Ask HN: Open source app idea. Get rid of my gun app
6 comments
Gun or not, the criminally-insane will always find ways to kill. You can make about 100 different types of bombs using household chemicals, all with far more lethal and discreet potential than a gun. Maybe we should start burning all cleaning agents.
Take a hard look at history, namely Prohibition. What happens when you restrict access to a resource in demand? People find new, illegal, and potentially more dangerous ways to sell it.
Let's disperse with the idealism that regulating/destroying guns will somehow create world peace. It will create new opportunities for criminal-entrepreneurs. Black markets. Increased crime. More guns in the hands of criminals, and less in the hands of honest people (I don't particularly care about how many "honest" people have guns, but I do care about the consequences of over-regulation).
Take a hard look at history, namely Prohibition. What happens when you restrict access to a resource in demand? People find new, illegal, and potentially more dangerous ways to sell it.
Let's disperse with the idealism that regulating/destroying guns will somehow create world peace. It will create new opportunities for criminal-entrepreneurs. Black markets. Increased crime. More guns in the hands of criminals, and less in the hands of honest people (I don't particularly care about how many "honest" people have guns, but I do care about the consequences of over-regulation).
People with mental health issues usuaaly won't have the techincal know how/ skills to build a bomb using toilet cleaners. I come from India, where there are groups that make low tech bombs. Not individuals. Often times they injure themselves than kill a lot of people. The ones that kill 100's often require well regulated chemicals.
Mental health does not always negate mental power. Sociopaths and Psychopaths (a very similar classification) have perfectly normal brain function, only (to some degree) violence does not bother them -- some even enjoy it. Not all socio/psychopaths are killers though, in fact some are very good people (it has been theorized that a few US Presidents were sociopaths). Often times sociopaths can be very intelligent people, especially with regards to social hacking (they can be very charming on the outside, and very manipulative). (Source: my parents are psychiatrists who deal with the criminally insane, among many other types of mental cases).
And yet, countries with strict gun control tend to have far less deaths caused by guns.
Nobody is saying that gun control will mean that nobody will ever get shot and killed again, but the harder you make it for people to act on their murderous feelings, the less likely they are to do so.
It is objectively more difficult and time-consuming to build a bomb than it is to point a gun and somebody and shoot them.
Lots of people have feelings of rage at some point in their lives. Most people don't act on those feelings in a destructive way.
Even though most of these school shootings in the US don't seem to be random - there usually turns out to be at least some form of pre-meditation as far as I can tell - the fact that it is so easy to act on your feelings of rage / destruction cannot do anything but lead people who have those feelings down that path.
Nobody is saying that gun control will mean that nobody will ever get shot and killed again, but the harder you make it for people to act on their murderous feelings, the less likely they are to do so.
It is objectively more difficult and time-consuming to build a bomb than it is to point a gun and somebody and shoot them.
Lots of people have feelings of rage at some point in their lives. Most people don't act on those feelings in a destructive way.
Even though most of these school shootings in the US don't seem to be random - there usually turns out to be at least some form of pre-meditation as far as I can tell - the fact that it is so easy to act on your feelings of rage / destruction cannot do anything but lead people who have those feelings down that path.
Murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from ~15k to ~12k. Firearms murders, which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent.
California, a state with one of the most strict gun laws had the most gun murders in 2010. 69 percent of all murders that year, according to FBI data.
California, a state with one of the most strict gun laws had the most gun murders in 2010. 69 percent of all murders that year, according to FBI data.
The point is not that gun control reduces the number of murders: it's that making it harder to get hold of a gun makes it harder to kill somebody.
Anybody who wants to kill somebody badly enough will do it with or without gun control: you'll still be able to get hold of a gun regardless. What gun control will do, however, is make it much more unlikely that somebody will go out and act on their murderous feelings.
To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, it looks like a valid solution to far more problems than it actually is.
Anybody who wants to kill somebody badly enough will do it with or without gun control: you'll still be able to get hold of a gun regardless. What gun control will do, however, is make it much more unlikely that somebody will go out and act on their murderous feelings.
To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, it looks like a valid solution to far more problems than it actually is.
A loud, messy, expensive, most likely traceable gun would be the worst way to kill someone.
