The .223 Used Again
Another horrible massacre, another high-powered rifle supported by the NRA used for the killing.
Chief Pickering also said that it was likely that the gunman used a semi-automatic rifle, one of three weapons recovered from the shooting scene, to kill the firefighters. He identifed the semi-automatic as a .223 Bushmaster rifle, the same weapon used in the school massacre in Newtown, Conn.
At the very least, can we make the ownership of this gun illegal?
Brutusettu:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
I think we’re all forgetting that the .223 isn’t even the most powerful caliber there is and some journalist somewhere called the AK-74 an “AK-47, a type of machine gun” plus mobile artillery are called tanks all the time by journalist and that shooter probably played video games, watched the History Channel at least once, is aware that there are atheist, truthfully didn’t pray in the streets enough like those good Pharisees, and probably shot at zombie targets, ergo arm the teachers and janitors.
Soylenth:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I’m curious how carrying a handgun would protect someone from a sniper. Or does the threat of snipers warrant drones circling the head of every citizen, ready to launch rockets in response to sniper fire?
Adam Ek:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
A Bushmaster .223 is not an assault rifle or a machine gun. It’s a practical hunting rifle for ranchers and farmers to kill coyotes, woodchucks and other vermin.
As a convicted felon it was already illegal for the shooter in this article to own firearms. More firarms laws are not going to stop this problem. Enforcement of the existing laws are what’s needed.
Hogan:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
And let’s not forget the literally thousands of times every day that Bushmaster .223s are used defensively, thus in the course of less than ten years saving the lives of every single American. Why do you want to see every single American dead? Is that an America you want to live in?
Voice of reason:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
It’s apparent that Erik knows little about the subject matter.
Anonymous:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
And everyone can start turning the gun and not substitute it with the next best thing.
wjts:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
I think we’re all forgetting that the .223 isn’t even the most powerful caliber there is…
Good point. Hell, somebody should probably go check – I bet those firefighters are still alive.
wjts:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
It’s a practical hunting rifle for ranchers and farmers to kill coyotes, woodchucks and other vermin.
Vermin like firefighters and kindergarteners?
Turbulence:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Convicted felons in NY can fill out a form and request that the state allow them to own firearms again. Provided that they haven’t been convicted of new crimes since their release, the state usually does so.
Hugo Torbet:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
But you won’t change his mind with reasoned analysis. Nor can you change the minds of all of the other people who permit their emotions to convince themselves that the way to address social problems is to abridge the Constitution. These folks have no use for facts.
One guy, allegedly, tried to bring a shoe bomb onto a plane. Now everyone must submit to shoe removal at the airport gate. This is emblematic of how America makes law today.
RepubAnon:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Another argument against the need for not-quite-military-grade hardware for self defense: New Orleans and the Danziger Bridge shootings.
These were trained police officers – imagine what would have happened if a bunch of heavily-armed civilians were thrown into the mix – on both sides? Panicked armed citizens fleeing their homes confronted by other panicked armed civilians defending their homes.
How would the news reports characterize whether the dead were members of armed gangs or heroic homeowners defending their families?
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Or “slap drones” ala Iain Banks’ novels. Tiny flying androids that hover near known criminals, waiting for them to do something wrong, in which case they take appropriate action.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Yes, that’s why the US military uses .223 rifles that are identical apart from the rate of fire.
Because they expect the troops to encounter nothing mroe dangerous than an enraged marmot.
Incontinentia Buttocks:
December 25th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
If man-cards are oulawed, only outlaws will have man-cards!
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
You seem to have abridged the “well regulated militia” right out of the Constitution, replacing it in your mind with “any yahoo who gets off on pretending to be a soldier”.
RepubAnon:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
I’d be interested in more information on the “thousands of times each day that the AR-15 is used defensively. Are you counting the number of drug dealers who “defend themselves” from other drug dealers (or from the police) with AK-47s and AR-15s? How about all the US citizens killed or wounded from stray bullets?
Here’s an idea: let’s give the Centers for Disease Control back the ability to conduct studies on whether firearms ownership saves more lives than it costs. Oh, that’s right, the gun lobby adamantly opposes non-biased studies on this topic.
Here’s another idea: let’s ban marketing agreements between firearms manufacturers and video game companies.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
You can’t illegally obtain a firearm that doesn’t exist. You can’t steal an AR-15 that isn’t in the home you’re burgling.
delurking:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
+1
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Didn’t Indiana just pass a law making it legal to “stand your ground” against police?
And of course there’s also the problem of home invaders falsely claiming to be police, and police who don’t identify themselves during no-knock raids.
Simon:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Eric, this is one of your most uniformed post. If this post was meant to be just a rant and not a serious policy proposal, it should be label as such. Banning just one caliber or just one type of .223 rifle is not going to do anything. He could have used a different cartridge or a different rifle with the same result. This rant resembles some of the right wing rants that you frequently, and often hilariously excerpt
Major Kong:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
It’s not the most powerful, but it combines power, accuracy, low recoil, plus it’s small and light enough to carry a bunch of them.
It’s a lot of killing power in a small package and it doesn’t take a lot of practice to shoot it well.
