Posting in Architecture
Architects are struggling with design responses for gun issues, everything from walled cities and fortified materials to better interior visibility and memorials at the sites of tragedies.
Record gun sales over the last few months and new open-carry laws have architects asking new and practical questions about building design.
In a little-noticed thread on Archinect last month, the thoughtful architect Peter Normand of Urbana, Ill.-based co-working group Design Posse, poses a simple question: "What can we do as designers to keep the public safe in this new gun saturated environment?"
Three strains of answers are emerging. One is to fortify and exclude, a sort of stranger-danger design impulse.
For example, there’s a nice plot of land in Idaho where you can buy a future home in a walled-off enclave called the Citadel, a place that is purpose-designed for doomsday preppers, libertarians and gun-rights proponents. It’s a community where you can take care of yourself and each other -- as long as those others live behind the Citadel’s heavily fortified battlements.
Inside, enjoy the benefits of Jeffersonian liberty and Western mob justice, all in the scenic mountaintops of Benewah County. Plans include an underground shelter, a command center, a helipad and even a stockade. The development will be funded by III Arms, a startup gunmaker in Inwood, West Va., that intends to donate all its profits to the Citadel.
In fact, walled-off residential enclaves are being built at record rates, with a 53 percent growth rate between 2001 and 2009. By then, more than 10 million U.S. housing units were in gated communities, The New York Times reported. That’s about 10 percent, not including second homes and vacant properties.
It’s positively medieval. But do gated communities really work? “The answer seems to be yes, says the International Foundation for Protection Officers (IFPO), they do keep crime rates down “but only by very little.” The city of Miami, for example, reports that “the long-term crime rate is at best only marginally altered.”
Fortify the walls
A second architectural response is to amp up security and harden the walls. It’s similar to what followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
A large category of building materials and specialty systems is designed for defensive architecture, as it is known. Yet almost nothing in the codes specifically addresses gun protection, shooter control or safe havens. Even ballistic materials offer only feeble shielding.
Just ask designers of indoor shooting ranges. A code official on an International Code Council (ICC) blog recently featured a U.S. Marine corporal’s advice for building an indoor shooting range: Don’t try to build stronger walls. Instead, “limit the caliber cap and round type.”
Near occupied buildings, the Marine reportedly said, guns are only safe underground.
Another building code official suggests that the military’s own expertise is insufficient on this topic. “Ask the National Rifle Association (NRA),” he writes. “While the military certainly is knowledgeable about certain guns and shooting, they use a limited variety … The NRA will have the most experience and the most knowledge regarding shooting ranges and ballistic capabilities of different cartridges and rounds.”
Without special bullet traps, a 0.50-caliber shot will punch clear through an unfortified building, into one end and out the other, even through concrete walls.
Yet, in the wake of shootings in elementary schools, many architects are not recommending heavier walls with fewer windows. Instead, the trend is to improve interior visibility -- an approach that works in all buildings, not just schools.
Around the country, architects are offering other tips for designing safer schools. None seem very new. On KUOW radio in Seattle, architect Kevin Flanagan of NAC Architecture offered ideas such as adding window blinds, laminated glass and beefed-up security systems with intercoms and electronic locks all controlled from the administrators’ offices.
While Flanagan suggests minimizing entrances, other architects argue that bigger entry plazas and lobbies are needed for better screening and vetting of visitors.
But the use of bars on windows, Plexiglass shields and other obvious signs of gun paranoia? Psychologists say this is bad for morale and depresses student performance. “There’s not much more we can do. What are we going to do, put kids in prisons?” asks Edmund Einy, principal of the firm GKKWorks, in a recent story in Architectural Record magazine.
Architectural curator Thomas Mellins comments in the same article that safety concerns just don’t translate into specific building layouts and wall assemblies.
A healing response
Which leaves many architects focused on the third possible response in gun-related architecture: building anew or erecting memorials -- or both -- in places where tragedies happen.
“Shootings, events defined by immediate sightlines and ballistic trajectories, are an especially spatial and architectural kind of violence,” writes Thomas de Monchaux for The New Yorker. “The architectural task in the long aftermath of such shootings is not only to repair structural damage but to calibrate a balance between remembering and forgetting sufficient for daily life to continue nearby -- and to figure out how the shapes, materials, and details of buildings can participate in that calibration.”