And yet here we are: a man just shot up a school full of kids.
A gun is an effective way to kill somebody - regardless of what happens after the fact. Most of the time in these kinds of massacres, the perpetrator doesn't care at all what happens after the fact - and I'm willing to bet that in a lot of gun murder cases, the perpetrator was not thinking about the consequences / ramifications at the time they pulled the trigger.
A gun is an effective way to kill somebody - regardless of what happens after the fact. Most of the time in these kinds of massacres, the perpetrator doesn't care at all what happens after the fact - and I'm willing to bet that in a lot of gun murder cases, the perpetrator was not thinking about the consequences / ramifications at the time they pulled the trigger.
It's quicker, easier, and safer for you than most other methods.
[deleted]
Let's imagine -- and this is a hypothetical that treads on fantastical ground -- that due to this tragedy, the US quickly passes a new Constitutional amendment banning guns.
There are millions of guns that are already in circulation. Anyone who wants to flout the new law will have plenty of warning and opportunity to start stockpiling them.
Gun control might work, if guns had just been invented and were only in the hands of a few governments and manufacturers. Or if we were some European/Asian country that's had a tight grip on weapons for a long time.
There are millions of guns that are already in circulation. Anyone who wants to flout the new law will have plenty of warning and opportunity to start stockpiling them.
Gun control might work, if guns had just been invented and were only in the hands of a few governments and manufacturers. Or if we were some European/Asian country that's had a tight grip on weapons for a long time.
There isn't an instant solution so just do nothing?
1. I'm not interested. It's a pretty simple project if you take my advice at the end of this post, so you could easily do it yourself.
2. The three ways to legally destroy a gun are: 1) destruction by the owner (google instructions), 2) giving the gun to someone who can legally possess it who will destroy it, 3) turn it in at a police station to be destroyed, although the guarantee depends here as some departments resell and won't necessarily tell you. You will need a federal license from the ATF to broker guns which is what your service will be doing despite your goals. You will probably need one organization per state since you can't easily trade guns across state lines. The military will absolutely not buy from you, even if you go to all the trouble to become a federal vendor.
Because of these difficulties, I suggest you stick to a simple pledge plus social media share system, provide destruction instructions and suggest gun-regulation lobbies to interested donors.
2. The three ways to legally destroy a gun are: 1) destruction by the owner (google instructions), 2) giving the gun to someone who can legally possess it who will destroy it, 3) turn it in at a police station to be destroyed, although the guarantee depends here as some departments resell and won't necessarily tell you. You will need a federal license from the ATF to broker guns which is what your service will be doing despite your goals. You will probably need one organization per state since you can't easily trade guns across state lines. The military will absolutely not buy from you, even if you go to all the trouble to become a federal vendor.
Because of these difficulties, I suggest you stick to a simple pledge plus social media share system, provide destruction instructions and suggest gun-regulation lobbies to interested donors.
I respect what you are trying to do, but do you really think the ones who commit these types of crimes will be using your system? In all honestly, anyone who would voluntarily give up their firearm, probably aren't someone we need to worry too much about.
I think you're missing the point. It's about a society that doesn't want guns anymore. It has to start somewhere.
If successful, this would become a grass roots level gun control movement with lots of press coverage. However I couldn't find any documentation that has instructions on how to get rid of a gun if the owner changes his mind/fears misuse by family members.
ban also knifes then. Today in China someone killed 22 children with a knife.
A man stabbed 22 children. Nobody died. They are in hospital. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/man-stabs-22-child...
I wish the man in Connecticut stabbed the kids instead of using an assault weapon to blast them away.
I wish the man in Connecticut stabbed the kids instead of using an assault weapon to blast them away.
A pistol is no more an assault weapon than a knife.
There are far more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol.
I'm a gun owner, former Army, and gun rights advocate, but I'm not crazy, and I do recognize the need for change. I just want to discuss it with level head, outside of the gun/anti-gun lobby confines.
There are far more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol.
I'm a gun owner, former Army, and gun rights advocate, but I'm not crazy, and I do recognize the need for change. I just want to discuss it with level head, outside of the gun/anti-gun lobby confines.
> A pistol is no more an assault weapon than a knife.