A 7.62 (.308 Winchester) is a more powerful round but you can’t carry nearly as many and it’s difficult to shoot them quickly because of the recoil.
The old M-14 was supposed to be very difficult to fire on full auto for that reason.
Major Kong:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
True, but a .223 semi-auto with multiple 30-round magazines is designed to let you put as much lead downrange in the shortest possible time.
We could at least limit the amount of firepower available for this sort of thing.
DocAmazing:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Maybe Wayne Pierre is on to something with his video game blather.
We might see his head on a joystick.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
It’s interesting that pro-gun-control statements bring out the gun nerds.
The nitpicking about details reminds me of ultra-anal Trek fans complaining that a writer got some obscure detail wrong in the discussion about the episode “The Corbomite Maneuver”, or Star Wars nerds arguing about proper details for a replica lightsaber.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
And of course it can be widened to encompass other calibers and types of .223 rifle. I hardly think Eric would oppose that.
DocAmazing:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
There’s some truth to this. There are .223 bolt-action rifles on the market, and even single-shot .223 target pistols. The ammo isn’t the issue.
Again, if you think this is nit-picking, tell it to the NRA’s lawyers–they triumph over badly written laws due to inaccuracies. Second, your credibility with the gun-owning public suffers–imagine if I, as a pedestrian and bicyclist, called for banning 91-octane gasoline because it is used by street racers.
Call for a ban on the AR-15, by all means. Call for a ban on Bushmaster products. Calling for a ban on a specific type of cartridge is pretty wide of the mark.
c u n d gulag:
December 25th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
The killer used this gun, because he wasn’t an idiot – he was a killer, who wanted to kill.
And it’s a lot easier killing people with one of these, then trying to bludgeon them to death with a game controller.
Vance Maverick:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
So how does buying one constitute a reissuance of one’s man card? Woodchucks are not very impressive mounted as trophies.
N__B:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
But if they could chuck wood, they would be.
Vance Maverick:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
If your objection is literally only that Erik had some facts wrong, then straighten him out constructively, with reference to his words. (Was “high-powered” somehow technically inapt?) On the other hand, if your objection is actually to the policy tendency of his remark, then lay that out likewise.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
And hunting rifles often use larger calibers. .308 Winchester is essentially the same size as the 7.62mm fired by the AK-47 or the M-60 machine gun.
herr doktor bimler:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Eric, this is one of your most uniformed post
The epaulettes and the medals really made it stand out.
Chris Walsh:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
A .223 was not used in Connecticut. Watch your liberal news source on this as they had more than 15 errors on their “news” coverage.
If you want to disregard our constitution, how about you get the fuck out of here? Maybe Australia where crimes have SOARED without guns? Stupid trash ass people.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
“The old M-14 was supposed to be very difficult to fire on full auto for that reason.”
Well, it also didn’t come standard with the forward grip, pistol grip, and other goodies that the AR has, though I guess you can get them for M-14s these days.
herr doktor bimler:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
“Pancakes for the sluttiest lie-a-beds!”
Sly:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
This is probably the dumbest argument in all of the gun control discussion. “Because X can be used for Y, it follows that X must be legal because Y is legal.” You know what else is really good for clearing out coyotes and wild rabbits? Hand grenades.
To effectively hunt vermin or small game, you need a weapon that fires at a flat trajectory and has low recoil. The AR-15 platform gives you that. It also gives you a high rate of fire and high capacity magazine support, neither of which are all that useful for shooting prairie dogs but they evidently come in real handy if your goal is to mow down a room full of six year olds or a crowded movie theater.
Plus, the Bushmaster gives you the look, feel, and utility of the M4 carbine. It does that because it was designed to do that. None of which is useful for killing ground hogs or first graders, but does provide weird sexual validation.
xxy:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Question: Why is the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. Constitution? Exactly what right is established by the 2nd Amendment? Were the 18th amendment still in force, would you follow it or leave the country? What about a constitutional amendment that repealed the 2nd? Be specific.
sharculese:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Whereas derailing any conversation by indignantly stammering about ‘emotionalism’ is the sign of cold cold Vulcan logic.
sharculese:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
That is so less masturbatory than sniveling about gun grabbers, though.
Major Kong:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
A .270 is equally practical for hunting vermin but I guess it doesn’t come with a man card.
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Or NRA induced premanent traumatic brain damage. My bet is on the latter.
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
You mean like the 600,000 stolen from private owners and the 30,000 that are stolen (or “lost”) from federally licensed dealers each year? Certainly makes me feel all warm and safe.
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Hell, a .22LR is good enough for most varmits. My hillbilly grandfather preferred his 12-guage.
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Well, none of these gun nuts would qualify for a real “man card”, with or without gun. Just a bunch of WATBs cowering under their beds, shitting themselves every time there is a loud noise.
Eli Rabett:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Eli has another suggestion, learn how to jerk off and you will feel more serene and less threatened.
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Wow! Incoherent, all caps, and counterfactual all in one comment. I am impressed. You win deranged moron of the week, sir!
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Yes, crime in Australia “soared” from a small number to a somewhat larger small number, thus producing a large percentage increase.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
You could even use a bow and arrow, but then you’d need the upper-body strength to pull at least a 20 pound recurve.
