What to do after Newtown

[Simon Dog]

And no, Hemodoc, you don't need to be a criminal to modify a gun - those who shoot competitively and even dedicated hobby shooters routinely adjust grips, triggers, and exchange barrels on weapons.  Making a trigger more responsive is a common thing in competitive shooting.  It doesn't take much knowledge at all and it is legal - the kits are easy to find and sold at plenty of gun shops.  It won't take a great leap of intuition to figure out how to adjust the available kits to change a semi-auto to an auto if you are familiar with the process.

Really?    Did you know that the full auto M16 has a different hammer; bolt carrier; selector/safety switch than the semi-auto M16; that it also has an extra part (auto sear), and that even drilling the holes above the trigger mechanism to accommodate an auto sear is a serious federal felony if you don't have a pre-86 regestered sear or lower (figure $10K+ and law enforcement approval for this part alone), and that's before you even get into stuff like the little ratchet to do 3 shot burst (which is an abomination of a design but outside the scope of this thread).

Competition AR15 trigger kits currently sold are designed for light trigger pulls with a crisp break for accurate target shooting, but are in no way something that can be easily converted to full auto.  They don't even have the extra metal on the hammer for the notch required to engage the auto sear.  Even if they did, the auto sear wouldn't trip without also replacing the semi auto bolt carrier with a full auto version having the extra metal designed to trip said sear.

There are some other guns (and you would not guess which ones) that are more easily converted to full auto, however, I am not going to provide instructions/details on a public forum.  Walk into any gun shop asking to buy parts to do an "off books full auto conversion" and expect a cold reception.

[jbeany]

*sigh*

Really?    Did you know that the full auto M16 has a different hammer; bolt carrier; selector/safety switch than the semi-auto M16; that it also has an extra part (auto sear), and that even drilling the holes above the trigger mechanism to accommodate an auto sear is a serious federal felony if you don't have a pre-86 regestered sear or lower (figure $10K+ and law enforcement approval for this part alone), and that's before you even get into stuff like the little ratchet to do 3 shot burst (which is an abomination of a design but outside the scope of this thread).

Competition AR15 trigger kits currently sold are designed for light trigger pulls with a crisp break for accurate target shooting, but are in no way something that can be easily converted to full auto.  They don't even have the extra metal on the hammer for the notch required to engage the auto sear.  Even if they did, the auto sear wouldn't trip without also replacing the semi auto bolt carrier with a full auto version having the extra metal designed to trip said sear.

There are some other guns (and you would not guess which ones) that are more easily converted to full auto, however, I am not going to provide instructions/details on a public forum.  Walk into any gun shop asking to buy parts to do an "off books full auto conversion" and expect a cold reception.

Really, the point was that it's possible for anyone to figure out if they want to.  Obviously you have.  And while I've never had the desire or need to learn the terms or techniques you've blithely rattled off, I've spent plenty of time in the company of men who were more than capable of doing the conversions, or milling any parts they couldn't easily lay their hands on - the type of men who thought making their own gun barrels was an entertaining way to spend the weekend.

And no, of course adjusting a semi-auto to full-auto isn't legal - but if you look at the earlier post I was responding to, the previous statement was that only criminals ever modify ANY guns. 

And while a gun shop owner who wants to maintain a sales license isn't going to cheerfully sell you conversion parts, if you can't mill your own there are plenty of places to buy just about anything you want on the internet.  If it's been made for use by anyone, it's been stolen from somewhere and offered for sale someplace.

[gothiclovemonkey]

Dear Moosemom,  you ask very good and interesting and thought provoking questions. However, I am not going to answer your question because of other people on IHD who call me Jerkface and openly threaten bans against me in a horribly immature manner. This is a political discussion thread. Sorry, but I have nothing more that I have to offer to IHD on these issues. If you have any questions, please send me a PM. I am always glad to answer your questions no matter what they are and thank you for your respectful discourse over the years. Take care, Peter.