You're just arguing semantics here - if you assault somebody with a pistol, then it's an assault weapon.
Saying that there are more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol is like saying that getting hit by a lorry is worse than getting hit by a car: it doesn't fucking matter, it's still going to kill you.
You're just arguing semantics here - if you assault somebody with a pistol, then it's an assault weapon.
Saying that there are more dangerous types of guns than a 9mm pistol is like saying that getting hit by a lorry is worse than getting hit by a car: it doesn't fucking matter, it's still going to kill you.
My point is that if a pistol is an assault weapon, then so is a knife.
Well, yes - but you don't use a pistol to cut your steak.
How is it that you can't see that banning weapons will quickly escalate to other things even in the tech world? "Let's ban X because someone met a group using service Y and killed them", "Let's regulate X because Y happened, hey we did that with guns".
Show me why you believe that this is what will happen: don't just tell me that this is what will happen.
This is precisely why we do everything in our power to stop countries like Iran getting nukes. It's only a matter of time before some nutjob actually goes and uses one - so the sensible thing to do is make it really, really difficult to get one in the first place.
This is precisely why we do everything in our power to stop countries like Iran getting nukes. It's only a matter of time before some nutjob actually goes and uses one - so the sensible thing to do is make it really, really difficult to get one in the first place.
Well Hitler was pro banning guns for a reason and so does any other tyrannical regime. Here is what happens shortly after:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15KLhgZaRvc
Well sure, if I only ever listened to views that echoed my own, I'm pretty sure I'd feel like that too.
A few points from this video:
1: Horrible presentation: this is fear-mongering at its finest.
2: Not a single argument presented from the anti-gun perspective.
3: Admissions that length of sentences are not high enough (nothing to do with guns at all).
4: Admissions that police are hilariously under-equipped to respond and deal with crime (nothing to do with guns).
If your police force cannot do its job, and your justice system is a joke, then surely you can see how that would reduce the risks for would-be criminals and make it more likely for them to commit a crime? Why is 'no guns' the only explanation for an increased crime rate (if indeed those figures are valid)?
You can't just say that gun control = tyrannical regime (note: I have never once actually advocated an outright gun ban). Stop being ridiculous.
What level of weaponry do you believe individuals should be allowed to own? Would you be happy for Joe Schmoe to own that same level of weaponry?
Gun advocates are fond of saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
Yes, people kill people. Using guns. A gun is such a devastating weapon to the human body - the only reason to point it at somebody is if you want them to die. If it's trivially easy to get hold of a gun, then more people are likely to use them against other humans. This isn't complicated.
The pro-gun lobby seems to think that anybody who advocates gun-control is some kind of idiot: that we don't understand how not owning a deadly weapon reduces the ability to defend myself. Of course we understand that - but we believe that the risks of easy access to guns far outweigh the benefits. I am fully aware that criminals will still get hold of guns - but they have access to them anyway if guns are legal. I'd rather have the odd armed criminal than all of them armed.
A few points from this video:
1: Horrible presentation: this is fear-mongering at its finest.
2: Not a single argument presented from the anti-gun perspective.
3: Admissions that length of sentences are not high enough (nothing to do with guns at all).
4: Admissions that police are hilariously under-equipped to respond and deal with crime (nothing to do with guns).
If your police force cannot do its job, and your justice system is a joke, then surely you can see how that would reduce the risks for would-be criminals and make it more likely for them to commit a crime? Why is 'no guns' the only explanation for an increased crime rate (if indeed those figures are valid)?
You can't just say that gun control = tyrannical regime (note: I have never once actually advocated an outright gun ban). Stop being ridiculous.
What level of weaponry do you believe individuals should be allowed to own? Would you be happy for Joe Schmoe to own that same level of weaponry?
Gun advocates are fond of saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
Yes, people kill people. Using guns. A gun is such a devastating weapon to the human body - the only reason to point it at somebody is if you want them to die. If it's trivially easy to get hold of a gun, then more people are likely to use them against other humans. This isn't complicated.
