Why is it legal for a civilian to own a glock and the ammunition for it?

[undeterred]

What good can come of it for society? Isn't this a police weapon?

[slackmaster]

1. Because under our system it's legal to own, say, or do anything that hasn't been prohibited by law

Basic legal theory.

What good can come of it for society?

Good outcomes for society are not required in personal decisions.

Isn't this a police weapon?

I don't know of any police departments that use model G19, but many do use Glock pistols. They're generally reliable.

Most firearms used by police are available to non-police.

[Euromutt]

87. The NYPD uses the G19

Though they're one of the few left who still use anything in 9mm Para. Most police departments have adopted guns in .40, with a smattering of .45s and .357 SIGs.

[badtoworse]

105. On rare occasions, I see an NYPD police officer with a revolver

I've never had the nerve to ask why he doesn't carry a Glock like most officers do.

[Straw Man]

123. It means that he or she has been on the job since before 1993...

...and is the nostalgic type.

NYPD started the transition from .38 revolvers to Glock 19's in 1993, but the .38's were grandfathered in for those who wanted to keep them. Some did, most didn't. For those coming on after '93, there was no choice.

I believe NYPD officers retire after 20 years, so those revolvers will soon be a thing of the past.

[jody]

2. Self-defense is a personal responsibility. Handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for that

job as exercised by over 840,000 law enforcement officers.

As a law abiding citizen, you are free to exercise your inalienable right to arm and defend yourself with a handgun if you choose.

[cleanhippie]

3. Uh, because its a right defined bt the Constitution?

Is this a trick question?

[jody]

10. Disagree, not "a right defined by the Constitution" but a right PROTECTED by our Constitution. n/t

[cleanhippie]

14. Ok.

Semantics, but yes.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tigereye]

19. huh, yeah it is Arizona and she did own a gun

I'm still not sure why anyone needs automatic weapons, though. (not sure if Glock is included in this, they said there was an "extended clip." )



I still think access to guns with so much capacity to kill so many people is a bad thing, and all the pro-gun/ 2nd amendment arguments on the planet or here, will not change that. :shrug:

[Statistical]

60. It wasn't an automatic weapon. Then again you admit facts won't change your mind. n/t

[SteveM]

142. Errors in your statements...

I'm still not sure why anyone needs automatic weapons, though. (not sure if Glock is included in this, they said there was an "extended clip." )

There is no mention of "automatic weapons" arising from this shooting. A Glock is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC pistol, requiring a pull of the trigger for each shot fired. On a technical note, the "extended clip" is really an extended magazine.

"...will not change that." I'm sorry you have closed your mind. If you leave it open, you will find other instances of mass-shootings wherein short magazines, or multiple weapons with "short" magazines, or revolvers (no magazines at all) have been used. The only "benefit" of outlawing extended magazines would be to re-ignite the all-failure, all-the-time culture war which has beaten Democrats down for some 20 years. Try to keep your mind open to that hard, hard fact.

[MineralMan]

5. It's a handgun. It's not that different from many other semi-automatic

handguns sold to people. The name Glock doesn't have any special meaning. It's just a brand-name.

So, your question is sort of misplaced, I think. We can own firearms here in this country. Now, many think that's a mistake, but that's how it is. A Glock 19 is just another handgun. Used as it was yesterday, it's a horrible thing. Most are not so used.

If you're asking whether Americans should be able to own handguns, you have a more cogent question to raise. Limiting it to one maker seems sort of silly to me, and irrelevant to the situation.

[undeterred]

16. I thought it was a weapon assigned to police

because it can fire off a lot of shots without being reloaded. That is in line with the range of duties of a police officer.

[slackmaster]

20. Most modern handguns can fire off multiple shots without being reloaded

Most handguns manufactured in the last 100 years are repeaters.

[ReverendDeuce]

38. Glocks are popular because they are RELIABLE, thus the Police usage...

They are lightweight with a polycarbonate housing of sorts. They have VERY few moving parts and the parts that do move are, if I recall correctly, made of synthetic materials so they will not rust or corrode. They're just an all-around solid weapon. Affordable and extremely reliable.

The kid may have bought some pre-ban magazines from a gun show or something. Older magazines used to carry like 28-30 rounds. I believe they are limited to 15 now. I can't remember.

[RSillsbee]

80. The "Ban" expired 7 years ago

there is no such thing as "pre ban" anymore

[SteveM]

143. Some Ruger auto-loaders normally hold 19 rounds.

[RamboLiberal]

46. Congresswoman Giffords owns a Glock

Google here and you will find several threads mentioning it.

[MineralMan]

51. The police use a wide range of handguns, not just Glocks.

Glocks are used on a lot of police forces for their general reliablilty and cost. They are not, however, specifically a police weapon. You don't seem to have a good understanding of firarms in general or handguns in particular. It's pretty common, since most people never think about such things. I'm not really criticizing your question, but am trying to add information.

[Statistical]

62. The same qualities make it useful for self defense too.

There was nothing remarkable about the particular weapon. The concept was created about 100 years ago. It is very similar to the millions of other pistols purchased by law abiding citizens every year.

[krispos42]

119. The capacity of a semi-automatic pistol is determined by magazine size.

In all cases, the magazine a handgun comes with is a "flush fit" magazine. That is, the bottom of the magazine fits flat (or nearly so) with the bottom of the grip. However, you can purchase longer magazines, typically from after-market suppliers. For example, a Ruger P94 pistol comes with a 15-round magazine as standard (unless you live in a state that limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds). However, you can purchase from a 3rd party a 20 round magazine for the gun that will stick out of the bottom of the pistol an inch or two.

The Germans were making 32-round "snail" magazines for the Lugers carried by their artillery troops during World War One, actually. A "flush fit" magazine for a Luger held 8 rounds.

