warned the assailants were “heavily armed and dangerous” and urged the public to stay indoors until the all-clear was given. Nehammer told broadcaster ORF: “We have brought several special forces units together that are now searching for the presumed terrorists. I am therefore not limiting it to an area of Vienna because these are mobile perpetrators.”
• 15 people were injured and taken to hospital after the attack that beganshortly after 8pm local time on Monday. One of the injured is thought to be a policeman. Seven of the injured were in a serious condition, Vienna’s mayor Michael Ludwig, said.
• The attacks began with volleys of gunfire and the injury and death tolls are expected to rise.
  ...
  

My sympathies.

Bob Wilson

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Tell us more details about the shooter instead of using the single cause fallacy to justify taking more liberties away from people.

 

[bwilson4web]

Actually, we can agree on this:

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Tell us more details about the shooter instead of using the single cause fallacy to justify taking more liberties away from people.

Anyone wishing to own a weapon gets a through interview and evaluation. Starting with you. But that was not done at the end of the US Civil War.

Personally, I would prefer:

• maximum 20 round rifle magazines above 32 caliber
• maximum 10 round pistol magazines above 32 caliber
• require range qualification every 5 years to buy military grade ammunition (*)
  • vision
  • safety and handling
  • accuracy

(*) unlimited ammunition

• maximum 32 caliber
• any shotgun up to 12 gauge
• any non-cartridge powder, cap, and bullet

I would easily adopt the Swiss or Israeli practices.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Actually, we can agree on this:

Anyone wishing to own a weapon gets a through interview and evaluation. Starting with you. But that was not done at the end of the US Civil War.

Personally, I would prefer:

• maximum 20 round rifle magazines above 32 caliber
• maximum 10 round pistol magazines above 32 caliber
• require range qualification every 5 years to buy military grade ammunition (*)
  • vision
  • safety and handling
  • accuracy

(*) unlimited ammunition

• maximum 32 caliber
• any shotgun up to 12 gauge
• any non-cartridge powder, cap, and bullet

I would easily adopt the Swiss or Israeli practices.

Bob Wilson

That doesn’t answer my question. What are the details about the terrorist in Austria?

 

[bwilson4web]

Ask Google and share what you find here.

The reason why is disarmed, the killers are limited to less lethal means. Guns have a role in sport and hunting but killers have no right to own one.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Ask Google and share what you find here.

The reason why is disarmed, the killers are limited to less lethal means. Guns have a role in sport and hunting but killers have no right to own one.

Bob Wilson

"The gunman was later identified as a 20-year-old "Islamist terrorist" who was released early from jail in December. Jihadist group Islamic State (IS) claimed on its propaganda outlet Amaq that it was behind the attack.

Interior Minister Karl Nehammer said he had been jailed for 22 months in April 2019 after trying to get to war-torn Syria to join Islamic State (IS) jihadists. He had travelled to Turkey in September 2018 and was held there before being returned to Austria and arrested as a "foreign fighter" in January 2019.

He was eventually named as Kujtim Fejzulai, who had both Austrian and Macedonian citizenship. He also had a previous conviction for terrorist association, Mr Nehammer said.

Police searched his home and seized video material, and arrested 14 of his friends and acquaintances.

Swiss police detained two more people, described by the justice minister there as "colleagues" of the gunman. "The three men also met in person," Karin Keller-Sutter told St Galler Tagblatt.

Fejzulai travelled to Slovakia in July 2020 in search of ammunition for an AK-47 but his attempted purchase was turned down because he had no gun licence, it has emerged.

Slovak police immediately informed their colleagues about the "suspects from Austria", but the interior minister in Vienna revealed that the case was not followed up properly by the BVT domestic intelligence agency. "Something obviously went wrong in communication," he said."

Yeah. Additional gun control laws really would have worked so well here (sarcasm). Tried to legally purchase a gun but was turned down by existing gun laws. Guy was a radical Islamist. Was literally attempting to go to Syria to fight with Islamists. Was let back into the country and then spent only 22 months in jail for that. Guarantee the gun came over the border ILLEGALLY.

Uh. Maybe don't let people with murderous ideologies or people who want to conquer you into your country and don't give light sentences to people who are known to have murderous intentions. In any case, zero additional gun control laws would have done anything to prevent this. Same goes with the majority of gun violence in the US.

 

[bwilson4web]

Yeah. Additional gun control laws really would have worked so well here (sarcasm). Tried to legally purchase a gun but was turned down by existing gun laws. Guy was a radical Islamist. Was literally attempting to go to Syria to fight with Islamists. Was let back into the country and then spent only 22 months in jail for that. Guarantee the gun came over the border ILLEGALLY.