Whoa! I was CERTAINLY not focusing on that term with regards to you, Peter, and I did not think that GLM was either. I took that solely to mean that she was talking about very general and hypothetical standards, and a person who refuses to meet those standards would be behaving like a 'jerkface'. I am not sure why you thought she was talking about you? I saw no evidence that anyone is trying to get you banned, either, unless something has happened behind the scenes that I don't know about.

Dude, this is the second time you have taken something I said waaaaaaaaaay wrong. I was NOT addressing "jerkface" to you. I meant If ANYONE was being a jerkface. ANYONE. If I meant you, I would have said Hemodoc, because I am blunt like that.
Do you feel guilty of being a jerkface? because I didnt say you were ... Not everything is about you. Stop assuming. (like I suggested last time you assumed something I said)

cariad, yes i use jerkface instead of far more... vulgar terms haha since im not sure the age groups that read this, and some older folk dont dig the foal language either.
I do agree that it could potentially cause someone who needs to go to a mod not to want to but im sure there are plenty of people who abuse that... but i better not say that, someone might think im talking about them....

I really think I wont post on these threads anymore, because I have come to the conclusion my words are unread, and when they are, they are taken wrong, so what the hell is the point?

[willowtreewren]

I really think I wont post on these threads anymore, because I have come to the conclusion my words are unread, and when they are, they are taken wrong, so what the hell is the point?

GLM, I read your posts because you speak from the heart without lots of BS. Just so you know... 

Aleta

[gothiclovemonkey]

Thank you  

[gothiclovemonkey]

I thought I posted this already, but apparently not...
I was NOT talking about you directly, hemodoc. I was speaking in general. I am blunt enough to say "hemodoc is being a jerkface" IF that is what I meant. It wasn't. Stop assuming things in reguards to me please.
My apologies for making you assume such a thing...

There are more than a few people on this site that can occasionally be 'jerkfaces' Hell, even myself can occasionally be one, im sure. Dont think everything is about you.
And I would expect that If I were being an ass, I would want to be told, so I can wake up and behave, or get out. Not a threat to you, Hemodoc. A statement that anyone who is being less than kind shouldnt be allowed to participate. In no ones post was your name mentioned specifically. Not one of them. Not sure why you would feel like it was about you....
because it was not.

[Hober Mallow]

This is absolutely nuts:

A man who found six children in his driveway in Newtown, Conn., after their teacher had been shot and killed in last month's school massacre has become the target of conspiracy theorists who believe the shootings were staged.

“I don’t know what to do,” Gene Rosen told Salon.com. “I’m getting hang-up calls, I’m getting some calls, I’m getting emails with, not direct threats, but accusations that I’m lying, that I’m a crisis actor, ‘How much am I being paid?'”

Rosen, a 69-year-old retired psychologist who lives near Sandy Hook Elementary School where the shootings took place, says his inbox is filled with emails like this one:

"How are all those little students doing? You know, the ones that showed up at your house after the ‘shooting’. What is the going rate for getting involved in a gov’t sponsored hoax anyway?"

“The quantity of the material is overwhelming,” Rosen said, adding that he's sought the advice of a retired state police officer and plans to alert the FBI.

...

A quick Web search for Rosen's name reveals some of what he's opened himself up to: Appearing online are photos of his home, his address and phone number, several fake YouTube accounts and plenty of conspiracy theories.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html

[Rerun]

Yeah, I watched the YouTube conspiracy thing on Sandy Hook and it is nuts.  I also watched every minute of the Sandy Hook situation as it unfolded.  The Medical Examiner was not an actor he is a weird guy that  has this job.  I'd probably be weird too if I had that job.  So he laughed at one point... I remember that and the reporter's question was so damn dumb that I would have had a (I can't believe you just said that) laugh too.  The couple who were smiling and laughing were talking about their daughter/or son and how special he/she was that is why they are smiling.  The old guy who found 6 kids at the end of the driveway ..... should have called police or 911 to report it.  I don't know why he didn't. 