[kudzu22]

132. Police need to massacre people?

[GreenStormCloud]

148. All semi-autos can be reloaded in less than one second.

It isn't just GLOCK. The basic design for semi-auto was established in 1911 with the Colt M1911A1 pistol. Everything since then has been a variation of that design principle. GLOCKs are not some kind of super-gun.

[tigereye]

21. why do they need semi-automatic weapons?

Seriously?

[BoWanZi]

45. Do you really want my own PERSONAL reason for that question?

Because they can be a heck of a lot more fun than a single shot pistol.

There. I said it. When I have gone to the range, its just more fun to shoot off a full magazine of 17 rounds rather than loading up a single shot hand gun unless you are speaking of black powder guns which is a totally different enjoyment.

I own a gun for other reasons than that obviously, first and foremost is self defense, but that is the main reason why I like semi-auto guns.

I get so annoyed with highly gun ignorant people that latch onto brand names like "Glock" or "ak47" or "ar15" or whatever. Brand names don't mean squat. There is no intrinsic difference between an semi-auto ak47 and a winchester semi-auto hunting rifle other than the name and looks. They both perform in the same basic manner however the winchester semi-auto hunting rifle is going to be much more accurate than any ak47.

And you can easily change that question to anything "excessive" such as "why do people need to own fast cars?" or "why do people need to own speedboats" or "why do people need to own fast motorcycles" or whatever. Fast cars/motorcycles/speedboats/etc are extremely dangerous in the hands of someone who is mentally unbalanced yet they are legal to own and if you have a proper license, anyone can go get one.

[undeterred]

57. "highly ignorant gun people"

I get so annoyed with people who don't understand that the right to bear arms needs to be tempered with concern for human life.

[Dappleganger]

59. Bad guys don't care about human life.

The people on this forum aren't bad for wanting to protect themselves and their loved ones from those bad guys. We aren't out looking for trouble, we only wish to be left alone and live in peace.

[BoWanZi]

61. Don't you get it? Its not rocket science, Changing laws won't affect a criminal's gun choices!!!

That is it in a nutshell. Even if you banned all guns in the US, criminals will still have guns and whatever guns they want.

The right to bear arms just affects legal gun owners, not criminals.

[oneshooter]

88. And what type of "tempering" do you suggest? n/t

[oneshooter]

89. And what type of "tempering" do you suggest? n/t

[SteveM]

145. I think you have conflated two values, here...

The right to keep and bear arms should not be tempered with concern for human life. Concern for human life should stand alone and be a concern of all, not a hazy reason to tamper with the Second (or any other amendment). The only exception to this would be one of the main factors for the advocacy and passage of the Second to begin with: that people should have the right to defend themselves -- a truly salient concern for human life.

[GreenStormCloud]

149. Because when you are fighting for your life having an immediate next shot...

...is a great benefit.

[hobbit709]

6. It's a fully legal pistol.

Just because some police departments use it doesn't make it illegal. It could have been any one of a dozen different semiautomatics.

[RamboLiberal]

7. A Glock is a semi-auto brand of pistols

No different than Smith & Wesson, Springfields, Kimbers, Kahr, Taurus, Ruger, etc.

More civilians own Glocks than do police.

It's legal.

[Dappleganger]

8. Because we should be able to protect ourselves.

Bad guys don't ask for permission, they break the law any way they want. As a woman I have a need to protect myself in the area we live in, we do not have the option to move.

[tigereye]

23. yes, and I suppose,generally, it isn't responsible gun owners

who usually do these mass shootings. But I think many folks would love to see more rules placed on who can purchase these weapons. How many of these mass shootings need to happen before people see this?

[Dappleganger]

28. Just remember that the bad guys don't care about rules.

Most gun owners follow the rules all the time, too.

I am far more alarmed with the inciteful hatred which is allowed on the airwaves and media and the lack of early intervention for mental health folks in this country.

[tigereye]

35. fair enough

It's just that every time there is a mass shooting by someone who may well be mentally unstable, many of us wish for better rules to stop unstable or dangerous people or teenagers, from owning them. I realize though, that the laws don't always stop that from happening.

[Dappleganger]

50. I have personal experience with that kind of a situation

and while I won't go into the details as it involves a family member, let's just say that the mental unstable lose many of their personal rights and freedoms if they are labeled as such (just where does one draw the line, specifically if medication works or if a person is self-sufficient?). The state tends to err on the side of not removing their right to self-determination when there is not specific, recorded evidence by a professional and law enforcement. A judge has to make that decision, and of course it can be appealed.

One does not just call up an office and tell them that Uncle Jesse is crazy and needs to get his gun-rights revoked--it's highly complicated process.

[tigereye]

65. yes, I know about the bureaucratic aspects-

I just hate to see so many people killed as in the recent shootings, in fact, all shootings.

[beevul]

72. No such thing.

"many of us wish for better rules to stop unstable or dangerous people or teenagers, from owning them"

Short of kicking down hundreds of millions of doors, ignoring civil rights on several fronts, and confiscating every last one (and all the mayhem trying something so foolish would lead to)...


There is no such thing as better rules to stop unstable or dangerous people from owning them.

There are law in place to stop assasination and murder...they failed too.

Why would a gun law work when they didnt?

[Recursion]

47. The thing is, nobody can think of a gun restriction that would prevent stuff like this

Prohibition of easily-transported things is difficult. Cocaine and marijuana are completely prohibited; is it terribly hard to get either of them if you want some?

[RSillsbee]

81. What rules would you place on who can purchase guns?

aside from these?

7. "Prohibited possessor" means any person:

(a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

(b) Who has been convicted within or without this state of a felony or who has been adjudicated delinquent for a felony and whose civil right to possess or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored.

(c) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of imprisonment in any correctional or detention facility.

(d) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of probation pursuant to a conviction for a domestic violence offense as defined in section 13-3601 or a felony offense, parole, community supervision, work furlough, home arrest or release on any other basis or who is serving a term of probation or parole pursuant to the interstate compact under title 31, chapter 3, article 4.