Looks like the gun control law partially worked but the followup was incomplete.

Uh. Maybe don't let people with murderous ideologies or people who want to conquer you into your country and don't give light sentences to people who are known to have murderous intentions. In any case, zero additional gun control laws would have done anything to prevent this. Same goes with the majority of gun violence in the US.

Evidence of his attempts to buy ammunition and the gun gave a powerful clue. The authorities didn't followup and with timely investigation, they had a chance to work. Think of gun control as a 'trip wire.' I suspect enforcement will be more diligent in the future.

As for his former friends and associates, sounds like they are going to be looked at very closely. Like these idiots:

They are accused of plotting to kill the Michigan Governor.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Looks like the gun control law partially worked but the followup was incomplete.


Evidence of his attempts to buy ammunition and the gun gave a powerful clue. The authorities didn't followup and with timely investigation, they had a chance to work. Think of gun control as a 'trip wire.' I suspect enforcement will be more diligent in the future.

As for his former friends and associates, sounds like they are going to be looked at very closely. Like these idiots:

They are accused of plotting to kill the Michigan Governor.

Bob Wilson

>Looks like the gun control law partially worked but the follow up was incomplete

Since he likely got the gun illegally, that means the law didn't stop him from getting it. If he brought the gun in illegally from outside of Austria, then that's a border control issue and zero additional gun control laws would have done anything.

>Evidence of his attempts to buy ammunition and the gun gave a powerful clue. The authorities didn't followup and with timely investigation, they had a chance to work. I suspect enforcement will be more diligent in the future

Why was this guy allowed into Austria? Why did they only give him a 22 month sentence? How can you expect any diligence in a system that deliberately allows people like this into your country? He didn't buy the gun in Austria, so what good would Austrian laws have over the attempted purchase? The answer is none, unless you believe the entire world should have the exact same set of laws.

You're just ignoring the obvious problem here: The Austrian government knowingly let someone back into the country with a murderous ideology and gave him a wrist slap of a punishment for what he did. If someone leaves their country to join some external terrorist group, their citizenship should be stripped. If the Austrian government was more diligent about who the let immigrate into the country, there probably wouldn't be such a radical mosque in Austria in the first place. In any case, this incident and any incidents like this will not be prevented by any additional gun control laws.

Lastly, what does that red herring of a the assassination plot of the Michigan Governor have to do with anything?

 

[Recoil45]

Actually, we can agree on this:

Anyone wishing to own a weapon gets a through interview and evaluation. Starting with you. But that was not done at the end of the US Civil War.

Personally, I would prefer:

• maximum 20 round rifle magazines above 32 caliber
• maximum 10 round pistol magazines above 32 caliber
• require range qualification every 5 years to buy military grade ammunition (*)
  • vision
  • safety and handling
  • accuracy

(*) unlimited ammunition

• maximum 32 caliber
• any shotgun up to 12 gauge
• any non-cartridge powder, cap, and bullet

I would easily adopt the Swiss or Israeli practices.

Bob Wilson

What are the facts behind your personal preferences?

Why 10rds and not 12rds?

Seems like a completely irrational and emotional response with no basis.

Why use the term military ammunition? To insight an emotional response for people not educated on guns?

9mm & 223 in use by the US military are amongst the weakest pistol and rifles calibers in use today. 223 isn’t even legal to use to harvest a deer in most states because it’s too weak to be humane.

Posts like this are why the anti gunners are never taken seriously. All hyperbole, no facts or reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bwilson4web]

What are the facts behind your personal preferences?

• Why 10rds and not 12rds? - It keeps the 1911 legal. A classic automatic pistol, 10 rounds is enough to demonstrate skill.
• Why use the term military ammunition? - It is a question of cost, lethality, and availability. The less common rounds become another step separating those who are in for the zen of shooting versus murderous intent.
• To insight an emotional response for people not educated on guns? - A lie by another murderous fanatical gun advocate who reveals his absolute lack of understanding and sympathy for the USA gun carnage.
• 9mm & 223 in use by the US military are amongst the weakest pistol and rifles calibers in use today. 223 isn’t even legal to use to harvest a deer in most states because it’s too weak to be humane. - which means rarer and more expensive rounds have to be located and bought. But I would also include the AK/SKS as well as EU military rounds. Import a cheap military weapon from overseas, its ammunition joins the ban. I don't mind the weapon, just large quantifies of cheap ammunition.