It’s not better defense that comes after the shooting, de Monchaux contends. It’s dealing with our insecurities, discomforts and disconsolations.
As an example, de Monchaux describes the designs for Utoya Island in Norway, the site of a mass shooting in 2011. The architecture firm Fantastic Norway worked closely with the Labor Youth party, which owns the island, to create “a social village, a closely knit network of several individual houses and outdoor spaces,” writes the Museum of Finnish Architecture.
A new belfry is the focal point of the rebuilding, and Fantastic Norway explains that the word belfry is rooted in the Germanic words meaning “to protect” and “peace.” In other words, belfries originally were watchtowers that protected against hostile incursions.
So answering the question posed by architect Peter Normand, perhaps we need to build as many reminders of our “gun-saturated society” and gun tragedies as we need protections against them.
Instead of panic rooms in every home and classroom, we need more symbols of awareness. Instead of new building codes and bulletproof doors, let's open the shades on who we are.
Normand describes his experience in a Michigan café, sitting a few feet from a patron carrying a gun in his visible holster. Across the state, he says, there are new laws permitting concealed weapons into churches, theaters and schools.
“Assuming the political reality won’t change for the next decade,” Normand asks, “what can we do as designers?”
Hopefully the answers are on the way.
Apr 9, 2013
Instead of looking at it as "stopping outside violence," why are you failing to see the real problem. The same design factors that protect from violence, can also protect from Tornadoes, earthquakes (where appropriate)/Hurricanes/etc. For some reason that I won't try to identify, designers look at only one factor. The same walls/windows that stop bullets, also stop flying debris in tornadoes and hurricanes. The same designs that protect in earthquakes, and other "natural disasters" make exit easier in fires, etc. "Just because we've always done it that way," is no longer a valid excuse. We can, and should, do better. The original articles was partly right about "walled enclaves." If even _one_ person doesn't follow basic common sense rules, the best fort in the world will fall. What are these rules? If someone has a temper problem, fantasizes about killing/harming others, don't let them have access to weapons.(Too bad Adam Lanza's mother didn't follow that one.) Teach children discipline and respect for others. Understand and accept that all actions have consequences. If you don't know someone, don't let them in your house/building, until you are sure that they can be trusted, Treat other people the same way you want to be treated. Nothing hard, or complicated, but too often people can't/won't follow them.
"Inside, enjoy the benefits of Jeffersonian liberty and Western mob justice, all in the scenic mountaintops of Benewah County." Hmmm...been to the website. Didn't read anything about lynchings, etc. So where did you get the idea about mob justice?
We've owned guns freely and schools had rifle teams and the only mass shooting were mob hits not too long ago . My money is on our society changing for the worst , we may have cool gizmos now and that's good we like that , but socially and ethically we went wrong , it's probably a mash-up of Right-wing religious extremism and soul killing greed/capitalism mixed with Left-wing crybaby political correctness with it's feel good pseudo psychology and need to ban and regulate all thing scary , offensive or makes anyone uncomfortable .
First of all, we are in no greater danger now with the higher saturation of guns in society than we were before. If anything, weâre safer since bad guys are less certain that their potential victims are unarmed; and there are more good gals packing and willing to stop bad guys than there used to be. Peter Normandâs question is phrased rather anti-gun; whereas a more neutral question would have been, âHow can we design architecture to increase safety from gunfire? Secondly, building memorials to the fallen is a complete and total waste of time when it comes to protecting people. Awareness of the Holocaust hasnât done a thing to stop genocide around the world in the past 70 years. Walled enclaves do decrease crime slightly, but only that of a non-domestic nature. And they are not a panacea. George Zimmerman was patrolling a gated community the night he killed Trayvan Martin because that neighborhood was being plagued with break-ins. You want a home or apartment building that resists gunfire; then you need to build out of brick, concrete, stone, or log cabins. Wood frame homes with plywood and vinyl exteriors, and sheet rock walls donât cut it. And on those harder structures, smaller windows leave smaller openings that a bullet can pass through. At the risk of laughing at a Marine, the corporalâs suggestion to limit the caliber cap and round type isnât practical for most commercial indoor ranges. Unlike a standardized military armory, there are too many different types in the civilian world. And anyone can tell you that you need to practice with what you use. Marines donât train with water pistols for combat; and home owners shouldnât train with a .410 loaded with plastic BBs if theyâre going to be using a .12 ga with 00 lead or steel buckshot. And I have no problem with turning schools into fortresses. A bonus is such a form of architecture would hold up to student vandalism much better than current build methods and materials.
