I don't know why we can't have a real debate in this country without opposing sides taking such extreme positions, making it impossible to find common ground. There is little respect for different viewpoints. I don't know why, it's how I learned a lot about things I didn't know about. It seems ignorant to me.
My History teacher is allowing me to do my whole year grade on a report about gun control. I've been gathering some information here from a sensible group that are in favor of more gun control. I have sensible people on the other side as well. I've written my outline and have a section devoted to the rise in mass shootings. What I've found in my research is that these types of rifles being used, high capacity high powered, were in abundance beginning in the 1960s, much more legally available to own and in greater numbers. So why the rise in shootings now? It's not because these guns just became available. Not taking a a position on banning them for this exercise, rather trying to find out why not what is doing it, they were always there so that's not it.
The rational choice theory on crime says something like most crime is committed when the benefit of the crime outweighs the risk of being caught. Not the case here, what do they want? Why are they doing it? I don't think it's mental illness, maybe some of the time, I believe it's because everyone has a need to be heard from now. I don't think it's even about fame because they are dead and won't realize or see it in most cases. The spread of new media technology has created a deep need in people to be heard, their points need to get across, dead or alive. And the point in which all of this was born was Columbine. The media coverage made it attractive to a large group of people. You still here people talking about them as a type of outlaw hero for the bullied. The amount of information and pro shooter websites about Columbine is mind boggling.
- And got the T-shirt
Congress also restricted research into gun deaths at the behest of the gun lobby. That's been in the news this week, and is probably pertinent to your paper.
The WHO (World Health Org) & OECD (Org for Economic Cooperation & Development) have some great databases of information. Something to really keep in mind is how increased reporting can masquerade as increased occurrences (for anything, not just gun violence).
Constant news coverage really came into play with the Challenger crash in 1986, on CNN, and then the Gulf War - this is actually how CNN really catapulted into the big time - hence "the CNN effect."
I actually disagree with you on a basic premise of your argument - while there is a huge amount of vitriol on the web, it provides a vital platform for communication, activism, and discussion. It's easy to throw your hands up in frustration that people are more divided now, or more set on infamy (look at Ted Kaczynski, who managed to have his 35,000 word manifesto published in the Post), but there is a tremendous amount of communication, discussion, and support on the internet. Just like it's provided an outpost for such sentiments, it's also provided a haven & solidarity for countless people (just look at this board).
I'm totally a nerd (in the best of ways, right?) about research papers. Good luck with yours!
I don't know if it was brought up here at all, but AR? It's the acronym for Armalite Rifle - a brand. An AR-15 is generally considered a modern Mauser Model 98 action - moving from a bolt action mechanism, to a gas impingement system.
High capacity magazines were not really perfected until the 80s, much less readily available like they are now, and definitely did not peak in the 60s. In terms of modern aluminum box detachable magazines (used for ARs), they were a result of ammunition production advances during/after Vietnam.
Federal magazine bans define high-capacity as greater than 10 rounds. For reference, my 9mm compact handgun has 12 in its included magazine (plus 1 chambered). Some states have (unsuccessfully, ultimately) banned down to 7 rounds.
Quick & dirty history: if you go back to WWI, the general consensus was "bigger is better" for firearm design, and stripper clips were used to top load multiple rounds directly into the firearm. Pretty high failure rates came from these, and if you ended up with dirt, for example, in your clip, you could end up manually loading rounds, one by one. So, WWII, the StG (Sturmgewehr) 44 was developed by Germany, and is considered the foremost modern assault rifle. Actually, the development & deployment of these rifles had a HUGE impact on how WWII shook down. In fact, the terminology "assault rifle" stems directly from the English translation of the brand name.
So, ultimately, to say that high capacity magazines & modern AR designs were available in the 60s would be correct - but not commonplace, and certainly not purchased/owned/etc on a greater scale than today. Greater access to and utilization of high tech metals have had a major impact here as well.
I really don’t want to argue this but you are arguing with me about something I do know about. Every other argument, theory and what not Ill listen to you but not regarding the firearms you are talking about, I own almost every one, given to me by my father, do you? And I was made to be able to field strip every one blindfolded. Not trying to be rude either, it took a couple years reading about all of them because it can be so confusing. I’m not looking up stuff about the AR and “assault rifles” I already know about them. It’s not the 1980’s. The class of rifles you are talking about started long before with the M1 carbine which came about after the Garand by designer John Garand in World War II, hence M1 Garand/M1 Carbine. And it was the 03 Springfield modeled after the Mauser. Go into the Germans and we go back further. They were available. The only one not available and banned before the 80s as every returning boy from Vietnam knew from seeing a sign before boarding his freedom flight that read AR ok – AK no way, about what they were allowed to bring back. You do know what the AK is? Kalashnikov, theres another genius designer. If you really do want to know the history of the AR I suggest you read The Black Rifle which every AR owner knows as the bible of the rifle.