No, we did not see the bodies of anyone.  So, did this actually happen?  Considering any group of people CANNOT agree on anything?  Therefore someone would slip up and tell. I think this is real.

I do have one question.  They said there were one or two people in the hospital.  Where are they?  Why weren't they interviewed or followed up on.

[MooseMom]

I do have one question.  They said there were one or two people in the hospital.  Where are they?  Why weren't they interviewed or followed up on.

Perhaps privacy issues?  We don't have the right to interview or follow up on them.

[Rerun]

I do have one question.  They said there were one or two people in the hospital.  Where are they?  Why weren't they interviewed or followed up on.

Perhaps privacy issues?  We don't have the right to interview or follow up on them.

Well, I'm sure the police followed up on them.  I just would like to know who they were and what they saw.  Maybe there was no one.  That State Trouper said again and again when they have turned over every rock and have every question answered they would tell us.  This is a huge news item.  People have poured out their hearts to that town.  That's it?  No followup?   Was it just staged? (I don't believe that)

[gothiclovemonkey]

you know, this isnt the first time thats happened.... I cant remember right now what it was, but i vaguely remember, when i was living with my dad, we watched the news all the time, and something was going on... then it just stopped talking about it out of the blue. I asked dad If i had missed anything, because there was never a conclusion... it went on for weeks, then nothing.

[MooseMom]

I found a link to this article over on RenalWeb and thought it would be an interesting read for those who have posted on this thread...


Gun-Related Deaths: How Australia Stepped Off “The American Path”FREEONLINE FIRST

Simon Chapman, PhD; and Philip Alpers

Annals of Internal Med. 12 March 2013

Australia and the United States share many characteristics. Both are English-speaking democracies of multicultural immigrants. The 2 nations have been allies for nearly a century. Australians and Americans consume similar diets of movies, video games, popular music, recreational drugs, and alcohol. Both have vast interiors, early histories of armed European settlers mistreating native populations, plenty of feral pests to shoot, and many firearm enthusiasts. Yet the 2 countries currently differ dramatically on the issue of gun violence. The U.S. population is 13.7 times larger than that of Australia, but it has 134 times the number of total firearm-related deaths (31 672 vs. 236 in 2010) and 27 times the rate of firearm homicide (11 078 [3.6 per 100 000] vs. 30 [0.13 per 100 000] in 2010) (1).

The event that spurred this change in Australian gun control occurred on 28 April 1996 at the tourist site of Port Arthur, Tasmania, when a gunman killed 20 people in 90 seconds with his first 29 bullets. This “pathetic social misfit” (the judge's words) was empowered to achieve his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing semiautomatic rifles originally advertised by the gun trade as “assault weapons.” Like most mass shooters in Australia and New Zealand, the killer had neither a criminal record nor a diagnosed mental illness.

In the 12 days after this event, Australia's 6 states, 2 territories, federal government, and opposition parties agreed to enact a comprehensive suite of firearm law reforms (2). John Howard, the newly elected and conservative Prime Minister, quickly reformed gun control laws. Since then, there have been no mass shootings and an accelerated decline in total gun-related deaths (3). All sides of Australian politics view tighter gun laws as a triumph of Howard's administration.

Key components of the reforms included a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic long guns and pump-action shotguns; a market-price gun buyback program financed by a small, one-off income tax levy on all workers; proof of genuine reason for firearm possession; the formal repudiation of self-defense as a legally acknowledged reason to own a gun; prohibition of mail or Internet gun sales; and required registration of all firearms (2). In a long series of state and federal gun amnesties and guns being voluntary surrendered for destruction, Australians have smelted more than 1 million firearms, or one third of the national civilian arsenal. An equal number in the United States would be 90 million guns (3).