(e) Who is an undocumented alien or a nonimmigrant alien traveling with or without documentation in this state for business or pleasure or who is studying in this state and who maintains a foreign residence abroad. This subdivision does not apply to:

(i) Nonimmigrant aliens who possess a valid hunting license or permit that is lawfully issued by a state in the United States.

(ii) Nonimmigrant aliens who enter the United States to participate in a competitive target shooting event or to display firearms at a sports or hunting trade show that is sponsored by a national, state or local firearms trade organization devoted to the competitive use or other sporting use of firearms.

(iii) Certain diplomats.

(iv) Officials of foreign governments or distinguished foreign visitors who are designated by the United States department of state.

[tigereye]

9. yeah, that's what I said - why does anyone need automatic

weaponry?

[hobbit709]

13. It's not fully automatic.

[tigereye]

24. why do people need semi-automatic weapons?

[hobbit709]

43. So that you don't have to reload after every shot.

Next question.

[Dappleganger]

53. Because black powder messes up my gel nails.

[pipoman]

86. Civil liberties are not based on need

we actually need very little..desire is another story

[jody]

15. Please learn the difference between automatic and semiautomatic firearms. n/t

[ReverendDeuce]

31. Okay... here you go...

Semi-automatic = you pull the trigger, the bullet shoots, the casing is ejected, and the next round is loaded into the firing chamber.

Fully-automatic = you pull the trigger and hold it, the gun keeps firing over and over until all rounds in the magazine are discharged.

[jody]

34. ROFL, have a great day. n/t

[ReverendDeuce]

41. Why the ROFL? Was I wrong?

Not sure what the ROFL was about... n/t

[jody]

55. You answered my question #9 as though tigereye was incapable. That's why the ROFL.

[tigereye]

68. the problem is that some of you (not all) think this is funny

all these people are dead and you can think about is the hardware. That's what's so exasperating. And I wish they hadn't moved this thread back here, since most of us who are pro gun-control will be out of our depth, hard-ware wise.

It's offensive.

[jody]

71. You and I agree on one point, it's sad that DU policies restrict discussion of RKBA to the Guns

forum.

The result is many DUers enter discussions when a tragic event happens completely unprepared to debate what government restrictions might be acceptable while protecting the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

:toast: to agreeing on that point.

[tigereye]

95. I appreciate your not swearing at me

thanks for some food for thought. :hi:

[jazzhound]

111. Shall we toast to a (potentially) teachable moment?

The result is many DUers enter discussions when a tragic event happens completely unprepared to debate what government restrictions might be acceptable while protecting the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

In a perfect world, the "newbies" who end up in the Guns Forum discussing the AZ tragedy would learn how much they have to learn on the subject of guns & violence -- and they would get engage in (at least) a bit of research. Call me cynical -- but I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

Nevertheless, I like the sound of clinking mugs.........so.......................:toast:

[beevul]

74. Therein lies a problem.

"And I wish they hadn't moved this thread back here, since most of us who are pro gun-control will be out of our depth, hard-ware wise."


Being out of ones depth, as time has shown, hasn't interfered with the pro control sides thirst to legislate on things...which they are out of thier depth on.

I could list examples, if theyre really needed...

[HALO141]

75. I don't think anyone thinks this is funny

You asked a question that made absolutely no sense because you don't know anything about the subject matter. Now you want to complain that people aren't letting your ignorance slide? How about we just agree that this was a tragic event and move on? If you're going to take positions on policy then you owe it to everyone involved to educate yourself on the subject matter first. One might as well seek advice from the Amish on transportation policy.

[tigereye]

92. yeah, but people on DU should be able to discuss lots

of things that upset or make them wonder without having to know endless details or be obsessed with the subject or disagree. One of the reasons that a lot of people here avoid the "gungeon" is because it has a reputation (not necessarily deserved), for an intolerance of others who may not like or feel good about guns or are novices to the topic. And to be fair, the anti-gun folks/policy makers have had plenty of sufficient arguments to counter yours.

To be honest, I was a bit angry at being made fun of - I don't think that's cool and that's not how I usually interact with others on DU. I was a mod during the primaries and I couldn't believe some of the things people said to those who had reasonable opinions that differed from theirs.

Some folks were tolerant here and explained their side of things and that is appreciated, and some make fun of those of us who think that guns are the reverse of peace (and do not own any and wish there were no guns.) This is why I should have fled the scene when the thread was moved.

[jazzhound]

106. "I was a mod during the primaries"

Revealing statement, given that one of my posts was deleted without any evidence of its deletion. It just disappeared. Hmmmmmm.............

And to be fair, the anti-gun folks/policy makers have had plenty of sufficient arguments to counter yours.

Nope......that's not being fair at all. In fact it's one of the primary dishonest tactics of pro-"control" proponents to claim a false equivalency in the volume and quality of arguments pro and con on gun "control". Lifelong liberal Dem Dr. Gary Kleck sums it up well:


“ALL STUDIES ARE CREATED EQUAL”: FAILING TO DISTINGUISH TECHNICALLY SOUND STUDIES FROM POOR ONES


Reviews of large bodies of research studies can be misleading if the reviewers implicitly give equal weight to all studies. Most of the research done in the guns-violence field, especially that published in medical journals, is technically primitive, relying on research methods that most social scientists would regard as reflective of the technical standards of the mid-1960’s or earlier. More specifically, the research commonly (1) uses simple univariate or bivariate analysis procedures rather than multivariate procedures that control for variables that may confound the relationship between violence and guns or gun control, (2) ignores the possible two-way relationship between guns and violence (gun levels may increase violence rates, but higher violence rates may also increase gun acquisition for defensive purposes), (3) uses primitive, invalid measures of gun availability (or none at all), and (4) relies on small local samples that are not representative of any larger population.