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

• Why 10rds and not 12rds? - It keeps the 1911 legal. A classic automatic pistol, 10 rounds is enough to demonstrate skill.
• Why use the term military ammunition? - It is a question of cost, lethality, and availability. The less common rounds become another step separating those who are in for the zen of shooting versus murderous intent.
• To insight an emotional response for people not educated on guns? - A lie by another murderous fanatical gun advocate who reveals his absolute lack of understanding and sympathy for the USA gun carnage.
• 9mm & 223 in use by the US military are amongst the weakest pistol and rifles calibers in use today. 223 isn’t even legal to use to harvest a deer in most states because it’s too weak to be humane. - which means rarer and more expensive rounds have to be located and bought. But I would also include the AK/SKS as well as EU military rounds. Import a cheap military weapon from overseas, its ammunition joins the ban. I don't mind the weapon, just large quantifies of cheap ammunition.

Bob Wilson

lol. Those aren't facts Bob. Those are just baseless, subjective preferences.

>keep 10rds because a gun I like uses them
Yes. Great objective standard. Very sound reasoning. lol

>I use the term military ammunition as a framing device to describe ammo I feel people shouldn't have based on intent I prescribe to others.
This is literally no different than someone arguing that it should be illegal for cars to go faster than 90 mph or should be capable of going 0 to 60 faster than 6 seconds.

>I don't know anything about gun violence in the US so I'll just morally shame anyone who disagrees with my baseless subjective restrictions.
Come back to me when you've looked at FBI Table 8 (also FBI Table 6 for that matter). The data on those tables completely invalidates the manufactured concern over "military grade" or "Assault Riffle" nonsense. Anybody clamoring about "military grade" or "assault rifles" aren't serious about addressing gun crime in the US.

 

[bwilson4web]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. You asked, I answered, and whether or not you understand or much less agree, this is how I prefer USA gun control to work. But I'd be just as happy to see the Swiss or Israeli practices adopted.

Like most complex problems, there are three components:

1. Hardware - high capacity magazines and military ammunition should be limited. Anything under 32 cal case ammunition, shotguns, and muzzle loaders are freely available. Shotguns are limited to wet land bird capacity.
2. Peopleware - organize high power owners into a State regulated militia with regular drill and meetings. Also follow the Swiss practice to making sure owners practice weapon safety and are mentally stable.
3. Software - tracking the flow of weapons and ammunition back to the supply chain. For example, using proof firing to characterize the bullet and case impressions. But also add a tax to seller for every body traced to their weapons.

Bob Wilson

 

[Recoil45]

You ban civilian ownership of .223 and they adopt Winchester .222 or Valkyrie .224 ammo. Ban 9mm and they adopt 38 super or .40 S&W. You allow .32 ammo and someone creates a new .32 super cartridge that will push a .32 2x faster than a 9mm and mirrors or exceeds the lethality. Your plan accomplishes nothing.

BTW... 5.56 is the military version of civilian .223. The .223 everyone is shooting from their AR15’s (the civilian version of the military M16) is already a non-military cartridge.

Luckily the new makeup of SCOTUS gets to decide what the 2a will look like for the next 20-30 years, not you. I bet they won’t consider a case asking if 223 is OK and 5.56 is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bwilson4web]

You ban civilian ownership of .223 and they adopt Winchester .222 or Valkyrie .224 ammo. Ban 9mm and they adopt 38 super or .40 S&W. You allow .32 ammo and someone creates a new .32 super cartridge that will push a .32 2x faster than a 9mm and mirrors or exceeds the lethality. Your plan accomplishes nothing.

I'm OK with a super .32 cartridge since the chamber also has to handle the pressure. A whole new set of weapons in the smaller calibre works for me. But there may be a problem with military vs civilian ammunition of which cost is one.

BTW... 5.56 is the military version of civilian .223. The .223 everyone is shooting from their AR15’s (the civilian version of the military M16) is already a non-military cartridge.

Luckily the new makeup of SCOTUS gets to decide what the 2a will look like for the next 20-30 years, not you. I bet they won’t consider a case asking if 223 is OK and 5.56 is not.

Source: https://www.hornadyle.com/resources...rence-between-556-nato-and-223-rem-ammunition

The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.

The second and most important difference between the two is the fact that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125” longer throat. This allows approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223 Remington cousin.

The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223 chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is 10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000 psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse, cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.

The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a 223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle with a 14.5” (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5” should function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.​

Bob Wilson

 

[Recoil45]

I'm OK with a super .32 cartridge since the chamber also has to handle the pressure. A whole new set of weapons in the smaller calibre works for me. But there may be a problem with military vs civilian ammunition of which cost is one.


Source: https://www.hornadyle.com/resources...rence-between-556-nato-and-223-rem-ammunition

The first difference is the higher pressure level of the 5.56 NATO cartridge which runs at approximately 58,000 psi. A 223 Remington is loaded to approximately 55,000 psi.