The pro-gun lobby seems to think that anybody who advocates gun-control is some kind of idiot: that we don't understand how not owning a deadly weapon reduces the ability to defend myself. Of course we understand that - but we believe that the risks of easy access to guns far outweigh the benefits. I am fully aware that criminals will still get hold of guns - but they have access to them anyway if guns are legal. I'd rather have the odd armed criminal than all of them armed.
Listen powatom, I think we aren't going to change each other's opinions. In my past life i lived in a war zone, been to the army and witnessed first hand what governments can do. Our country is no different, it can easily escalate in the same way here.
There is a clear pattern in history for tyrannical regimes. Every enlightened society in history thought the same as you do now, there is absolutely no difference except that today, citizens can trackback and view what happened in the past and maybe fight for there freedoms and prepare themselves. Gun control is the most frightening thing for me and for millions of Americans because we know that martial law will come soon after.
The only thing i can think of that would maybe make you look at it from a different angle is asking let's say, your grandparents (if they are alive) their thoughts about it. If you do that i bet you'd be very surprised by their input.
There is a clear pattern in history for tyrannical regimes. Every enlightened society in history thought the same as you do now, there is absolutely no difference except that today, citizens can trackback and view what happened in the past and maybe fight for there freedoms and prepare themselves. Gun control is the most frightening thing for me and for millions of Americans because we know that martial law will come soon after.
The only thing i can think of that would maybe make you look at it from a different angle is asking let's say, your grandparents (if they are alive) their thoughts about it. If you do that i bet you'd be very surprised by their input.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. Tyrannical governments come about through incredibly complex situations that can't simply be reduced to an arms race between government and civilians.
My grandparents have plenty of opinions I think are outdated and downright offensive in some cases.
Just like letting one country fall to communism meant the soviets would win eventually.
next we can decide to ban cars, since well they cause more deaths than guns. right?
I realize that you are trying to be facetious here, but I don't know of any cars that are specifically designed to cause harm to people.
And if there was one, how many do you want in your neighborhood?
And if there was one, how many do you want in your neighborhood?
> I don't know of any cars that are specifically designed to cause harm to people.
You should really learn to use the Internet one of these days. I hear it makes you less ignorant about the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_armored_cars
You should really learn to use the Internet one of these days. I hear it makes you less ignorant about the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_armored_cars
I'm asking for regulation on assault weapons. Not a ban on guns. This will be more like asking people to wear seat belts and take a license test than banning cars.
I think I know what you mean to say, but the term 'assault weapon' has no meaning. A pillow can be classified as an 'assault weapon' if you try to smother someone with it. I am kind of torn on whether or not I agree that some weapons should be illegal to own, but I'll explain my views and why I hold them.
The term 'assault weapon' is very similar to the actual class of weapons known as 'assault rifles.' I think that the media was attempting to create a term that would define weapons that seem militarized, yet aren't rifles.
So what's an assault rifle? Traditionally, it has been a term used to classify weapons that fire a rifle round (like a 7.62 or a 5.56) instead of a pistol round (such as a 9mm or a .357.) The distinction is notable, because rifle rounds are generally far more powerful. Another traditionally distinguishing characteristic is that assault rifles are normally capable of fully automatic or burst fire (more than one round per trigger pull.) In recent years, assault rifles have begun to include certain semi-automatics, like the AR-15.
The second category of weapon is the submachinegun. While they often look and act similar to an assault rifle, they fire pistol rounds and therefore cannot be considered assault rifles. To my knowledge, semi-automatics that fire pistol rounds are not considered to be submachineguns, even when they look identical to their fully automatic counterparts.
Finally, we have handguns, which many people seem to hate. If you don't know what a hand gun is, then you probably aren't smart enough to have read this far, so that's all I have to say about those.
So why is it important to understand the differences? Well if you want to selectively ban firearms, you'll have a better chance of getting people to listen when you are well educated on the subject. In the same way it pisses programmers off when politicians try to regulate the Internet without understanding the slightest thing about computers, it pisses gun owners off when uninformed people try to implement broad, sweeping, policies that result in the banning of guns based on exaggerated or outright fabricated claims of a particular model's capabilities.