Leeds man:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Chris thinks the Constitution came with the Amendments in the original written by Jesus. See, it’s with a capital A, which means something other than “amendment”.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
I’m glad to see people coming around to my way of thinking: 300 million guns have inexplicably failed to stop the gun violence in our country, and the logical answer is: hand grenades.
pop:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Thirty years on the farm, and I nor anyone I know has ever said they were going woodchuck hunting. For us, hunting was reserved for animals you intended to eat whereas varmits were killed because they are a nuisance. I killed many a woodchuck as a boy and young man and no one I know ever used an AR-15 or other faux military rifle. Maybe because for us it was just another chore instead of a an opportunity to get one’s jollies.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Hey, pancake lover: eat some Wikipedia:
Oh, and just to help you out: a further quote, this one from the one of the sources cited at Wikipedia:
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
It’s not crime that keeps me out of Australia.
It’s all the fucking venomous creatures.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
to be fair, at least one isn’t native.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
I can think of at least one opinion leader and NRA Lifetime Member who disagrees with you:
Eck!:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
First try and get an M14. There are very few in public hands. The Military still uses them. The M14 is a the full auto in the same caliber as M1 Garand(WW2)with a few other changes. The caliber is the 30-06 same as the Springfield (WW1) rifle.
The .308 is similar and also high powered.
I’d consider the recoil notable but not uncontrollable but then never fired the M14 but then again the perps that committed the crimes didn’t shoot a machine gun either.
FYI: the AR15 platform (or those evil black rifles that look alike) are available in every caliber from .22 up to big bore sizes. The .223 is common and has the most utility as a defensive and varmint weapon. A 30/30 lever gun is
very close in power for short range and fire rates even for the 1894 versions
can match most semi autos.
For all intents though the shooter can do as much damage with the often considered lowly .22 cal rifle. Or start havoc with a can of gas.
One small, little thing. The felon did 17 years for murder in the one case and back
on the streets. What are the odds he would again?
Eck!
Leeds man:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
I think he meant wodents and wabbits. Heh heh.
Chet Murthy:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.
Eck!:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Jon, If your going to write laws some knowledge is useful. OR you can trust it to the ones that think a barrel shroud is the thing that goes up.
FYI even the .223(busmaster) and the 5.56 (mil/nato)are not fully interchangeable as the chamber shape is different and wrong ammo in one can damage the firearm.
Of course if someone bans the .223 and stops there and XYZ gun company make a .226 it’s legal maybe and also unintended consequence.
How about we ban the evil black rifle and all, is a mini-14 or maybe a long list of others in wood trim ok? For those non-gun people, look up Ruger mini-14.
If you going to want laws and most here will do not one thing further than vote for their favorite guy you might what to at least hope he knows the difference between a bullet and a cartridge. After all the gun free zone this surely doesn’t work.
Eck!
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
You are deliberately using minutia to obscure the issue we are actually talking about: rapid-firing high-capacity weapons designed to be fired from the hip are useful only in killing a large number of human beings. Even in terms of self-defense, they’re only really useful in a sustained firefight, perhaps with multiple opponents. The only reason these exist in the civilian market is to feed peoples’ fantasies of fighting off the government, or perhaps roving bands of thugs or zombies in a situation where there is no government. These features aren’t useful in hunting, in scaring off a burglar, or in other legitimate purposes. The precise details of the caliber and the wood trim simply aren’t interesting, or relevant.
Pinko Punko:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Anyone remember the Beltway sniper used a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223?
Imagine what Bushmaster’s ad agency has to work with.
asdfsdf:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Might as well get your facts straight. The M-14 is in 7.62mm NATO, which is 7.62x51mm. The M1 and BAR were in .30-06, which is 7.62x63mm. .30-06 is a long-range caliber suitable for sniping, but not really good for automatic fire without a heavy platform. The NATO ball ammos were designed for shorter ranges and lower recoil. The M14 went along with the various new NATO weapons of the 1950s and 60s, using 20 round magazines and medium-high powered rounds. Anything larger than 7.62×51 is sniper or big game ammo.
The M16 and friends came about when the militaries decided that 7.62×51 was *still* too powerful for most battles, and a lighter round was necessary.
asdfsdf:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Shrapnel is difficult to see, and thus lacks the proper deterrence effect. I propose White Phosphorus grenades. And god help the UN, they can pry my “chemical weapons” from my cold, dead hands.
GFW:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
To be fair, an enraged marmot is on a par with an enraged wallaby.
Leeds man:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Do. Not. Dictate. Commenting. Protocol. To. Commenters. Unless. It. Is. Your. Blog.
Bill Cross:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Elmer Fudd used an Acme double barrel to shoot his varmints
GFW:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Damn, I didn’t realize those numbers were so big. Mandating the use of big heavy gun safes wouldn’t violate the Second Amendment. Neither would a registry/database (encrypted in a way that makes tracing guns possible, but preserves the privacy of law-abiding gun owners).
TruthOfAngels:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
FTFY, dickweed.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
His quarry always escaped unharmed, thus proving the need for more and bigger guns to solve the gun violence problem. Or, failing that, hand grenades.