On the day of the massacre in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, one of us tweeted a link to our report on gun deaths in Australia during the decade after the Port Arthur massacre and ensuing reforms (4). In the 6 years since our paper was published, readers had accessed it online 14 742 times. During December 2012, 82 310 people accessed it (see http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/articleusage?rid=12/6/365). Demand led to the reprinting of a book detailing the events surrounding Australian gun control (5), which was also made available as a free download. The world, particularly Americans, seems thirsty for information about the Australian experience.

The U.S. gun lobby argues that, because people (not guns) kill people, gun control will not reduce gun deaths. The Australian experience can inform this debate.

Whereas firearm suicides and single-victim homicides, such as domestic murders and criminal-on-criminal shootings, dominate the landscape of firearm-related deaths in industrialized nations, it was a mass shooting that outraged Australians and oxygenated public demand for gun control. The firearms banned from civilian ownership in Australia are frighteningly efficient, mass-killing machines originally designed for military combat. These weapons contribute little to target shooting or hunting. At the time, and across all mainstream media, gun lobby pleas to allow open civilian access to weapons designed for the battlefield were labeled as “un-Australian” extremism (5). Prime Minister Howard stated that, “this country, through its governments, has decided not to go down the American path in regard to guns.” But few predicted that a ban on semiautomatic weapons to prevent massacres would have had a significant impact on Australia's total gun deaths. Then, as now, unintentional shootings and suicides were responsible for 75% to 80% of gun deaths. Yet, the ban on semiautomatic weapons led not only to a 16-year absence of gun massacres but also an accelerating decrease in the total rates of gun deaths (3).

The rate of firearm homicide, which was decreasing by 3% per year before the reforms, decreased 7.5% per year after the new laws. This change failed to reach statistical significance (P = 0.15) because of the relatively small numbers involved, but it remains notable (4). Firearm-related suicides in Australian men declined from 3.4 to 1.3 deaths per 100 000 person-years (a 59.9% decline) between 1997 and 2005, while the rate of all other suicides declined from 19.9 to 15.0 per 100 000 person-years (a 24.5% decline), suggesting no substitution effect (6). The yearly change in firearm-related suicides in men was −8.7% per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, −10.2% to −7.0%), and the yearly change in other suicides was −4.1% (CI, −4.7% to −3.5%), less than half the rate of decrease in firearm suicide (6). Although gun lobby researchers in Australia have sought to repudiate these data (7) using methods that have been heavily criticized (8 - 9), to date, no peer-reviewed research has established a plausible alternative cause for these accelerated declines. Meanwhile, others have attributed even stronger public safety effects to Australia's firearm reforms (10).

A nation's incidence of firearm deaths reflects many cultural, economic, and legislative factors. Those implacably opposed to Australia's reforms remain intent on attributing the declining incidence of gun death to anything but the new gun laws and the destruction of one third of the nation's firearms. But Australia's public health initiatives resemble the explanatory elephant in the room. No factor other than the dramatic reduction in access to the semiautomatic weapons needed by those planning massacres has been advanced to plausibly explain the cessation of mass shootings in Australia.

Although pro-gun spokespersons remain obsessed with the injustice of “decent law-abiding shooters” being “treated like potential criminals,” this rhetoric finds little traction in Australia, where drivers are regularly treated as potential public menaces at random breath-testing checkpoints and travelers as possible terrorists when passing through airport security.

Recently, a public health approach to gun control has taken root in the White House. Each of President Obama's recommendations has its basis in evidence-based public safety interventions patiently researched by our U.S. colleagues. Interventions similar in intent and design to those that successfully reduced the toll of guns on the lives of Australians may, perhaps, take hold in the United States.

References

1.  Alpers P, Wilson M, Rossetti A.  Guns in Australia: facts, figures and firearm law - Death and Injury, Total Gun Deaths and Gun Homicides compared to the United States. Sydney, Australia: Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney; 2013. Accessed at www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths/65,66,69,87,136,177,192,194 on 28 February 2013.

2. Commonwealth of Australia.  Resolutions from a special firearms meeting. Canberra, Australia: Australian Police Ministers Council; 10 May 1996.