In the 90s, a weapon called the Tec-9 became popular in movies. On screen, the gun was always shown to be fully automatic, even though the real one was almost always semi-automatic. There were a few people who managed to modify them to fire on full-auto, but your average gang member probably struggled just to load it. While movies portrayed tec-9 as the ultimate weapon for badasses (because it actually looked pretty cool), the truth is that the gun's popularity was largely due to the fact that it was a total piece of shit, and therefore could be purchased for about 100-150 dollars, which was ridiculously cheap for a 9mm.
Another oft maligned weapon is the AK-47. Unlike most of the world's AKs, the ones that are available in the U.S. are semi-automatic only. Unfortunately, fear sells, causing the media to imply that thousands of people are running around with machine guns. So why do people buy AK-47s if they are semi-automatic? Well, they are reliable, cheap (unless you get an actual Russian made ak, which can cost thousands) and the ammo is inexpensive. They also look just like a normal ak, and some people want a weapon that looks badass, even if it isn't.
Like the AK, the AR-15 is often mistaken for its military counterpart, but the AR-15 is not an M16. The m16/m4 series of weapons can fire full auto or in three round bursts, depending on the model/revision. The AR-15 on the other hand, fires semi-auto only.
While these weapons are often mistaken for automatics, there are some other criticisms that are often mentioned. When the original assault weapon ban was implemented, high capacity magazines and bayonet lugs were two of the defining attributes of an 'assault weapon.' First of all, bayonets are less effective than bullets, and the use of bayonets is so situational that many soldiers aren't issued bayonets anymore (many still do get them, but they are rarely used for combat purposes, and Even then, there is a good chance that it won't be attached to the weapon. Because of this, it's pretty stupid to ban a gun because you can attach a knife to it. If I had to guess, the only reason AR-15s had bayonet lugs was to keep from having to spend extra money manufacturing two different barrels.
Now I'll talk about the only argument that has a bit more legitimacy, high capacity magazines. While it is true that they hold more rounds, super-high capacity magazines (50-200 rounds) like the one used in Aurora, have a slightly higher chance of causing the weapon to jam. That still leaves magazines from 11-30, which are far more common. I can sympathize with the argument that such a magazine contributes to the death count, but a skilled gunman (most aren't skilled) can reload a handgun in under 2 seconds, and a rifle in a similar amount of time. There are videos available on YouTube that show swat/special forces guys loading amazingly fast. It ust takes a little bit of practice.
So basically, I'm not sure what the solution is. Clearly it's not optimal to ban guns outright when there's a hundred million peaceful gun owners in America, yet everyone wants to find a way to prevent mass shooting from happening ever again. Personally, for the reasons I listed, I don't think that the banning of semiautomatic firearms or high capacity magazines is going to be productive. I support the restriction of fully automatic weapons, but they are already illegal to own, unless you go through a process that can take years, that includes a background check.
The term 'assault weapon' is very similar to the actual class of weapons known as 'assault rifles.' I think that the media was attempting to create a term that would define weapons that seem militarized, yet aren't rifles.
So what's an assault rifle? Traditionally, it has been a term used to classify weapons that fire a rifle round (like a 7.62 or a 5.56) instead of a pistol round (such as a 9mm or a .357.) The distinction is notable, because rifle rounds are generally far more powerful. Another traditionally distinguishing characteristic is that assault rifles are normally capable of fully automatic or burst fire (more than one round per trigger pull.) In recent years, assault rifles have begun to include certain semi-automatics, like the AR-15.
The second category of weapon is the submachinegun. While they often look and act similar to an assault rifle, they fire pistol rounds and therefore cannot be considered assault rifles. To my knowledge, semi-automatics that fire pistol rounds are not considered to be submachineguns, even when they look identical to their fully automatic counterparts.
Finally, we have handguns, which many people seem to hate. If you don't know what a hand gun is, then you probably aren't smart enough to have read this far, so that's all I have to say about those.
So why is it important to understand the differences? Well if you want to selectively ban firearms, you'll have a better chance of getting people to listen when you are well educated on the subject. In the same way it pisses programmers off when politicians try to regulate the Internet without understanding the slightest thing about computers, it pisses gun owners off when uninformed people try to implement broad, sweeping, policies that result in the banning of guns based on exaggerated or outright fabricated claims of a particular model's capabilities.