Bill Cross:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
My favorite in this vein is Patton Oswalt’s Physics for Pets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGk-4m1PFo4
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
He may have meant squirrels, which are a rodent and quite tasty.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
That’s not “30,000 lost or stolen” – it’s 30,000 lost or stolen from just 10% of gun dealers. I don’t know how those dealers were chosen – maybe they were the biggest, or the shadiest – but you can multiply that 30,000 by a few.
The absurd thing is, though: the numbers still add up to less than a million a year, a number that would be gobsmackingly enormous even if they were something harmless of comparable value (iPads, say) instead of killing machines – but 1 million per year is still a fraction of one percent of all guns in the country each year.
TruthOfAngels:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Also, the call to invade Poland. Speaking for myself, it’s a bit chilly there right now, but maybe next year.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
No, that was Huckabee
TruthOfAngels:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Answer: Because of the British.
Answer: The right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia.
Answer: it’s not.
Answer: Yes.
Cheers then.
GFW:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Bingo. Most burglars are scared off by motion activated lights, which are really cheap. But even if one were dealing with an exceptionally persistent burglar, the best home defense weapon would have high stopping power with limited potential to go through two walls (so you don’t hurt your neighbors). Hence, probably a shotgun with buckshot. The .223 is simply not designed for home defense.
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Right. Because the original was developed and designed by the military to deliver a high rate of fire in combat situations against human beings.
Random:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
“For all intents though the shooter can do as much damage with the often considered lowly .22 cal rifle. Or start havoc with a can of gas.”
Plenty of countries with no guns but readily available cans of gas, they just tend to have fewer murders per capita.
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
We seem to have a few of those in this thread.
Sherm:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Absolutely correct. The only prey one hunts with such a weapon is humans. Ban the fucking things.
Random:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
“One guy, allegedly, tried to bring a shoe bomb onto a plane. Now everyone must submit to shoe removal at the airport gate. This is emblematic of how America makes law today.”
If around 40,000 Americans were killed every single year with shoe bombs, nobody would argue the utility of making people take them off before boarding a plane. Please learn to count before making dumb arguments.
N__B:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
“All the most famous murderous scum use ours…”
Random:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
It violates the 2nd Amendment not to track the actual gun owners themselves. The 2nd Amendment clearly mandates that you know who has the guns and how many guns and what condition the guns are in.
Murc:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
I believe, but am not certain, that the Indiana law simply makes it explicitly legal to resist violently if the police are committing crimes against you, the same as you’d be allowed to do is any other citizen did.
I personally don’t have a problem with this, assuming my understanding of said law is correct.
Leeds man:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Yes, but havoc! Bastard might have dogs as well.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
I had assumed (and haven’t checked) that the Beltway Sniper used single aimed shots at long range – i.e. what you could do with a weapon perfectly suited to hunting, and not designed for mass murder. If he happened to use a weapon poorly suited for this purpose, or better suited for mass-murder, it might speak to the militaristic marketing of the weapon but still wouldn’t be relevant to the way that weapon is designed to shoot multiple people at fairly short range. I don’t think we really want to start a debate about hunting rifles.
anthony:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
From the Australian Institute of Criminiology’s 2011 Australian Crime – Facts and Figures
• Overall, the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996. In 1996, there were 354 victims of homicide in Australia compared with 260 in 2010. This is a decrease of 27 percent.
• Since 1996, assault has been the category of violent crime with the greatest number of victims annually. In 2010, 171,083 people were the victim of assault in Australia.
• The number of victims of robbery in 2010 is the lowest on record since 1996, with 14,582 victims. Robbery victim numbers peaked in 2001 with 26,591 victims.
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
But you already had those rights, didn’t you? Doesn’t that make the law just a rather repellent example of anti-government paranoia?
Thers:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
If your going to write laws
If you going to want laws
Maybe you should not be writing anything.
DrDick:
December 25th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Now don’t go confusing the poor boy with your silly facts. He can’t even hold one thought in his head at a time.
joe from Lowell:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
It’s a semiautomatic rifle. I’m not sure why you’re throwing around irrelevant terminology.
What exactly does this sentence mean? You can use this rifle to kill coyotes, woodchucks, and other small animals? Ok, we’ve now confirmed that it’s a rifle…and? So are the many, many varieties of bolt-action rifles that don’t have high-capacity magazines inserted into them.
Snarki, child of Loki:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
I, for one, welcome our new enraged marmot overlords.
After the Obummer orgy of gun-confiscation, that is.
Snarki, child of Loki:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
“Ain’t you a stinker?”
Snarki, child of Loki:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Okay, you can keep the .223 semi-auto, but only if you use 30-06 ammo in it.
Satisfied now?
Snarki, child of Loki:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Saltwater crocodiles aren’t venomous.
Not that it matters.
joe from Lowell:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
These episodes make their guns more attractive to Bushmaster’s target audience.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
The AR-15 is probably easier to manage in the close confines of a car trunk.
I don’t think the ranges were terribly long, probably not more than a couple hundred yards. It’s just that the cover they used (the car_ made it hard to see who was shooting or where it was coming from.
joe from Lowell:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Nor are great white sharks.