Reasonable laws that help keep guns from those individuals who should not have access to them, do not mean that the laws are being made to keep any law abiding citizen in this country from having as many guns as they deem necessary for hunting, home protection or whatever reason they have for owning weapons. All I hear are the hysterical rants about "if the government requires background checks for gun purchases, that they will come take everyone's guns away!". This is all just emotional crazy crackers hysteria that continually drowns out reason. Of all the industrialized countries in the world, we rank number one in gun related deaths per capita. That's the country we live in. Congratulations! What an honor. We're number 1! We're number 1! I support the 2nd Amendment. I don't support the crazy crackers out of their minds paranoids that spend every moment thinking that our government is intent on taking away our rights and privileges as American citizens. We have to be better and smarter than this. There is not one proposal in the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch of government that mentions taking away the right of gun ownership. Only expanded background checks for all gun sales. Common sense, not crazy crackers.
Murder and stealing were banned in the Ten Commandments. How has that worked? Prohibition banned alcohol. How has that worked? Narcotic drugs have been banned for nearly 100 years. How has that worked? No law, no little sign, has ever been able to stop a person determined to commit violence. Did the 9/11 hijackers use guns? Did Timothy McVeigh? Did the Japanese terrorists that used Saran gas in the Tokyo subways use guns? Having been a victim of a break-in in my home, if I had to wait for the police to arrive (~10 min.), it's likely I would be dead. Fortunately, the drunken neighbor who broke into my house was not so drunk that he failed to see the pistol pointed at his chest while I was on the phone with the police. He left and I didn't have to shoot him but, as he was physically larger and stronger, if he had taken one step closer, I would have shot him without a second thought.
Just check out these links related to Pharmaceutical Drugs and their side effects. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pharmaceutical+drugs+and+guns&aq=f&oq=pharmaceutical+drugs+and+guns&aqs=chrome.0.57.12042j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
As we see the crazy person in Texas didn't kill anyone. If he'd have had an AR-15, he could have killed dozens. It's beyond stupid to think we're violating the 2nd amendment when we ban children, criminals and crazy people from getting them. Or for banning military weapons from civilians. So, we shouldn't ban tanks, fighter jets, 155mm howitzers, etc? We should sell guns to ANYONE who has the money? If you think "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun" you're overlooking the obvious. How about we do what we can with background checks and cracking down on straw purchases to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys to begin with? BTW,I just saw a clip of the time Reagan was shot by a crazy person. It didn't vote for him, but I'm glad my President was not killed. However, none of those gun wielding secret service guys he was SURROUNDED by stopped him from getting shot. More sensible laws equal more safety, not more guns.
Adam Lanza shot his way through a locked glass door at the front of the school. You would have to post a guard at every door. To pay for the guards and metal detectors, I propose to issue a new tax on every firearm purchase and every ammunition purchase.
President Clinton had as simple option and failed to take it. Presidents Bush & Obama have failed as well (never thought I'd have those two names together in such a sentence). State Attorneys General explained to Clinton in '94 what he could do to halt weapons proliferation at once. Remember, states and cities lose the most from guns. Any President can make a simple phone call to a few cabinet members and agency heads... "Inform your weapons vendors that all contracts, all POs, all payments and all proposals are now on hold. No further payment/purchase/proposal activity will occur until your company certifies that it no longer sells semi/fully-automatic weapons into the civilian market, and that you've both retrieved all such weapons shipped to dealers, gun shows, etc., and have warehoused all such weapons for federal inspection and destruction or disassembly and re-purposing of parts suitable to military weapons fabrication. All other parts will be destroyed, again subject to federal inspection. All production facilities will be closed or altered to serve only the military market, also subject to inspection and verification. Only when all the above requirements have been met will any federal purchasing and payment activity be re-opened and continued with your company, or its affiliates/subsidiaries." President Obama can still make the call no other President has shown the guts or responsibility to make. There's no need for any civilian weapon to have trigger activation of cartridge loading or casing ejection. Even Justice Scalia's own words affirm this (never thought I'd agree with him either). .