In the 90s, a weapon called the Tec-9 became popular in movies. On screen, the gun was always shown to be fully automatic, even though the real one was almost always semi-automatic. There were a few people who managed to modify them to fire on full-auto, but your average gang member probably struggled just to load it. While movies portrayed tec-9 as the ultimate weapon for badasses (because it actually looked pretty cool), the truth is that the gun's popularity was largely due to the fact that it was a total piece of shit, and therefore could be purchased for about 100-150 dollars, which was ridiculously cheap for a 9mm.
Another oft maligned weapon is the AK-47. Unlike most of the world's AKs, the ones that are available in the U.S. are semi-automatic only. Unfortunately, fear sells, causing the media to imply that thousands of people are running around with machine guns. So why do people buy AK-47s if they are semi-automatic? Well, they are reliable, cheap (unless you get an actual Russian made ak, which can cost thousands) and the ammo is inexpensive. They also look just like a normal ak, and some people want a weapon that looks badass, even if it isn't.
Like the AK, the AR-15 is often mistaken for its military counterpart, but the AR-15 is not an M16. The m16/m4 series of weapons can fire full auto or in three round bursts, depending on the model/revision. The AR-15 on the other hand, fires semi-auto only.
While these weapons are often mistaken for automatics, there are some other criticisms that are often mentioned. When the original assault weapon ban was implemented, high capacity magazines and bayonet lugs were two of the defining attributes of an 'assault weapon.' First of all, bayonets are less effective than bullets, and the use of bayonets is so situational that many soldiers aren't issued bayonets anymore (many still do get them, but they are rarely used for combat purposes, and Even then, there is a good chance that it won't be attached to the weapon. Because of this, it's pretty stupid to ban a gun because you can attach a knife to it. If I had to guess, the only reason AR-15s had bayonet lugs was to keep from having to spend extra money manufacturing two different barrels.
Now I'll talk about the only argument that has a bit more legitimacy, high capacity magazines. While it is true that they hold more rounds, super-high capacity magazines (50-200 rounds) like the one used in Aurora, have a slightly higher chance of causing the weapon to jam. That still leaves magazines from 11-30, which are far more common. I can sympathize with the argument that such a magazine contributes to the death count, but a skilled gunman (most aren't skilled) can reload a handgun in under 2 seconds, and a rifle in a similar amount of time. There are videos available on YouTube that show swat/special forces guys loading amazingly fast. It ust takes a little bit of practice.
So basically, I'm not sure what the solution is. Clearly it's not optimal to ban guns outright when there's a hundred million peaceful gun owners in America, yet everyone wants to find a way to prevent mass shooting from happening ever again. Personally, for the reasons I listed, I don't think that the banning of semiautomatic firearms or high capacity magazines is going to be productive. I support the restriction of fully automatic weapons, but they are already illegal to own, unless you go through a process that can take years, that includes a background check.
Can you provide details of the guns that were used in last few mass shootings, starting with yesterday's. I heard two pistols and a semi-automatic with which he sprayed bullets. And his mother went through all the training and background checks to buy them.
Sure. It will probably take me a few hours to do a bit of research, but I'll post a list later tonight, and explain the weapons used in many of the well-known shootings, along with their difference.
I mentioned the AR-15 already, because it is a popular weapon for these things. It was used in the movie theater shooting and at the Oregon mall shooting, and probably in others. That being said, there are hundreds of rifles with similar capabilities, so singling out such a weapon would do absolutely nothing to curb the death count in those situations.
Also, it's worth noting that it is impossible to "spray" bullets with a semiautomatic weapon. You can achieve an accurate rate of fire that would surprise most people, but it will still be just a small fraction of what a fully-automatic weapon is capable of putting out. Many times, people who have been traumatized in such a situation will remember things more intensely than they actually occurred, because they are still in shock. It's perfectly natural for people to claim they heard automatic fire, because when you are being shot at, it seems like a hell of a lot at the time.
Anyways, check again tonight or tomorrow, and I'll have posted a better response.
I mentioned the AR-15 already, because it is a popular weapon for these things. It was used in the movie theater shooting and at the Oregon mall shooting, and probably in others. That being said, there are hundreds of rifles with similar capabilities, so singling out such a weapon would do absolutely nothing to curb the death count in those situations.