3. Alpers P.  The big melt: how one democracy changed after scrapping a third of its firearms. In: Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Pr; 2013:205-11. Accessed at http://jhupress.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1421411113_updf.pdf on 11 February 2013.
 
4. Chapman S, Alpers P, Agho K, Jones M.  Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Inj Prev. 2006;12:365-72. [PMID: 17170183]

5. Chapman S.  Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control. Annandale, VA: Pluto Pr; 1998. Available for download at http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/8938.

6. Chapman S, Hayen A.  Declines in Australian suicide: a reanalysis of Mcphedran and Baker (2008) [Letter]. Health Policy. 2008;88:152-4. [PMID: 18571279]

7. Baker J, McPhedran S.  Gun laws and sudden death: did the Australian firearms legislation of 1996 make a difference? Br J Criminology. 2007;47:455-69.

8. Neill C, Leigh A.  Weak Tests and Strong Conclusion: A Reanalysis of Gun Deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback. EPS Journal Discussion Paper 555. Canberra, Australia: The Australian National University, Centre for Economic Policy Research; 2007.

9. Hemenway D.  How to find nothing. J Public Health Policy. 2009;30:260-8. [PMID: 19806067]

10. Leigh A, Neill C.  Do gun buybacks save lives? Evidence from panel data. American Law and Economics Review. 2010;12:462-508.

[Hober Mallow]

Minnesota radio host Bob Davis has a heartwarming message for the Newtown families.

"Deal with it, and don't force me to lose my liberty, which is a greater tragedy than your loss. I'm sick and tired of seeing these victims trotted out, given rides on Air Force One, hauled into the Senate well, and everyone is just afraid -- they're terrified of these victims. ... I would stand in front of them and tell them, 'Go to hell.'"

What a wonderful American.

[Rerun]

Will background checks on people who buy "Pressure Cookers" solve anything?  It is domestic terrorism and they will not fill out a background check sheet......EVER!!!  There are bad people who have bad ideas.  We need to catch them and hopefully justice will be done.

[KarenInWA]

Background checks for buying guns is a no-brainer. Anything can be used to kill and maim - but guns are primarily used to kill or maim. What else do you do with them? You can display one over the fireplace, but that's not why most people buy them. Most people buy them to shoot, and if you shoot without aiming properly, you end up killing or injuring someone. A gun can't cook you a meal (although it can kill one for you), it can't get you from point A to point B. Therefore, a background check is needed. NO-brainer.

KarenInWA

[Rerun]

Bad people are NOT going to do it.  No brainer.....  Not saying you can't still have a list of good people that have guns. 

[MooseMom]

I'd like to know how these two Boston bombers got their guns.  Were any background checks done on them? 

[Hemodoc]

Background checks for buying guns is a no-brainer. Anything can be used to kill and maim - but guns are primarily used to kill or maim. What else do you do with them? You can display one over the fireplace, but that's not why most people buy them. Most people buy them to shoot, and if you shoot without aiming properly, you end up killing or injuring someone. A gun can't cook you a meal (although it can kill one for you), it can't get you from point A to point B. Therefore, a background check is needed. NO-brainer.

KarenInWA

The Virginia Tech killer passed his background check.
The Arizona shooter passed his background check.
The Aurora theatre killer passed his background check.
The Columbine killers bought their weapons in a straw purchase avoiding the background checks.
The Newtown killer stole his mother's weapons avoiding a background check.

Background checks are essentially a failure in preventing mass shootings.

Background checks as proposed by the Dems includes registration, there is no other way to track private sales without it and the Dems have opposed plans that did not include the registration proposal as well.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/294213-why-universal-background-checks-wont-work

Background checks will not make America safer. Universal background checks is the back door to universal gun registration. That is the true end result that they are looking for. Universal background checks sounds great as a sound bite, but it is not a workable policy and it imposes severe risks of civil liberties.

