Quote: "When I quote the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence its not a sweeping statement, its pointing out that existing gun law's are obviously not being observed."
You are completely wrong on this...
The Brady ranking system is based on laws the orginization
thinks should be in place. Brady Campaign is a lobby organization, not a Federal auditor.
There are Federal laws which must be observed or else dealers lose their Federal Firearms License (FFL). The bulk of the Federal involvement with guns is regulated to interstate commerce as well as background checks and registration for the transfer of NFA regulated weapons and accessories such as machineguns, grenades, silencers, short barreled weapons and so on.
Individual states may add additional laws if they choose to. Some states such as California and New York have many additional state laws beyond Federal requirements and yet they score 81 and 61 respectively. I'm happy to see my state of Oregon scores 15, the same as Colorado. Most states score less than 10 points on the Brady scale.
Quote: "In California 1997 Police were forced to raid a nearby gun store for more powerful weapons in order to compete with the amount of firepower they were up against as the body armor worn by the two perps was more than adequate against hand guns so that audience in Colorado being armed doesn't mean anything as you said, which really just compounds what I am trying to say, unless you believe gun laws are inadequate in the sense they don't allow you to carry assault rifles openly in public."
Much like the Aurora shooting, the Bank of America shootout was an anomaly. Let's also realize that mass shootings are quite rare. The USA is a country of 340 million people with about 260 million guns and at least one gun in about 45% of homes. Yet there's a high profile shooting like this only every few years. However, on a daily basis, personal firearms are successfully used to thwart lesser crimes such as robberies and so on. This
channel has several news videos for several such events and there are many more similar stories on the web if you look for them.
It may supprise you but open carry of rifles is legal in many states. However, it's a right that few exercise because it tends to cause panic to those ignorant of the laws (including the police in many cases).
Quote: "I am not personally touting for gun removal completely, though to be honest I do swing more towards far tighter controls for assault weapons."
For what it's worth, any thing used to assault another individual is an an assault weapon. The term "assault weapon" is a misnomer used to evoke an emotional response. There is really no such firearm classified as an "assault weapon". There are, however, "assault rifles" which are defined as being select-fire rifles capable of burst or fully automatic firing. Such weapons are classified as "machineguns" in the USA and are very tightly regulated by the federal government under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). I know that was a bit of TL : DR but I think it's important that people know what they're advocating for/against and too often language is used to manipulate an emotional response.
The idea of "sensible gun control laws" may be noble but in practice it often ends up being discriminating in nature. In the US, many of the gun control themes go back to our darker days when groups like the KKK used their political influence to keep blacks disarmed. In areas with strict gun controls in place it becomes a game of "who you know in power".
Quote: "Yes I have seen Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, Old Boy is my personal favorite Korean movie."
I like the whole trilogy
Quote: "So they frisk everyone? Thats not practical is it? They carry signs all over US, guns or no guns allowed? how the hell do you enforce that? The killer got in with his."
Yes, they have signs posted in "gun-free zones". If you're caught with your legally concealed weapon you can be arrested and have your gun rights revoked. It's enough of a risk for law-abiding citizens that they would leave their gun in the car or whatever. However, I'm sure that in the wake of this such policies will be violated more often. At least for a while.
The killer left and then came back in through the emergency exit after the film had started. But still, it illustrates that such policies and laws are effective only in disarming "good guys".
In the past year some business chains have come out as being pro-concealed carry. Starbucks is one of them.
Quote: "Velocity of a bullet is far greater than that of a car, plus the car is significantly louder. The sound of a car travelling at lethal velocity is enough to warn most people who will get out of its way. Depending on scenery, a man in a car will total it after the first high-speed ram on a pavement without using the brakes. Bearing in mind parked cars, and obstructions, it would actually be very difficult to mount a kerb and kill a significant number of people."
Did you see the
link I posted earlier? 10 people killed and 63 injured in little more than 10 seconds.
Quote: "A gun will wound whatever the bullet passes through, and that could be a few people if the trajectory's right. It can injure a target that tries to run, as was proven by this attack. You cannot outrun a bullet, you are unlikely to dodge the shot, your attempts to counter demand close range that will be unfeasible given the superior range. Death is extremely likely in this scenario."
I think you have an exaggerated view of the capabililties of a gun. Life isn't like an FPS game. Lateral moving targets are very hard to hit and more often than not, a gunshot wound is not fatal if treated. There were 50 people shot in that theater who did not die.
Quote: "Again, my main qualm with deciding on owning a gun - because I'm weighing up moving to the States - is could I really kill someone?"
You'll have to do the calculation on your own there. The question is not really if you can kill someone but if the chance of it is better than the alternative. Someone stealing your beat-up car out of your driveway might not be a big deal. Getting beat up and mugged might not be a big deal. But if the alternative is losing your own life or the life of a loved one the math may be different.
Depending on where a person lives, there's also the risk of a catastrophic event and/or civil unrest... During the 1992 LA riots, looting and arson was rampant (similar to the last years riots in London). In the midst of the destruction, Korea Town was relatively untouched because the residents took up arms took to protect their community and livelihoods (after the police had fled).
Quote: "Am I the only person not noticing that gun corporations must be pretty, damn rich off this fear by now?"
They always see a boom after a high-profile incident. Gunsales have been off the chart the last few years but not because people are afraid for their lives so much as thy fear the weapons will be banned. The specter of prohibition has driven demand more than anything.
Quote: "Better to be judged by 12, than buried by 6."
I agree. I keep putting off getting my Oregon CPL license. Need to stop doing that.