As many have said, you are not going to solve the violence problem completely. This is not possible. Now, given this assumption, what can you do to minimize the occurrence violence or its impact? Where do we start? What are the things involved? And what assumptions do we make? Things involved: 1. The shooter 2. Location where the shooting is taking place. (location is a more complex thing than just physical location) 3. The victim or victims. 4. The gun or guns (and ammunition). 5, Time of shooting. 6. The ecosystem / context in which the event occurs. Assumptions: 1. Everyone has the right to have and use guns or other instruments without the government (or any one else) knowing you have it. (Why is this a "right", because governments in the past have taken away instruments of defence and turned its citizens into slaves). 2. "The bad guys" (anyone other than us) who uses a gun to harm someone, always exists, and will always be able to get a gun. They always succeed. 3. If it is not a "bad guy" who does violence, then it is a person who has psychological problems. 4. Stopping the acquisition of the gun will solve the problem. 5. The defence against a violent threat is retaliation (pre or post) and/or a stronger threat. (There are many other unstated assumptions which should be listed and examined). So far, mostly I have heard, in the search for a "solution", are changes that involve the shooter, and their access to guns, and their access to victims. As in WDC, most of the people proposing a "solution" take "extreme" positions. The media plays its part in this situation, by presenting these arguments put forth by both extremes. Maybe it is not the function of the media to do something other than report what it sees. I would like see a list of possible changes to the situation that could have an impact on the situation, with an estimate of impact it would have on the situation. And then follow this list by a review of these solutions. For instance, I look at the way that air-bags have been implemented to save lives. This solution did not eliminate the problem. It focused on the "things" that could be changed. It assumed that the driver (as long as it is a person), will not be improved. So it looked at what were the easiest things to change. Its answer was the automobile. It did not mandate a complete solution in an instant. But today you cannot buy a new car without an air bag. I would look for a similar type of gradual change. Likewise, I think the easiest thing to change in this situation is the gun and/or its components. We create smarter cars, telephones, computers, etc. Guns operate much the same way they did 200+ years ago. You pull the trigger and it fires. The concept of "fire by wire" has been developed. We might consider expanding this capability, with other technological tools to improve the weapons found normally within a city location. Just like the air-bag, a smarter gun will not solve the problem but it might move us to a better future. The smarter gun does not have to "broadcast" its location. It can be a quite instrument that is only sensitive to its location. The sensitive locations must broadcast their existence. People (like in a frontier town) can get together to determine where the sensitive location are. The gun just abides by the rules its location. Places where there are no rules, the gun allows its full capabilities. I don't see this as infringing upon the person's right to own and use a gun. It is similar to the frontier town's rules of checking guns at the edge of the city. When you leave the city, you get your guns back. I have offered one solution which is different from the same old ones I have heard in the past. It certainly is not the best nor the brightest. But we as a nation should take some time to reasonably explore all possibilities. I expect to hear that "this really is not a solution", because of the extreme point of view that "the bad guy or the people with problems will always be able to circumvent this change". This is true, if you are looking for an idealist/complete solution. But the guns used by the Sandy-hook shooter were recently purchased. I doubt his mother would have bought an illegal gun. Have we really considered the solution of a smarter gun?
Why the hell would someone suggest putting bars on the school windows in response to the question of how to make schools safer from mas school shootings when the shooters of these mass school shootings came in thru the front door? The answer is because the goal here is to paint guns and gun ownership as the problem. This story is nothing but a spin piece to press for disarming of the public albeit under a much more politically acceptable name like âAssault Weapons Banâ since even the most gullible of those in favor of gun bans know that if they ban guns outright which is a 2nd amendment protection then whatâs to stop the government form moving to ban free speech next? I tend to expect unintelligent arguments from Smart planet pieces since its more of a pro-big government spin machine then anything scientific, yet this is still low even by Smart planets standard.
Are you kidding, we don't want to make our schools fortresses, isolated from the outside; we our schools to be open and inclusive of the world around them. I still remember when our teacher moved our class outside and we sat in the grass learning on a beautiful day, a memory to be treasured. That's what I want today's children to experience, the openness and freedom, not seclusion and fear. Change the society by removing that which is causing us harm, not the other way around. This means repeal the 2nd amendment, which has no business being in today's society and go from there. Now that would be the right approach.