I imagine that’s small comfort, though.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
“Jon, If your going to write laws some knowledge is useful.”
I wasn’t aware that blogs had become part of the process of drafting legislation.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Unfortunately, the people most likely to invoke this law in their own defense are the type who would open fire on police for “attempting to enforce Agenda 21″ when they’re just responding to a domestic disturbance next door.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Apparently when Clint Eastwood used a lever-action 1860 Henry rifle in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, he was being an effete, gun-hating liberal ready to kneel before government power.
Linnaeus:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Seconded. My mother and stepfather live in a semi-rural area where there are coyotes, foxes, and whatnot that could menace the small dogs they own. My stepfather owns several guns, among them a Ruger Mini-14 (which fires the .223 Remington cartridge). I asked him, jokingly, if that was meant for the coyotes and he replied that that would be overkill. He uses his Ruger 10/22 (chambered for .22 LR) for varmints and says that’s more than enough to deal with them.
Pinko Punko:
December 25th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Guess what, he used a Bushmaster and it was not designed for long range. He was a nutso shooting people out of his car trunk. Didn’t have to be that far away. Also was not shooting people from movie sniper type vantage points.
Jon H:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
“A 30/30 lever gun is
very close in power for short range and fire rates even for the 1894 versions
can match most semi autos.”
True, but tubular magazine lever-actions have smaller magazine capacity, and are significantly slower to reload since a full magazine can’t be swapped in so bullets have to be fed in one by one.
And it probably takes a lot of practice with a lever action to get anywhere close to the firing rate of an AR-15 with any kind of accuracy.
Major Kong:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
The military uses high capacity magazines because most shots fired in actual combat are intended to pin the enemy down.
Artillery is what does most of the killing. Infantry pins them down with small arms fire and then calls in the heavy stuff on them.
I can think of few instances in civilian life where I might need to “fire to suppress”.
Major Kong:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
I’m sure it’s all too easy for the police to arrange things after the fact so that they weren’t committing crimes against you.
Linnaeus:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Careful – someone’s bound to point out that the 7.62 mm cartridge that the AK-47 uses is slightly different than the 7.62 NATO cartridge that the M-60 uses. Not that it really matters in this particular discussion.
2liberal:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
LINK for URI president comment re: loomis and NRA
somewhat OT but also somewhat related
“In Sunday’s statement, Dooley writes that the university believes Loomis’s remarks are intemperate and inflammatory, but also constitutionally protected.”
sparks:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
I see what you did there.
Erik Loomis:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
OMG, I almost hate to bring up these gun issues precisely because so many commenters will indeed make a big deal out of something like this. Similarly, although I love teaching the Civil War course because I can set the agenda, I hate talking about the Civil War with random people for this basic reason.
Hogan:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Let me introduce you to Hyperbole. I’m sure you’ve met, but you appeared not to reocgnize him up there.
timb:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
Erik does know a lot about trolls and their love of pancakes.
I too love pancakes, especially with a side of home fires
timb:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
+2
Read the Heller decision, gun nut, even ol’ Nino believes the Constitution gives the government powers to regulate the hell of out of guns
timb:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
I liked my BB gun for varmints
Linnaeus:
December 25th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Yeah, I got tired of gun discussions at places like Daily Kos precisely because of all the pedantry.
The Dark Avenger:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
In an era of Gigabytes, he’s a 4K type of person.
gilgamesh:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Loomis adores the imperious nature of classroom protocols it’s a safer environment .
RhZ:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
chemical weapons are ‘arms’, right?
Harrumpf on the white phosphorus, too.
DocAmazing:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
I used to work retail. I remember well “losing” a few choice items from time to time. I wasn’t registered with the Feds at that time, though; seems pretty amazing that a guy with a federal firearms license wouldn’t lose it after such high-profile carelessness (or “carelessness”).
RhZ:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Yes. From my thinking (knowing little about guns to be honest) the two biggest issues are large magazines and semi-automatic or automatic capabilities.
I think these issues are much more important than caliber, and I suspect people here would largely agree with me.
DocAmazing:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Fred Hampton might have had something to say on the subject.
DocAmazing:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
You want legislation, get used to minutia and pedantry. Or is that still “concern trolling”?
Origami Isopod:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Speaky, just come out of the closet already, wouldja? It gets better!
Erik Loomis:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Actually I adore run-on sentences.
Linnaeus:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
No, it’s not concern trolling, and I wasn’t accusing you or anyone else of that. There’s a difference between saying what you’ve been saying and what I’ve run into on other forums.
RhZ:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
The comments or tweets weren’t intemperate or inflammatory at all, but I expect that Erik will be satisfied with that statement.
Pestilence:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
I thought we exiled him to Chios?
Origami Isopod:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
http://i49.tinypic.com/xn94bl.png
Warren Terra:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Semicolons can be your friends. Based on your comment, I’m guessing you could use some friends.
Also: with a semicolon your comment would parse; even so, I’m not sure what its meaning was intended to be.
DocAmazing:
December 25th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
The precise details of the caliber and the wood trim simply aren’t interesting, or relevant.