If the strong studies yielded the same findings as the weak ones, this would not be a problem. Unfortunately, in general the research supporting the ideas that guns cause violence and that gun laws reduce violence is nearly all of the technically primitive variety, while technically competent studies tend to support the null hypotheses that gun levels and gun laws have no significant net effect on violence rates. For example, among studies of the relationship between gun levels and homicide rates, technically inferior studies ignore the effects of violence rates on gun levels, find positive associations, and erroneously interpret them as reflecting the effect of gun levels on violence rates (e.g., Brearley 1932; Newton and Zimring 1969; Seitz 1972; Fisher 1976; Phillips, Votey, and Howell 1976; Brill 1977; Cook 1979; Lester 1988b). The technically better studies that use complex statistical procedures to take account of the possible two-way relationship generally find no evidence of net positive effect of gun levels on violence rates .

Consequently, it can be misleading when reviewers of the research literature engage in “research democracy,” acting as if “all studies are created equal” (Kleck 1985). Whenever scholars summarize evidence on a topic by simply listing studies, without comment of the relative methodological adequacy of each study, they are practicing research democracy. In drawing conclusions, serious scholars are supposed to weight evidence by the soundness of the methods used to generate it. To merely count up studies favoring a particular conclusion would generally lead to an outcome dominated by the technically inferior studies, since these tend to be more numerous. Probably in most fields poor research is more common that good research, but this is especially likely to be true in fields that generate intense emotions and ideologically based conflict, and it is certainly the case with work on guns and violence.

Dr. Gary Kleck – “Targeting Guns – Firearms and Their Control” pp. 32 & 33
(reprinted with permission)

[tigereye]

134. yeah, I'm in mental health, I appreciate your citations and

am trying to keep an open mind. I think folks like me, who see the effects of violence in general and gun violence among kids and families that they work with, tend to be very anti-gun, despite realizing that there are many folks who are responsible gun owners who are very cautious and not inclined to use their guns dispassionately. My brother hunts and keeps guns, so I understand that aspect of things.

And I think you did tell me to STFU?, so that's probably why your post disappeared! :D

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tigereye]

152. well, I have to say you guys made me think, and that's a

good thing. Thanks for the thoughts and explanations.

:hi:

[gravity556]

124. tolerance

"of things that upset or make them wonder without having to know endless details or be obsessed with the subject or disagree. One of the reasons that a lot of people here avoid the "gungeon" is because it has a reputation (not necessarily deserved), for an intolerance of others who may not like or feel good about guns or are novices to the topic. And to be fair, the anti-gun folks/policy makers have had plenty of sufficient arguments to counter yours.

To be honest, I was a bit angry at being made fun of - I don't think that's cool and that's not how I usually interact with others on DU. I was a mod during the primaries and I couldn't believe some of the things people said to those who had reasonable opinions that differed from theirs.

Some folks were tolerant here and explained their side of things and that is appreciated, and some make fun of those of us who think that guns are the reverse of peace (and do not own any and wish there were no guns.) This is why I should have fled the scene when the thread was moved. "

The reason so many people who are pro-gun rights go on an automatic defensive is because it's not uncommon for an anti-gunner to presume that all shooters are fat, inbred, uneducated, literal creationist sociopaths, just looking for a reason to shoot up a grocery store. The issue here is not the gun, but the batshit whackjob who killed a bunch of people. Had he not had a gun, he could have done the same (or greater) damage with a car-crashing into a crowd of pedestrians with a 2 ton vehicle moving at 50 miles an hour would have likely killed more people.

My wife and I both carry Glock 19s. They're reliable, accurate and eat whatever ammo you feed them. The 19 holds (in standard capacity mags) 15 rounds. It can take a larger magazine, but then stuff sticks out from under the grip. I do carry a reload-not because I'm out looking for a fight, but because, just like a gun, it's far better to have and not need than to need and not have. There are crazy people out there-crazy people who ARE looking for fights. Crazy people who DO want to shoot up a grocery store.

The bastard who killed those folks Saturday was insane. Going from his youtube page, he was completely off his nut-rambling, paranoid, disjointed writing. And a video of him burning a flag dressed as a terrorist. I'm thinking that the folks around him might have known he was a bit nuts. Maybe it's the mental health care system that needs a closer look rather than gun laws. After all, it's already illegal to shoot a gun in town. It's illegal to own a gun if you are addicted to/an unlawful user of controlled substances. And it is DEFINITELY already illegal to shoot people in cold blood.

[RSillsbee]

82. God forbid

you should have to argue gun control w/ someone who knows what they're talking about

[tigereye]

94. great ad hominem and that is why most folks avoid this

forum. Seriously, how many gun control advocates spend much time in here?

[RSillsbee]

96. Most of the "gun control advocates "

Drop in, troll, call us all RW trolls , scream something about the 2nd amendment only applying to a well regulated militia ( that one comes up about once a week). call us all a bunch of Rambo wannabes (or "toters") and then disappear when we start posting facts, cites , evidence and reasoned rebuttals to their talking points.

Kinda like you

[tigereye]

97. dear, I'm no troll - trust me on this.

Only followed this thread from GD, and although some folks were very pleasant and reasonable and explained their positions, a few were not. Have a nice day.

[RSillsbee]

101. I'm trying to be nice to you

But it is apparent that you don't have a full grasp of this issue. IMO you're coming form amn emotional recation "Do something about this evil man who use a GUN to kill people"

What we're trying to tell you is the gun wasn't the problem.

[tigereye]

133. well, I think the guy (with attendant emotional and other

issues) is the problem, but I always tend to assume that fewer people would be dead if there weren't guns available, I think our society is incredibly violent and guns are a part of that. If you look on tv all you see is shooting and explosions. (well, I tend to watch PBS and sports to avoid all of that.) ;) I think our culture's obsession with violence and with guns IS a big part of the problem. (I work in mental health and I deal w urban kids who think that shooting and killing IS the solution to problems)

I appreciate your patience and that you are trying to be nice! :D

[RSillsbee]

135. You are aware that the two largest mass killings in this country

were accomplished w/ out guns right?