The hysteria is way out of proportion. If you want to really keep kids safe you need to look at the statistics of how K-12 students die. The greatest threat to their safety is riding in an automobile. So, it the gun control folks really have only the safety of our children as their desire, they should advocate the banning of children riding in automobiles. If all they want to concentrate on is gun control, then they really have a very different agenda.
Given that Peter Normand is here to relate his 'shocking' story, one must assume that his armed fellow diner did not jump up from his table and start shooting up the cafe. Nor did that worthy's firearm leap out of its holster on its own and randomly spray the establishment with bullets. Actually, were any miscreants around, the presence of an armed patron probably mitigated any untoward impulses they might have otherwise acted upon. So please, let's stop demonizing firearms (which are inanimate objects) and the responsible, law abiding citizens who carry them. With respect to current building practices, note that the 5.56 NATO round (used in the dreaded AR-style semi-automatic rifle) is actually an excellent home defense choice from a safety standpoint. This small caliber, light weight, high velocity round is actually quite frangible (particularly with hunting bullets) and will typically fragment into tiny pieces after penetrating a single sheet of drywall. Conversely, most pistol rounds, shotgun slugs and buckshot were originally designed expressly for penetration. For instance, the venerable .45 Colt will penetrate half a dozen 7/8" pine boards at close range. In other words, a large caliber handgun round will shoot through every wall in your house, and maybe your neighbor's house, too. Bottom line: if you want to make a responsible choice for home defense, buy a modern semi-automatic rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO.
Why are we reacting like gun violence is a rising problem rather than a dramatically declining one? Is it really just because of record [i]sales[/i]? I mean, we have less than half the gun violence we did 20 years ago, and we have the lowest homicide rates we've had since 1960.
See yesterday's news about multiple stabbings at a Texas community college. Unhinged people are the real danger, not the tool(s) they chose to inflict inappropriate violence on others.
I surely hope that reason will prevail in the States. Guns in the right hands is good, attack rifles in bad hands is VERY BAD. None of us wants the States to look like this in 10 years time: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/rebels-call-halt-as-peace-talks-planned-in-central-african-republic/article6879346/?service=mobile (Irrespective of the race bearing arms)
obscures anything sensible you might have said. News flash: a lot of those killings are done by other than whites. All I hear are hysterical rants about "crackers" from you.
"This is all just emotional crazy crackers hysteria" " I don't support the crazy crackers out of their minds paranoids " It never surprises me how supposedly open minded liberals can be so bigoted.
...are the hysterical rants about..."crazy crackers"? Did you actually read that before hitting "submit"?
In Dade County Fla. you CAN BUY ANY WEAPON your evil li' heart desires, up to and including, SAMs - anything you can afford. If (WHEN) atomic weapons are available, there will be buyers. Louisville taken hostage? Why not? Who's gonna stop 'em? "Give me your money or I set it off!" If you think I'm wrong, you're either ignorant, stupid or you're leading a very sheltered life.
You are laboring under some mis-information. You state: "Or for banning military weapons from civilians." Civilians do NOT have "military weapons" unless they work for DHS. Civilians only have weapons that LOOK like their military counterparts. They do NOT function like them. Check your info as they are NOT "facts".
Considering that the current administration is cutting defense spending and currently engaging in a "Sequester", the panicked civilian market is probably more profitable.
Your apparent lack of ability to reason kills your argument. Repealing the 2nd amendment will _not_ make children, or anyone else, safer. GB and Australia have almost exactly what you want and children are not safer there. A person intent on doing harm, can only be stopped by killing them. Putting them in prison/mental hospital "stops" them only as long as they are locked away. Once they "get out," they can go back to what got them sent there in the first place. If you _really_ want to "make things better," start by making people take responsibility for their own actions. Stop making excuses, for bad behavior of children and adults. In those famous words. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Actual criminals know almost precisely what the consequences of their actions are, or think they do. The "costs" are so low a to be almost nil, so they are not deterred. Only rarely is there someone who "doesn't care." Granted, with a U.S. population of 320 Million+, there are a lot of them, but not that many.
until you advocated repealing the Second Amendment. That has been done in places like the UK and Australia (they don't have a 2nd Amendment, but they did have gun ownership). Then your crazy train went off the rails. Now they don't and both places have seen gun crime go up. How can that be? They were banned. And those that can't get guns for whatever reason are using knives. So much so that in the UK, they are considering bans on some knives. I guess they didn't learn. We need to remove the crazies, not the guns. That is what is causing the harm.