Yet these are the sorts of things that find their way into legislation, thanks to lawmakers who don’t bother to study what they’re making laws about (see also: Healthcare). The Assault Weapons Ban was unpopular and less-effective exactly because so much of it was devoted to banning scary-looking things, like pistol grips and flash-hiders, and not paying attention to ways to get around the useful parts (it was, for example, quite legal to purchase all of the components of high-capacity magazines, but not legal to buy one assembled). Again, if you’re just off-gassing, write whatever you like, but if you’re interested in effecting real change, you need to pay attention to details. Additionally, there is a large shooting public who would support some firearms restriction as long as you don’t spook them. Making sweeping uninformed statements spooks them; so does using words like “ban”. If Uncle Ted with the old .30-30 lever action thinks that firearms laws are being made by people who a) don’t know enough about firearms to leave his old rifle alone, or b) want to snatch his old rifle, then Uncle Ted is going to vote for Wayne LaPierre’s candidates. That is not a preferable outcome.
RhZ:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
People play with trolls around here, Chet. We eat them with pancakes or my favorite, waffles.
Don’t ask me to explain, I couldn’t. But that’s how it works.
joe from Lowell:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Safer than getting shot at by a gun nut with his .223 semiautomatic rifle?
Well, yeah.
DocAmazing:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
He’s trained his students to rush the shooter.
Murc:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
There’s some doubt about that, actually. Prosecutors have successfully convicted people on the grounds that if the cops, without a warrant, toss flash-bangs in your windows and storm your home without announcing themselves, YOU are guilty of all sorts of crimes if you defend yourself.
The Cory Maye prosecution is one example of this.
Basically, there is legitimate concern that cops, abetted by prosecutors, are trying to embed legal standards that basically say if you carry a badge, you can do no wrong. It is reasonable to push back against this legislatively.
BigHank53:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
I’m sure that law will make you feel much better, too, after the cops call the SWAT team and shoots you thirty or forty times.
Maybe your heirs will feel better.
DocAmazing:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI4v_8gjW04
Thers:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Remember: these are exactly the same semi-literates who expect you to have a hidden handgun on you as you teach.
I know. It’s weird!
BigHank53:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
It’s not that hard to sight in a Bushmaster at a couple hundred yards. The .223 is a sub-optimal cartridge for long-range use–it’s a light bullet and tends to get blown around. It also loses velocity and drops quickly at extended range. Had John Muhammad been seriously interested in sniping, he would have purchased (or stolen) a Remington 700, a popular bolt-action hunting rifle. One of its variants is the M24, which is the US military’s sniper rifle.
It seems pretty apparent the Bushmaster was selected for its resemblance to the M16, and its concommitant penile enhancement.
Keaaukane:
December 25th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
I don’t always go on crazed murder sprees, but when I do…
mds:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:04 am
I think we can all agree that if only the Enterprise had been sufficiently heavily armed, Kirk wouldn’t have had to converse with a creepy dwarf.
Warren Terra:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:04 am
There is a real question about pistol grips, which were the point of my line about shooting from the hip; this is the purpose of a pistol grip. Other than that, a lot of what you describe is the result not of incompetence but of sabotage: it was politically unfeasible to ban the extended magazines that have no purpose other than warfare and mass slaughter, so the ban on the sale of newly manufactured extended magazines was fatally flawed in a number of respects.
Davis X. Machina:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:05 am
Troll blintzes, too. With sour cream.
herr doktor bimler:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:26 am
Dogs are fine until someone slips them.
DrDick:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:37 am
My thought exactly.
DrDick:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:40 am
Yes.
DrDick:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:44 am
+1,000,000
herr doktor bimler:
December 26th, 2012 at 3:12 am
Or dropbears.
Speak Truth:
December 26th, 2012 at 8:22 am
One small, little thing. The felon did 17 years for murder in the one case and back on the streets. What are the odds he would again?
LGM Commenters: “Who knew?”
Speak Truth:
December 26th, 2012 at 8:28 am
Here’s the question no one is asking: “If the assault weapon ban is passed, would it have prevented any of these murders?”
The ban was law for 10 years and yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that it prevented anything. In fact Columbine happened during that ban.
What can you offer up that shows that an “assault weapon” ban would be more effective that it was in the past?
And if you can’t, why would anyone wish to give up an explicit constitutional right if it doesn’t help anything?
bradP:
December 26th, 2012 at 8:41 am
The end game is extremely tough here and will be a complete failure with that kinda “whack-a-mole” regulation. I don’t know much about guns, but it seems like this Bushmaster .223 is a pretty popular gun, and I’m guessing a lot of that popularity has to do with its niche of edging up against existing gun regulations. Banning it may just cause the sales of a minutely less lethal weapon to skyrocket.
A cursory glimpse at past prohibition efforts shows that simply making something illegal will not take it out of circulation. And if it something our society really has an affinity for, the costs of trying to remove it from circulation could have much, much higher social costs than tolerating it.
N__B:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:04 am
Woman’s voice-over: All my spree killers wear Bushmasters…or they wear nothing at all.