In 1927, school board member, Andrew Kehoe (Feburary 1, 1872 - May 18, 1927), upset by a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building, killed 45 people (including himself) and injured an additional 58 in a bombing at the Bath Consolidated School. This is still the largest school massacre in United States history.

[tigereye]

136. nope, but did it involve gunpowder? ;) That's horrifying!

Yeah, but isn't there a greater frequency of mass killings since the 60s? I suppose one could easily argue that the increases in mass killings (not always shootings, but frequently so) are the result of a combination of cultural, emotional factors, population increases, increased mental health issues, etc, plus the tendency for the media to seriously emphasize these events...

[Glassunion]

137. Gunpowder in the loosest definition of the term.

It was dynamite and pyrotol.

[tigereye]

140. wtf is pyrotol?

To me, the greatest form of cowardice is killing or attempting to kill large groups of innocent people, though. However it may be attempted/accomplished. :(

[Glassunion]

141. It was reprocessed from military surplus cordite and smokeless powder.

Usually used in combination with dynamite, it created an incendiary blast. Since it was very inexpensive, it was often used by farmers to remove tree stumps and clear ditches. Production of pyrotol dwindled in the 1920s after the Bath School disaster where the substance was used to blow up an elementary school and kill 45 people, mostly children. It is likely that production would have dwindled soon anyway, as supplies of military surplus powders ran out.

Edited to add link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotol

[RSillsbee]

144. Do you realize you just nailed the problem ?

I suppose one could easily argue that the increases in mass killings (not always shootings, but frequently so) are the result of a combination of cultural, emotional factors, population increases, increased mental health issues, etc, plus the tendency for the media to seriously emphasize these events...

The problem is people, a gun is absolutely useless unless you get a human being involved. If the human involved has homicidal intent (IMO he/she is crazy anyway) they will ge the job done one way or the other. Would those people be any less dead if Loughner pointed an F-150 ( or a Prius) at them and floored it?

[jazzhound]

98. Actually, most gun "control" proponents stay out of this

forum because they quickly learn that their emotion-based "arguments" are quickly destroyed. Excruciatingly weak attempt on your part to spin this.

As one of your comrades just admitted, he is "out of his depth hardware-wise" in this forum, and suggested that some sort of foul was committed by moving a thread from GD to the Guns Forum where he couldn't compete.

:eyes:

[tigereye]

99. ah, that was me, and there was no need to swear at me

No, I think leaving some of those threads in GD meant that there were more people with a broader range of opinions.

[jazzhound]

100. Won't disagree on the fact that their will be a broader

range of opinions in GD.

Will forever disagree with the implied position of some that uneducated opinions and educated opinions should be given equal weight. And there is without a doubt a greater % of uneducated opinions on gun "control" in GD.

[GreenStormCloud]

150. Please watch this video of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

She wants to outlaw barrel shrouds when she has no idea of what one is. That it why it is important to know technical things about guns if one is to intelligently discuss gun policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

[jazzhound]

108. +1

Apparently uninformed opinion deserves to be treated with the weight as informed opinion in the minds of some.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jazzhound]

109. Actually, what is offensive/exasperating is that you feel

that it's perfectly alright to enter into discussion on a subject where you have insufficient knowledge to engage in a meaningful manner.

When it comes to discussions relating to the Middle East I don't open my mouth.........because I damn well know how much I don't know on the subject. Doesn't require much humility really -- just a touch of common sense. Pity that gun "control" advocates who haven't done a lick of homework on the subject can't take that position.

[jazzhound]

117. The evidence debunking your claim exists in this very thread.

.......all these people are dead and you can think about is the hardware.

The only people squawking about hardware are the pro-"control" supporters ----- false claims re. "automatic weapons", distorting the "danger" of a Glock semi-auto etc. It's "exasperating" that we confront blatant dishonesty? In what upside-down world?

Offensive?! Really?!

[PavePusher]

126. You are right.

Ignorance is offensive.

[Euromutt]

128. The OP question was about the hardware; therefore, the responses are

I can understand that it comes across as harping on utterly trivial details when we're talking about lives cut short by violence, but it's hard to have sensible discussion when one side is using overblown rhetoric, talking about "automatic weapons," "assault weapons," and what not (I'm surprised nobody's pulled out the "plastic gun undetectable by metal detectors" canard about Glocks yet).

The Glock design, in all its myriad forms (it comes in seven calibers, with three or four differently sized models in each caliber), is a very popular handgun for all kinds of purposes, from competition shooting to hunting to self-protection to law enforcement and military use, because it's accurate, reliable and easy to handle and maintain. There's a very high likelihood that a handgun used in a crime will be a Glock, simply because there's so damn many of them out there. Conversely, of course, there's a very high likelihood that a handgun used in a legitimate defensive shooting or "legal intervention" will be a Glock, for the exact same reason.

But they're no more lethal than any other handgun in the same caliber, and focusing on restricting the specific model (Glock 19) or sub-class (striker-fired polymer-frame semi-automatic handguns) of firearm in an effort to present an incident like this from recurring isn't very productive. Instead, what we should be asking is why a guy like Loughner, with an apparent history of mental instability, slipped through the gaps in the system that are intended to prevent people like him from possessing firearms.

Now, my personal hypothesis is that the problem is that the law prohibiting certain persons, including the mentally ill, from possessing firearms dates from 1968, when the state of mental health care was very different from what it is now. Back then, involuntary commitment to a mental institution (which legally disqualifies you from possessing a firearm) was commonplace; these days, it's extremely rare. Nowadays, the system deals with the mentally ill by waiting until they hurt someone, then puts them in prison. Yeah, big improvement there(!) Not that the old system was so great (frankly, it sucked), but it was at least proactive. If we could find some happy medium between the two, we might be able to do something about potentially violent mentally ill persons (like Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller) before they unequivocally prove they're dangerous by killing someone.

[Flyboy_451]

146. out of your depth??