Also, it's worth noting that it is impossible to "spray" bullets with a semiautomatic weapon. You can achieve an accurate rate of fire that would surprise most people, but it will still be just a small fraction of what a fully-automatic weapon is capable of putting out. Many times, people who have been traumatized in such a situation will remember things more intensely than they actually occurred, because they are still in shock. It's perfectly natural for people to claim they heard automatic fire, because when you are being shot at, it seems like a hell of a lot at the time.
Anyways, check again tonight or tomorrow, and I'll have posted a better response.
Columbine - Tec-9 – Semiautomatic 9mm Pistol
The Tec 9 looks like a submachine gun, but as I previously stated, it is not. It was originally designed as a submachine gun, but when the company failed to obtain a military buyer, it released a semiautomatic version to sell to civilians. Magazine capacities ranged from 10-72 rounds, but the ones used in this shooting appeared to be 32s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kg99.jpg
Hi-Point model 995 – Semiautomatic Carbine
The Hi-point Carbine is often said to be a rifle, but that is inaccurate. It fires pistol rounds, and the model used in this shooting probably fired 9mm to be more exact. It holds up to 11 rounds total.
http://acolumbinesite.com/weap/hrifle.jpg
Illegally modified, Sawed-Off, Savage-Springfield 67H Shotgun
http://acolumbinesite.com/weap/hpumpshotgun.jpg
Illegally modified, Sawed-Off Double-barrel Savage Arms 311 Shotgun
http://acolumbinesite.com/weap/dkshot.jpg
There isn't anything notable about the two models of shotguns that were used. The only thing really sinister about them is that they were illegally modified by shortening the barrel and the stock. The simple act of modifying a shotgun in such a way is enough to get you sent to prison for a couple of decades. (Remember Ruby Ridge? The ATF raided his house and murdered his wife and kid all because he cut the barrel of a shotgun like 1/32 of an inch too short.)
VA Tech Shooting
In this shooting, the killer used a Glock 19, a 9mm, Semi-automatic pistol that is a favorite among police officers. According to Wikipedia, he was using 15 round magazines, but they also make them from 10 rounds to 31 rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Criminologygunglock.jpg The other weapon the shooter used may actually surprise some people. It was a Walther p22. What is notable about this weapon is that the cartridge it fires is extremely weak. It is chambered for the .22 Long Rifle Cartridge. .22 LR is a rifle round, but it is one of the weakest available, and would do less damage than nearly any other pistol round. This weapon had a 10 round Magazine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Walther_P22_Corrected.jpg
Norway Shooter
I believe this shooter may have had more weapons, but so far I have been able to verify that he had at least a Glock, and a Ruger Mini-14. Before the shooting, he allegedly attempted to obtain both a Rocket-Propelled Grenade, and a fully automatic AK-47, but failed to do so.
Glock – Most glocks are pretty much the same as the one I described above. The only significant difference it could have had would be a more powerful round, such as a 10mm, .40 cal, or a .45. I can’t find what he used, but basically, it was a typical semi-automatic handgun.
Mini-14 – A semi-automatic rifle that most commonly comes chambered for 5.56/.223 rounds. In other words, it normally fires the same rounds that the AR-15 would. It looks more like a traditional rifle, but it is pretty much equal to the AR-15. The shooter in Norway used several of the standard size, 30 round magazines during his killing spree. It’s worth noting that I've never heard this weapon referred to as an assault rifle until the Norway shooter used it as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mini14GB.jpg
AR-15 – I mentioned this weapon in my previous posts, so here’s a picture for anyone who doesn’t know what it looks like.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2012/07/ar15-50231....
While recent mass shootings seem to revolve around the use of the same types of weapons, I'm not convinced that outlawing semi-automatics would actually prevent deaths, or if it would lead to the increased use of other types of weapons(including other guns.) We had a pretty heated debate on HN about the war on drugs recently, and some people brought up a valid point, that as long as people want to have access to something whether it's legal or not, they will find a way to obtain it.