Belle Waring:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:18 am
The bolt-action version of the .223 might be a good rifle to shoot varmints with. But if you need a Bushmaster semi-automatic with an extended magazine, and a grip that looks like it last saw action in Ramadi to shoot a goddamn woodchuck, you’re a dumbass and you should give up farming or ranching while there’s still time for someone to gently lead you inside when it rains, so’s you don’t drown. Christ, my dad can shoot a mouse in the eye with a .22 and you don’t see him whining about needing a semi-automatic. He just stays up all night reading and cradling the gun, with a bunch of saltines crunched up on the ground, like a real American. Something I suspect you wouldn’t know anything about, Adam.
Speak Truth:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:19 am
Eat Up!
Speak Truth:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:22 am
Convicted felons in NY can fill out a form and request that the state allow them to own firearms again.
Few conservative states give felons their rights back…and for good reason.
Speak Truth:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:24 am
You’re gonna LOVE THIS
bradP:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:34 am
They are embarrassed they couldn’t kill them?
spencer:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:35 am
And yet he was still able to get his hands on a gun.
Just like the (apparently) mentally ill Adam Lanza, who was unable to buy a gun legally in Connecticut and therefore had to steal legally-purchased guns from his mother.
The gun laws we have just do not work, period. Guns still somehow manage to find their way from legit owners to people bent on using them for mass murder. The only laws that could have prevented Adam Lanza from getting his hands on those guns he took to Sandy Hook Elementary would be laws that prevented his “law abiding” mother from getting them as well.
Do you not see how your own arguments make the case for much tighter controls on guns generally?
bradP:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Not Erik, specifically. He has apparently played too many violent medieval games to be trusted with a gun.
spencer:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:37 am
As a convicted felon it was already illegal for the shooter in this article to own firearms.
What about Adam Lanza, who was a) not a felon, and b) still couldn’t manage to purchase a gun and therefore had to steal his law-abiding mother’s legally-purchased guns?
Stricter gun laws sure as shit would have prevented *that* shooting – or at the very least, made it a hell of a lot less bloody.
Woodrowfan:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:37 am
and French Toast. None of that “Freedom Toast” stuff either, it’s FRENCH toast!!!!
Speak Truth:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:41 am
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
spencer:
December 26th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Much of New York is actually fairly conservative.
Hogan:
December 26th, 2012 at 10:00 am
Yes, the NRA would never stand for that.
Linnaeus:
December 26th, 2012 at 10:28 am
That may very well be the case. My stepfather made a similar point to me the other day; he said that you could stop making guns tomorrow, but there’s so many already out there that they’d continue to circulate. He’s not against gun regulation at all, but worries that it may be too late for some kinds of regulation.
It’s possible that American society has just become too inured to gun violence. Particularly if it’s happening in other people’s neighborhoods.
bradP:
December 26th, 2012 at 10:46 am
That’s pretty much where I’m at.
Any sort of ban is going to be met with complete defiance by many, and the police are going to have to have some enforcement with teeth to make the ban meaningful.
At that point, gun rights aren’t the only rights we should be concerning ourselves with.
Woodrowfan:
December 26th, 2012 at 10:55 am
what if the Redcoats come back Mr. Smartpants Liebrul!
Woodrowfan:
December 26th, 2012 at 10:56 am
I believe that actually was a child with an adult doing a voice-over, and I just did the Trek Nerd thing, ARGH!!!
joe from Lowell:
December 26th, 2012 at 11:18 am
Depends on how it is written. The 1994 AWB was a weak, pointless piece of legislation, and it probably wouldn’t have prevented squat.
Now, a ban on semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines – a real assault weapons ban – would be a different story.
The efficacy of actual assault weapons bans in other countries, like Australia.
Walt:
December 26th, 2012 at 11:18 am
We need stricter laws because apparently fine upstanding gun-owners like yourself can’t help but provide them to criminals.
Bufflars:
December 26th, 2012 at 11:27 am
Very nice!
Hogan:
December 26th, 2012 at 11:45 am
You always stop just before the good part:
bradP:
December 26th, 2012 at 11:53 am
The homicide and robbery rates had been trending down for decades prior to the 1996 gun legislation, and estimates of compliance to the gun legislation are around 20%.
Speak Truth:
December 26th, 2012 at 11:55 am
Do you not see how your own arguments make the case for much tighter controls on guns generally?
Yes, but there is a constitutional right for individuals to possess these weapons and yet in your argument, you don’t address this. It’s like it’s so inconvenient to your agenda that you pretend it isn’t there. Also, there is no mention of the role of the system that won’t allow for forced hospitalization of the crazies.
So, it doesn’t appear that you’re really interested in solving the problem, but rather have zeroed in on banning something and are using these murders as a convenient way to politicize and promote your anti-gun agenda.
Fortunately, the second amendment protects me from people like you.
Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than my guns.
Malaclypse:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Yes, but there is a constitutional right for individuals to possess these weapons
My kingdom for a better quality of troll.
Speak Truth:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
If you believe that authorities will ban everything but muzzleloading muskets, you’re dreaming, son.
The trend has been to relax gun laws, not tighten them. D.C., Chicago, concealed carry across the nation.
While the court didn’t rule it out…ain’t gonna happen.
Malaclypse:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Shorter JenBob: the fact that even Scalia says the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right is further proof that it is indeed an unlimited right. This is central to my point.
joe from Lowell:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Even under Heller, there is no constitutional right to possess “these weapons.”