Can you please explain to me why being "out of your depth, hardware wise" should be overlooked and excused when you are voicing opinions regarding "hardware"?

I not only accept that there are those with opinions that differ from mine, I encourage them to present their opinions along with the rationale that leads them to it. If I were to offer opinions on the best manner to regulate the research of inter-galactic travel, I would and should be, laughed out of the conversation for lack of practical knowledge. To espouse opinions on subjects that you are not familiar with, is not a good way to convince others of the validity of your argument.

While any death is a tragic event, having knee-jerk, emotional reactions and calling for measures with a proven track record of being ineffective, is the very definition a reactionary zealot. If you would like to discuss the issue using relevant facts and rational thought, rather than speaking of how you "feel" about the issue, I, and many others would welcome you to the debate and encourage you to participate frequently. If, however, all you intend to do is cast about with emotional pleas that have little basis in factual reality, you will find the greeting a bit cooler.

Maybe a better approach to your post would have been to inquire as to what current and past laws really accomplish or fail to address and how they may be reviewed and evaluated, instead of calling for arbitrary restrictions with little hope of passing muster with the people of this country and have even less chance of being effective at reducing such incidents.

Respectfully,

JW

[one-eyed fat man]

147. Part of your problem

"...since most of us who are pro gun-control will be out of our depth, hard-ware wise."

Precisely, you cannot rationally discuss, much less, intelligently regulate what you don't understand. You dismiss knowing what you're talking about, as offensive. I can only stand in awe.

So, you have a low level loser who was stupid enough to show up at the MEPS, having been told by the recruiter, he would be drug tested, and fail a piss test.

Unless your name is Claire Vouyant, you won't know who the wacko is until they DO something wacko. So, since even you know you are unlikely to establish an effective Department of Future Crime, the only solution you can offer is ban technology which you, yourself, admit you don't understand.

Apparently, some people thought he was a nut case, but not enough a nut case that his family, the school or anyone else in the community had him locked up, committed, medicated or even under a doctor's care.

Every day you travel down the highway moving 100 feet a second trusting that the guy coming the other way will respect a yellow paint stripe and not take it into his head to hit you head on. Do you ask yourself why they are driving a Crown Victoria? After all, it has been most widely used POLICE car for decades. No civilian has a need for one, right? Or would you more concerned if the driver were drunk, crazy, or engrossed in texting their boyfriend?

[slackmaster]

17. The pistol is not automatic

Please check the facts.

[tigereye]

27. these guns seem to kill multiple folks

that's how it seems to those of us who have no desire to own guns and think that they cause more harm than good. How many mass shootings happened statistically before there were capacities for an individual to keep reloading, bigger clip, etc. and kill multiple people? :shrug:


(for the record, my brother hunts and owns guns)

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

48. semi-automatics have been in civilian hands well over 100 years.

The 1911 is probably one of the most venerable and popular semi-automatic handgun.

The Browning Hi-Power is on the popular 9mm semi-automatics that has been around since 1935.

[gravity556]

125. RE: these guns seem to kill multiple folks

posted by tigereye
"that's how it seems to those of us who have no desire to own guns and think that they cause more harm than good. How many mass shootings happened statistically before there were capacities for an individual to keep reloading, bigger clip, etc. and kill multiple people?"

And there's the bias. You say "these guns seem to kill multiple folks". The problem with that is that a firearm is an inanimate object, incapable of doing ANYTHING without a human being directly controlling it. Guns don't just "go off"-usually, an "accidental discharge" is really a negligent discharge. Meaning that the individual neglected to make sure the gun was unloaded prior to taking it apart. Or they decided to fingerfuck it in the bathroom and pull the trigger (BANG-dead toilet!).

Back on point. If the cause of those deaths had been due to a drunk driver (or even the same nutbag) crashing into the crowd, would you be blaming the car? "these Priuses (priusi?) seem to kill multiple folks" is a pretty bizzare statement, but the anti-rights side makes the equivalent of that statement constantly.

That's where the frustration comes from. An anti posits a claim (not to pick on you, but yours is a pretty common statement) like "These assault weapons (made up term, by the way) kill too many people! We need to ban them! They're too high powered!", but the statement is usually made by someone who knows absolutely nothing about guns or gun laws, but are insistent that someone do something. The problem comes from someone doing something that doesn't do anything except restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners, because criminals, by DEFINITION break laws. So rather than going after the law abiding citizen, why not put the antisocial murderers and thugs in prison until they are dead.

[toddaa]

11. Glock is manufacturer of firearms

Saying he used a Glock would be the same as saying you drive a Chevy.

[uppityperson]

12. To protect yourself, in case you are someone and someone else starts

trying to hurt others. You can stop them. See?

[undeterred]

18. Yeah, so I would be safest in a room full of people carrying guns.

No thanks.

[uppityperson]

22. Exactly! Rather like MAD discouraged them rooskies from nukin' us!

sarcasm, just in case

[undeterred]

26. I gotcha.

Then you have total chaos, and nobody knows who is the "bad" shooter who started things and who might be that persons accomplice. When fear takes over its very hard for people who are not trained professionals to think and shoot straight.

[traco]

33. I would feel safer

in a room filled with legally carrying handgun owners than in a room with one criminal armed illegally

[uppityperson]

44. I'd feel safer in a room with people who follow the law than with criminals also

And?

[undeterred]

49. Well, unfortunately we don't have a reliable way to tell

who is feeling homicidal on a given day. People sometimes snap and nobody else knows its going to happen.

But I'd rather be in a room full of people without guns where one person is feeling homicidal than in a room full of people with guns where one person is feeling homicidal on a given day. In the former nobody is likely to die, while in the latter several people are probably going to die.

[PavePusher]

127. It is quite possible to kill with bare hands. n/t

[Dappleganger]

56. Me too.

[tigereye]

29. yeah, but how often does that really happen?