The Tec 9 looks like a submachine gun, but as I previously stated, it is not. It was originally designed as a submachine gun, but when the company failed to obtain a military buyer, it released a semiautomatic version to sell to civilians. Magazine capacities ranged from 10-72 rounds, but the ones used in this shooting appeared to be 32s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kg99.jpg
Hi-Point model 995 – Semiautomatic Carbine
The Hi-point Carbine is often said to be a rifle, but that is inaccurate. It fires pistol rounds, and the model used in this shooting probably fired 9mm to be more exact. It holds up to 11 rounds total.
http://acolumbinesite.com/weap/hrifle.jpg
Illegally modified, Sawed-Off, Savage-Springfield 67H Shotgun
http://acolumbinesite.com/weap/hpumpshotgun.jpg
Illegally modified, Sawed-Off Double-barrel Savage Arms 311 Shotgun
http://acolumbinesite.com/weap/dkshot.jpg
There isn't anything notable about the two models of shotguns that were used. The only thing really sinister about them is that they were illegally modified by shortening the barrel and the stock. The simple act of modifying a shotgun in such a way is enough to get you sent to prison for a couple of decades. (Remember Ruby Ridge? The ATF raided his house and murdered his wife and kid all because he cut the barrel of a shotgun like 1/32 of an inch too short.)
VA Tech Shooting
In this shooting, the killer used a Glock 19, a 9mm, Semi-automatic pistol that is a favorite among police officers. According to Wikipedia, he was using 15 round magazines, but they also make them from 10 rounds to 31 rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Criminologygunglock.jpg The other weapon the shooter used may actually surprise some people. It was a Walther p22. What is notable about this weapon is that the cartridge it fires is extremely weak. It is chambered for the .22 Long Rifle Cartridge. .22 LR is a rifle round, but it is one of the weakest available, and would do less damage than nearly any other pistol round. This weapon had a 10 round Magazine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Walther_P22_Corrected.jpg
Norway Shooter
I believe this shooter may have had more weapons, but so far I have been able to verify that he had at least a Glock, and a Ruger Mini-14. Before the shooting, he allegedly attempted to obtain both a Rocket-Propelled Grenade, and a fully automatic AK-47, but failed to do so.
Glock – Most glocks are pretty much the same as the one I described above. The only significant difference it could have had would be a more powerful round, such as a 10mm, .40 cal, or a .45. I can’t find what he used, but basically, it was a typical semi-automatic handgun.
Mini-14 – A semi-automatic rifle that most commonly comes chambered for 5.56/.223 rounds. In other words, it normally fires the same rounds that the AR-15 would. It looks more like a traditional rifle, but it is pretty much equal to the AR-15. The shooter in Norway used several of the standard size, 30 round magazines during his killing spree. It’s worth noting that I've never heard this weapon referred to as an assault rifle until the Norway shooter used it as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mini14GB.jpg
AR-15 – I mentioned this weapon in my previous posts, so here’s a picture for anyone who doesn’t know what it looks like.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/assets_c/2012/07/ar15-50231....
While recent mass shootings seem to revolve around the use of the same types of weapons, I'm not convinced that outlawing semi-automatics would actually prevent deaths, or if it would lead to the increased use of other types of weapons(including other guns.) We had a pretty heated debate on HN about the war on drugs recently, and some people brought up a valid point, that as long as people want to have access to something whether it's legal or not, they will find a way to obtain it.
Guns are designed for one purpose, to kill other human beings. Cars, while also dangerous, do have more utility.
This is in response to the horrible story from Connecticut. I live in Massachusetts with a little child. I was concerned and thought of creating a website/app in AWS that would basically let people give away a gun for guaranteed destruction.
Let's say it would be a webapp, developed on github and deployed to AWS with money raised from say Kickstarter. The web site would give away tweetable/facebook badges and would profile people who give away their guns in support/memory of victims.
The features of the web could be developed through an open source community. We may be able to enlist help from sympathetic celebrities.
Please respond with what you know about the below.
1. Will you be interested in a weekend hacking session on a Python or Java app. We could launch a Google Hangout and put a website/raise money over kickstarter. 2. How can somebody in US get rid of a gun legally. I'm talking "assault weapons". There should be a guarantee that this will be destructed and not resold anywhere(Except may be resold to US army or so for a charge that would go into say gun control legislation lobby).