Also note that the Court provided no guidance on what “dangerous and unusual weapons” might mean, leaving it up to the legislature to define.
Hogan:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Ted Kennedy’sLaura Bush’s car killed more people than my guns.Updated that reference for you.
Spud:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
It could be used to fend off the advances of Squirrel Girl who somehow is one of the most insanely powerful characters of the Marvel Universe
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquirrelGirl
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13178126820A17960100&page=0
Spud:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Stricter laws would have kept Lanza’s mom from stockpiling weapons the way she did.
If the assault rifle wasn’t in general circulation to begin with, Lanza would not have been able to steal it.
Spud:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
+1
witless chum:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
It might be motivated by that, but putting that explicitly into the law might not be such a bad thing anyways.
witless chum:
December 26th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Or a dog barking.
My dog sounds like the one from The Sandlot, though he’s really just 65 pound golden/shepherd/??? mix with a somewhat overexpansive sense of his pack’s territory. I’m sure he contributes much more to my lack of being burgled than my 12 gauge, unloaded in the back of the closet does.
witless chum:
December 26th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Yeah, this is where I think we are, too. But I’m not sure it means we shouldn’t start trying to take some steps to try to reverse the trend. Banning or heavily restricting large capacity magazines seems like the place to start, as it wouldn’t really infringe on hunting guns. Making our spree killers reload more often isn’t much, but it’s something.
DrDick:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Straight from the least reliable voice in faux news. Congratulations on you total lack of credibility.
Hugo Torbet:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
The reason why the American people are so repressed today is because very often in fits of emotion, the American people have agreed to or acceded to unwise restrictions on their Constitutional birthright.
Look at the Patriot Act. The few people who spoke up against that atrocity were shouted down by people who convinced themselves they wanted to be safer and that the government could be trusted not to abuse its authority.
It won’t be long before everything you say, write, do, and buy is monitored and logged in electronic files. Congratulations on your progress. I am certain that your forefathers are proud of you.
Malaclypse:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Shouldn’t you be off organizing the Wolverines?
Linnaeus:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Seems to me it’s the freedom-loving capitalists doing that.
Linnaeus:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
The answer you will get is that “arms” means the standard equipment of an infantryman. Of course, this is not explicitly stated and is therefore an example of interpretation, which is precisely what we’re not supposed to be doing because of originalism, blah, blah, blah…
Linnaeus:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
I agree. The fact that some regulation may not be possible or may be very difficult to enact doesn’t mean that other kinds of regulation shouldn’t be considered. I’d rather do that than accept mass shootings as something that “just happens”.
joe from Lowell:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
Very stirring. I smell an Oscar.
Now, what, exactly, does that have to do with civilians buying bolt-action rifles instead of semiautomatics?
bradP:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
From the other side, I just hope we take some lessons from past prohibitions, recognize that enforcing bans like this has some costs, and make sure you can actually have a plan to improve the situation before turning law enforcement loose with a new mandate.
bradP:
December 26th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Much more effective at preventing mass impalings.
Hugo Torbet:
December 26th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Exactly.
Bexley:
December 26th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
I never go anywhere without my mutated anthrax – for duck hunting.
swearyanthony:
December 26th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
And yet Australia has had no mass shootings since the gun buyback. Facts have a liberal bias.
Malaclypse:
December 26th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
That’s just a series of unrelated coincidences.
pseudonymous in nc:
December 27th, 2012 at 2:28 am
It’s a practical hunting rifle for ranchers and farmers to kill coyotes, woodchucks and other vermin.
Like small children? That’s harsh.
It’s funny, though, how the gun-nutz have decided to piss all over Bushmaster’s marketing campaign by saying that the manly manly man-card-bestowing manly rifle for manly men is a mere varmint-botherer.
Halloween Jack:
December 27th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
It takes a very short trip to Wikipedia to note that one of the characteristics of the .223 (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the specific cartridge and weapon) bullet is that it tumbles, that is, cartwheels through flesh, making a much worse wound than if it went straight through.
Halloween Jack:
December 27th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Odd. I seldom see you and many of the others who show up in these gun-related posts on other occasions when civil liberties are being discussed and firearms aren’t directly involved.
simon was tasty:
December 27th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Squirrel and grouse stew over homemade biscuits was one of my favorite cold weather meals as a teenager. Remember spit roasting them camping once but do not recall eating squirrel in other ways.
JKL:
December 27th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Consensus seems to be all under 100 yards
using a reflex sight.
J. Pedersen:
December 28th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
High stopping power and limited ability to go through walls is contradictory. Buckshot will penetrate more than .223 as the rifle round. This was tested by the “box o’ truth” website. Non exactly scientific, but convincing. It is also what many SWAT teams have moved to. Just sayin’
J. Pedersen:
December 28th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
I do not know what makes you think that a pistol grip is used for shooting from the hip. I am sure it is not experience. A pistol grip is generally regarded as being more ergonomic and offering better control. Traditional hunting rifles have pistol grips that differ more in appearance than utility from an “assault” weapon. Not trying to get bogged down in the minutaie but just wanted to point this out.