Oddly, no one at that shopping center whipped out a gun to stop this guy, despite AZ's liberal gun laws?

[uppityperson]

30. I thought it was apparently over the top sarcasm. My apologies if it wasn't.

[tigereye]

39. no biggie- sometimes hard to tell

but my question still stands even if it wasn't!! :rofl:

[aikoaiko]

25. Non-leo use it for the same reason police do -- to protect themselves or others.

I have a Springfield pistol with a standard magazine of 19 rounds that lives in my bedroom (in a lock box).

I have a CZ pistol that has 18 round magazine that lives in my car (in a lock box).

I generally carry a 5 round .357 revolver, though.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

37. Because people have a right to have weapons for self-defense.

[Kingofalldems]

40. K and R for the unreccers

[pnwmom]

42. The question should be

why did we let the federal law regulating automatic weapons expire?

[hack89]

54. We didn't

a Glock is not an automatic weapon.

[pnwmom]

58. I realize that the Glock is a semi-automatic pistol.

I also realize that he could have killed dozens of more people if he was using a military style assault weapon, which he could have legally purchased as well.

[hack89]

63. Assault weapons are not automatic either.

could have, should have - the fact is he didn't. More to the point, civilian owned "assault weapons" are not often used to kill people - rifles and shotguns of all kinds only account for 3 percent of murders. There are many more people killed annually with baseball bats or knives.

[tigereye]

70. yeah, but probably not 6 at a time!

[pnwmom]

77. Actually, 19 at a time, including the wounded. n/t

[pnwmom]

78. Semi-automatic weapons are capable of killing many people

in the space of seconds.

And what percent of murders are accounted for by semi-automatic pistols?

[hack89]

83. Mass murder is extremely rare

the vast majority of murders involve one or two victims. And the murder rate is steadily falling - since the trend in violent crime is a positive one, it look likes our present laws are working fine.

[HALO141]

76. the weapons you"re referring to

were still legally available during clinton's ban.

[Katya Mullethov]

104. Something so dangerous should be limited to the military

As frags lol

[Statistical]

67. No law regulating automatic weapons has EVER expired,

The law regulating automatic weapons is the National Firearm Act of 1934. It has never expired or been repealed.

[TheKentuckian]

52. A police weapon? It is a brand of semi-auto pistols.

Police are civillian peace officers not the military, they rarely if ever use any class of weapon not generally available to the population at large. Maybe their shotguns are unplugged or they can use certain ammo that may not be freely available or their cars may have restricters removed.

What the hell does a peace officer need with auto to deal with (in your world) an unarmed population? Sheep for the slaughter is all.

[Jenoch]

120. Actually, police forces do

frequently have weapons that are illegal for the average citizen to possess. Many police departments have H&K MP5/10s that are selective fire. Not only do tactical squads have them, but they are in the squads (patrol cars). My oldest brother is his department's armorer officer (meaning he knows the most about guns and was willing to get the extra training to be the go to guy in the department that has to know everything about their weapons. He's also the range officer).

[FLPanhandle]

64. It's always disheartening to me that people are so quick to abandon their rights

Just to feel a little safer.

I think the constitution is there more to protect us from ourselves instead of us from the government.

[Statistical]

66. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither"

[Glassunion]

69. Simple...

Why is it legal for a civilian to own a glock and the ammunition for it?
Centuries of case law and Supreme Court rulings.

What good can come of it for society?
They protect people every day. Police and Citizens alike.

Isn't this a police weapon?
Not solely. The one I own, used to be a police officer's back up.

[Riftaxe]

73. Why is it legal for a civilian to engage in political speech?

What good can come of it for society? Isn't this a tool of Seditionists?

[jody]

79. Good point and Thomas Paine with his colleagues should have been summarily hanged without trial.

:sarcasm:

[DissedByBush]

84. Why is it legal for you to express your opinions on this board? n/t

[GSLevel9]

85. silly question.

the Glock is no different than any other semi automatic pistol in function.

It still has lots of metal parts and isn't invisible to an x-ray detector, they shoot 1/2 century old projectiles. And the ammo is the same in construction to any other modern bullet.

[benEzra]

90. Most police guns in this country are civilian weapons (NFA Title 1).

Practically all police handguns and most patrol shotguns in the USA are civilian (Glock, Smith & Wesson, Springfield, Sig, etc.), and patrol rifles for regular officers (non-SWAT) are most commonly civilian AR-15's as well. SWAT teams often get military gear, though not always (our local SWAT team here uses civilian guns for that as well).

[Francis Marion]

91. Yes, We'd be better off living in a police state.

And why is it legal for a person to speak publicly?
What good can come of that? Isn't that the sole province of leaders and masters?

By the way, to answer your question, it's legal because the law conforms to the Bill of Rights.

The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the police, the state, or of the ruling class.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

102. what does brand name have to do with this?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[undeterred]

107. This is the only forum at DU where I truly wonder if I am

among Democrats. The outright contempt and hostility toward people who don't love weapons- yes some of us really don't care if we never see a gun in our lifetime- is unbelievable. Some of you just aren't even willing to look at the other side of this issue for 5 or 10 seconds on a day when so many have been harmed by gun violence. I find that very sad.

In this forum the 'empathy track' just seems to be missing, and thats why I don't feel like I am among Democrats.

[ManiacJoe]

110. You misunderstand the contempt.

> The outright contempt and hostility toward people who don't love weapons....

The contempt is for the folks who revel in their ignorance while trying to converse about technical topics. The topics of firearms and the laws that govern them are technical conversations. I would expect similar responses over in the automobile forum.

[Endangered Specie]

112. Like it or not, you are.. the represantative herself was pro-gun in fact.

And there is nothing wrong with not giving the "other side" a look for more than 5 to 10 seconds if it is so patently wrong and devoid of facts (some examples: creationism, anti-sematism, homophobia, etc...)