In any case, after watching the Boston police rape the constitutional rights of innocent law abiding citizens in Watertown MA, not sure how much civil liberties it is that we have left to protect any longer. The amazing aspect is how the city of Boston rose up to cheer those who placed them in "lockdown", i.e. Martial law for 24 hours. I guess the 4h amendment means nothing any longer in this nation. The 1st and 2nd are not far behind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc!  It's great to see you!

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc!  It's great to see you!

Always a pleasure Moosemom. The answer to question above is no, the Boston bombers obtained their guns illegally. In fact, the older brother was in a prohibited category due to a prior arrest on domestic violence. One more such case where background checks failed since the weapons were obtained illegally.

[Bill Peckham]

If he bought his gun off the internet or at a gun show, how would that be a failure of background checks?  It could have been through a straw purchaser and legislation strengthening laws blocking straw purchases has also been blocked.

[Hemodoc]

If he bought his gun off the internet or at a gun show, how would that be a failure of background checks?  It could have been through a straw purchaser and legislation strengthening laws blocking straw purchases has also been blocked.

Bill, straw purchases have been against the law for quite some time with serious consequences but that does not prevent criminals from circumventing the law. Interviews of criminals confirms that further gun regulation will not change their behavior.

The issue of the Boston bombers is that under current regulations, the older brother was not eligible for gun possession or ownership. Thus, even before he shot at the police, he was breaking the law and didn't care. Under current law, he was not allowed to even hold a gun in any manner. Criminals don't keep the laws we already have.

In addition, most internet gun sales require sending the gun to an FFL for clearance and all gun show sales done through FFL have background checks. Private sales conducted anywhere including gun shows are legal and no background checks are conducted. Different states such as CA don't allow any sales unless through an FFL with background checks. Further, all guns sales in private are illegal if the seller knows of any precluding reasons that a person would fail a background check at an FFL. There are already consequences for selling to ineligible people at Federal and state levels.

You cannot mail a handgun to a private party and only a resident of a given state can buy a handgun in that state. Long guns, shotguns and rifles, can only be shipped to private parties within a given state if there is no state prohibition. Otherwise, to go from one state to another, you must ship to an FFL and abide by the state laws in place. The laws in place are already very comprehensive.

Once again, stopping criminal behavior for folks who don't follow the law remains a difficult issue no matter how many gun laws we already have or will ever add in the future.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, do you think we have a "gun problem" here in the US?

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, do you think we have a "gun problem" here in the US?

No, I believe we have violence and a crime problem for which no one seems to have an answer. What spawns and breeds violence in this nation is where the discussion needs to go since those that wish to do violence can place gun powder in a pressure cooker with nails and ball bearings and do great harm. People can take a knife and injure 14 people in a few minutes. Or you can take ordinary fertilizer and add gasoline and kill hundreds. I live in Idaho where just about everyone I know carries concealed guns yet the crime rate is very low. If guns were the underlying problem, then where I live in Idaho should be very dangerous. Hunting, camping, shooting are frequent activities for the folks up there with people owning several guns in each household.

Yet, it is southern CA where guns are severely restricted that I am at greatest risk.

Violence in its many forms is the underlying issue. I believe God has the answer to that problem, yet America is more and more dismissing that as an answer. Rescinding the second amendment will not solve the problems of guns or violence in this nation since these laws do nothing to address the criminal element.

[skg]

Hemodoc, do you think we have a "gun problem" here in the US?

No, I believe we have violence and a crime problem for which no one seems to have an answer. ...

It's certainly not just guns which are a problem. I live in rural South Dakota, and the rate of gun ownership and use is quite high, but with little violence. Perhaps problems arise when there is a combination of high population density and guns?

But, I'm intrigued by the article MooseMom posted about Australia. As described, it would appear as though gun control efforts there have had a dramatic effect on gun violence.

Regarding violence and guns -- humans are very much creatures who tend toward convenience. While individuals intent on violence can certainly find ways, doesn't the fact that guns are relatively convenient and effective for committing violent acts suggest there may be more of a connection?

cheers,
skg