The second and most important difference between the two is the fact that a 5.56 NATO chamber has a .125” longer throat. This allows approximately one more grain of powder to be loaded into a 5.56 NATO cartridge; this is what gives it higher performance than its 223 Remington cousin.

The biggest problem with these differences is when firing a 5.56 NATO cartridge in a rifle chambered for 223 Rem. Due to the longer throat that the NATO chamber employs this combination will cause a 223 chambered weapon to run at approximately 65,000 psi or more. This is 10,000 psi higher than the 223’s normal functioning pressure of 55,000 psi. This is NOT safe and will cause primers to back out, or worse, cause harm to the operator, the rifle, or both.

The reverse of this is firing a 223 Rem cartridge in a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle. Due to the throat difference between the two chambers a 223 Rem cartridge may not work optimally in a 5.56 NATO chambered weapon. The cause of this is the lack of pressure built by a 223 Rem cartridge fired from a 5.56 NATO chamber. The 223’s 55,000 psi will not be attained and therefore velocity and performance are hurt. Problems start occurring when this combination is fired out of a 5.56 NATO chambered rifle with a 14.5” (or shorter) barrel. The lower powder charge of the 223 round coupled with the pressure drop that occurs when it is fired in a the 5.56 NATO chamber will cause the rifle to cycle improperly. NATO chambered rifles with barrels longer than 14.5” should function properly when firing 223 Rem ammunition.​

Bob Wilson

.223 is cheaper than military 5.56 in most all cases. Why would expect this to be different if we all switched to a different caliber?

If you developed a higher power .32 caliber cartridge that equaled the power of 9mm why are you OK with this?

Why aren’t you OK with 40 S&W if it is a non military civilian round? Do you also know it’s only slight more expensive than 9mm?

The spec for Military 5.56 does support slightly higher pressure, but military ammo cannot be hollow points where civilian rounds can be and they are far more deadly than military ball ammo. The vast majority of civilian .223 rifles also have hybrid chambers that can fire both.223 and 5.56 ammo. You can’t distinguish the two cartridges from each other.

None of this makes any sense..,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bwilson4web]

None of this makes any sense..,

In one respect we agree but with different objects. We do not share the same goal.

Dave Chappel thanked COVID for keeping the murderous mass shooters at home instead of what they were doing pre-COVID. It was on Saturday Night Live.

Bob Wilson

 

[Recoil45]

In one respect we agree but with different objects. We do not share the same goal.

Dave Chappel thanked COVID for keeping the murderous mass shooters at home instead of what they were doing pre-COVID. It was on Saturday Night Live.

Bob Wilson

The two are not connected.

Nothing you proposed would stop a mass shooting because it blames the tool not the underlying issue. Your approach to ending mass shootings is the exact reason we continue to have mass shootings.

Your deflection and lack of logical answers is noted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bwilson4web]

The two are not connected.

Nothing you proposed would stop a mass shooting because it blames the tool not the underlying issue. Your approach to ending mass shootings is the exact reason we continue to have mass shootings.

Your deflection and lack of logical answers is noted.

Your impotence is showing.

Bob Wilson

 

[bwilson4web]

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/525075...onsible-for-vote-counting-says-office-getting

The Republican city commissioner in Philadelphia whose office is responsible for counting votes in the city, said his staff has been receiving death threats since the count began there last week.

"From the inside looking out, it all feels very deranged," Al Schmidt said during an interview that aired Sunday on CBS News' 60 minutes. "At the end of the day, we are counting eligible votes, cast by voters. The controversy surrounding it, is something I don't understand."
. . .
Schmidt revealed in recent days, there have been "calls to our offices, reminding us that this is what the Second Amendment is for. People like us."

"That's it that's-- a not so veiled death threat," "60 Minutes" reporter Bill Whitaker said.

"Yes, for counting votes in a democracy," Schmidt replied.​

I've been a poll worker and inspector for 10 years, 2000-2010. It is a long, 14 hour day. But we've already seen criminal guns against elected leaders, a Bible study group, a Country Western crowd, and elementary school children. Now 'second amendment' threats against vote counters.

Which is better: ballots or bullets?

Bob Wilson

 

[R P]

I've been a poll worker and inspector for 10 years, 2000-2010. It is a long, 14 hour day. But we've already seen criminal guns against elected leaders, a Bible study group, a Country Western crowd, and elementary school children. Now 'second amendment' threats against vote counters.
Which is better: ballots or bullets?
Bob Wilson

First, I am not a gun enthusiast nor do I own a gun. But have been following this discussion out of curiosity, more about understanding people and their thinking than just the argument at hand. What strikes me, though, ironically, is almost everything BW says actually supports the need for citizens to carry arms to protect themselves against the nutcases and the lack of law and order in some parts of the US.