Yes the class of rifles you are talking about were widely available. The M14 came before the m16 which was military version of AR – a Springfield M14 is an M1A It was fought with in Korea and brought into civilian use after Korea. I caution you about getting your information from Wikipedia on this stuff, not that you are but there is a lot of conflicting stuff out there and like I said hard to wade through. This isn’t a topic you can look up a couple of rifle names in an hour and know about it. I’m doing the report because I do know the one side, it’s the other I’m trying to understand.
And just like the articles you will find that say different things there is a reason, people just use terms. In the book The Black Rifle it is said the AR was called so for Automatic Rifle and 16 was Stoners last version that the Air force bought and the M is just what military designates to differentiate between civilian. However, the book also says it stood for Armalite Rifle, the name of Stoners company. It also says the kids in Vietnam called them Mattels, and they did call them that, but it wasn’t completely accurate. Drill Seargants always remind young soldiers take care of your rifle and remember it was made by the lowest bidder. It was wrongly rumored the toy company Mattel was a contractor, because it looked like a toy with plastic stocks, they weren’t. I can go on and on. Want to see, there was even another reason why they were called Mattels because the founder of Armalite was named Richard Boutel similar sounding to Mattel. But Illl stop here
Prior to the the Clinton years they were legal, very legal and very widely avaiable. The things I'm saying aren't opinions, they are facts that can be checked if you research the facts from the people that know about them, not people who don't and write articles about them. If you want to really know, spend time and read the history. Its out there.
Look I dind't invent them. I get it, you all hate and are afraid of them but they are here, were here . I'm trying to give you some facts that would actully help your argument but Ill stop
There was, however, an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands.
That's commonplace to me and in the 1950/60s you could buy M1 Carbines in Sears Roebuck without a permit. That' easily accessible to me. M1 Carbines has 30 round clips, the problem was size of ammunition, and stopping power on a battlefield, it had nothing to do with magazine perfection
I'm comfortable with my sources. I'll look at what you've brought up, and I absolutely acknowledge the depth & breadth of this subject - when I said "quick & dirty", I wasn't kidding. I'll add that there was wine involved & it was past my bedtime. I stand by my assertions, however.
If you have to preface something with "not to be rude...", you should probably reconsider your delivery. Statements like "I get that you all hate them & are afraid of them" are not particularly accurate, or helpful. Even though you are clearly versed in this topic, your delivery is very divisive (and you earlier questioned why people can't have constructive discussions).
I'm not going to inventory what firearms I have available to me, have used, or are in my possession - not on a public forum, or to someone I do not know. I have handled - or own - a great many of what have been discussed.
You don't have to listen to anything that I say. You state that you already know everything about them, so you're set, right?
Not a bad thing, mind you, just a natural progression that is hard to avoided.
There's a lot of good information here. Sometimes it helps to just pause, take a breath and step back a minute.
I don't think anyone here intentionally set out to attack, judge or hurt anyone's feelings. Everyone is putting forward their passion and defending it. This is such a complex issue. I applaud all of you for what you've taken the time to share, and hope this thread can continue with that even-toned sharing it started with.
Erin, your contributions here have been invaluable, IMHO. You have so much experience. It's not always the same experience as others here. But GL is big enough to hold multiple experiences without making any of them wrong. Please, take a break if you need one, but keep posting!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/pe ... s-this-year/
I think some gun control ideas have to do with protecting the gun owners themselves.
This site lists death after death of children.
"Every year, nearly 3000 children and teens die from gunfire, and nearly 14,000 are injured. "
Bernie voted against the Brady Bill and was a NRA favorite until launching presidential campaign when he stated not every state should have the same liberal firearm laws as Vermont.
In fairness, I believe the current laws were in place when he was elected but he did not make any effort to change them, as far as I know.
We do own guns. Two hunting riffles. One for smaller things, one for bigger things. We don't hunt. They are for the sole purpose of putting down a suffering animal if need be. On a farm, you need to be prepared.
I honnestly do not understand why someone would want to walk around armed. Americans are weird.
- And got the T-shirt
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/25/1436195/-Let-s-list ... uns-Part-Two
- For the Love of Pigs
What are your memories on this subject?