[lawodevolution]

113. it's because the internet is open and free and I can research and find for myself

that the human race without guns is unstable, as it is suggested by the trend that violent nations have lower civilian gun ownership and less violent nations have higher civilian gun ownership rates. and I am posting the only trend in violence rates compared to gun ownership rates backed by statistics at this time on here, so as soon as you can come up with good stats that show how bad guns are for society and how gun control would have stopped the death of 500 people in nigeria on march 8 2010 who were chopped up by machetes, then I will listen to you. Otherwise, try reading and lurking here in the forum, educate yourself on the topic more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915

[jazzhound]

116. The "empathy track" isn't missing at all ----- this is your

fabrication. Apparently our willingness to object strongly to ignorant remarks is tantamount to a lack of empathy in your mind --- as opposed to in reality.

[Straw Man]

122. Contempt and hostility?

Contempt and hostility is heaped on gun rights proponents here on a daily basis. Thread openers like "It's time to treat the gun culture as an enemy of civilization" don't exactly drip with warm feelings and a spirit of compromise. The reaction you're seeing has nothing to do with loving or not loving weapons. It has to with affectations of moral superiority by those who know nothing about weapons but seem to feel fit by virtue of said moral superiority to pass judgment on how and why weapons should be regulated. Any disagreement or objection is met with the accusation of being a "gun nut." It almost seems that ignorance about weapons is a badge of honor among gun control proponents: "Why should I learn about those filthy things? Just get rid of them!"

I have listened to the other side for far more than five or ten seconds. It has been years. I have heard very little of value in what they say. Furthermore, I have been insulted, defamed, and condescended to. I have been told that I am responsible for tragedies like this one, that I have "blood on my hands." I have been told that my concern for the victims of such tragedies is just so much hypocrisy and "crocodile tears." I have been accused of having bizarre sexual fetishes and of lacking human feeling. And to this I am supposed to respond with empathy.

I find that very sad.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. "Our nation is dying and you gun pushers will be blamed by history"

My empathy ends when I hear statements barely indistinguishable from those of Fred Phelps directed towards me, from other DUers.

[NewMoonTherian]

114. The police can't be trusted with police weapons.

They represent government, and government can't be trusted with... well, almost anything.

[jeepnstein]

130. I couldn't agree more.

The police, as an institution, need to be constantly monitored. I've seen things that would make your head explode. I've also seen things that would make you stand up a little straighter and smile a bit.

I firmly believe that police officers shouldn't be issued any weapon that isn't available over the counter to any lawful citizen of the United States.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. Why are you allowed to speak your mind?

Why isn't the government allowed to torture you if you are suspected of a crime? Confession is good for the soul right?
Why can't the government search you anytime any place for no reason? You got nothing to hide, right?

[krispos42]

118. Glocks are made for a wide variety of pistol ammunition

IIRC, you can get one in .380 ACP (a.k.a 9mm Short), 9mm Luger, 40 S&W, .45 ACP, 10mm Auto, and .357 Sig. So if you have handgun ammunition, the odds are very good you can buy a Glock to shoot it. The six cartridges I just named make up probably 60% of all centerfire handgun ammunition sold annually.


The design of the Glock is such that it is accurate, reliable, durable, safe, ergonomic, and very easy to use. This combination of features makes it the dominate gun chosen by law enforcement. However, there are no special features that would make it restricted to "police only", such as full-automatic fire.

Many other pistols that operate identically to the Glock are out there. It's a matter of personal preference as to what people own... ergonomics, price, available features, ability to be customized, fit, finish, size, weight, intended use, etc.

[oneshooter]

131. All true. But I just don't like the way they hang. My SIG and M70 1911a1 just feel better. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

121. Oh, good grief!

Glock is but one of many brands of semiautomatic handguns. There's nothing magical about a glock vs a Taurus or a Smith and Wesson.

It's not a police weapon, I happen to own two. My right to do so is protected by the constitution because the founders of this nation believed individuals have the right to protect their homes and their families.

You may disagree but I don't want to live in a country where only the government is allowed weapons to defend themselves from the people.

[jeepnstein]

129. You've got it all wrong.

You are calling it a "police weapon". It's better described as a "fighting weapon". At the heart of it that's what the Glock is designed to do. It is a weapon designed for service as a carry pistol for self defense. It just so happens that almost every cop in the U.S. carries a pistol. And lots of them carry Glocks for a very good reason. I carry a Colt, personally, and it's built for one thing and one thing only.

None of that really matters, though. Police officers are just citizens with a very dangerous and unforgiving job. They don't have any special status outside the conduct of their official duties as instruments of the state. We don't have the responsibility of guaranteeing your personal safety. Most of us are not exactly the fighting machines you see portrayed on TV. Anyone who relies on a gun to do their job as a cop doesn't belong in uniform. And anyone who relies on the police for their personal safety is a fool.

The whole assassination thing in Arizona boils down to one very disturbed man who should have known better than to go around killing people. I'm anxious to hear his motivation for his atrocity. I'm pretty sure he'll not make that same mistake again since where he's going there are limits on his freedoms and movement. Perhaps better access to mental health care would have helped. I don't know and I don't really care, now, because he's crossed the line and needs to be removed from polite society.

Far and away the citizens of this great nation are nothing like him. We obey the law. We pay our taxes. And we don't go around on killing sprees. We are guaranteed certain freedoms that most countries wouldn't dare entrust to their citizens. I prefer to live in a country where fear and policy created by reactionary impulses don't rule.

Stripping me and my fellow citizens of their rights will do nothing but strip us of our rights. It won't make you any safer. It won't make you any more morally superior. It will simply be another right tossed on the heap.

[Glassunion]

139. Because we don't live in a facist police state where only the police and military

can own a firearm who's technology is 100 years old this year.

[guitar man]

153. Same reason I can own a Colt, Ruger, Smith and Wesson

Beretta, Browning or any number of other brand name pistols. There was nothing remarkable about this pistol or its ammo, it was just another semi-automatic 9mm handgun.