The 2nd amendment keeps up safe. It is persons who remove guns from honest peoples hands via gun control that are fully responsible for every mass shooting that happens in a "gun-free zone". It was not that long ago that we could take guns to school and we did. There were no shootings, no school violence and no people demanding that schools become shooting galleries for the evil. I would feel far more secure if there was a complete ban on stupidity but that would force all liberals to be sent to the sun or otherwise removed.
Why stop the protection push at gun bans? If your goal is to provide safety then we need to ban free speech to as it is just as dangerous. The ability to engage in free speech is what ha lead to any of a number of violent revolutions. If only the leaders of those revolutions could have had their speech curtailed then we could have avoided some of those violent revolutions. Same applies to modern day motivational speakers who may motivate others to engage in acts that they might otherwise not consider such as speaking out against the government and insisting that those that represent us do what they swore an oath to do. Since we canât foresee who might grow up to be leaders, those who motivate others we need to do something about this dangerous free speech which has no place in our modern society. What we need is speech registration. What weâll do is require all persons to register in advance with the government, any comments or thoughts they plan to share with others. If the speech is approved then the individual is free to share said speech with others. If their speech is no approved then they will be given the chance to use a government provided revised version that has been approved or they can choose to not share said free speech. Because you can never catch every evil doer all the time weâll need to maintain a list of potential âfringe speakersâ or âVerbal terroristsâ. That way if someone has their speech submissions repeatedly turned down our loving government will have the opportunity to stop them before they speak out of control. Any persons not willing to go along for âwhatâs best in the interest of the majorityâ have no place in our modern society and will be incarcerated for inciting hate speech in public. After all, if itâs not approved speech then it canât be loving or good and so it must be hate speech right? So pkabatek, what do you think? Itâs time for you to put up or shut up. If youâre really for doing that which will make our world safer then the registration and regulation of speech followed shortly after by a ban of free speech is a no brainier Are you ready to help us make our world safer by registering free speech with the long term internet of banning it altogether in the interest of promoting the common good for all? Or are you really a hypocrite who is all for overturning the right to bear arms because you donât have any arms and donât plan to and so banning them has no direct impact on you and is therefore OK to push into the rest of us? Once the right of the people to bear arms is abolished there will be nothing left to prevent someone rich and powerful from rising to power, enacting a police state and effectively enslaving all the citizens of said police state. Think thatâs ridiculous and could never happen here in America? Why not? If the people are disarmed then who or what will stop the Federal Government from then moving forward with additional violations or our rights and liberties? An armed public may not be able to defeat an Abrahams tank equipped military but if the public is armed it will be impossible for the government to violate the people without limit without having to deal with retaliation by the masses. The only reason China is able to abuse its people and enslave them is because the citizens have no way to defend themselves when the government thugs come barging in. .
Exactly, and how about school buses that don't have seat belts! None of the federal laws proposed would have prevented Newtown. What is alarming to me is that it took a bunch of white kids getting killed in the suburbs to get everyone riled up, while most of the kids killed with guns live in poor areas in the cities and are shot with handguns. So just who are OUR KIDS?
Did you see the story where a diner in a Burger King thwarted an armed robbery with his concealed handgun? Shot the perp in the leg and he was later apprehended (too bad he didn't end his miserable existence). I bet our esteemed author would have soiled his armor over that one if it had happened where he was dining. Great comment overall.
You comment that the 5.56 NATO (aka .223) "is actually an excellent home defense choice" and DHS agrees with you. They have ordered about 7000 of the AR styled weapons for their people along with 30 round magazines. They even call them "personal defense weapons" BUT there is one major difference. The AR type weapons the general public has - the ones that the panic stricken media mistakenly call "assault weapons" - are only semi-automatic, i.e., one bullet for each pull of the trigger. The ones for the DHS people are TRUE "assault weapons" in that they are FULLY AUTOMATIC. They ARE machine guns! And these will be in the people's homes!
Because the agenda is not for now but for the future. The gun laws are long term agenda, just watch in the coming decade what else is pushed thru.
we must immediately pass a 1000 page law for knife control. It;s all so ridiculous. How about people being required to raise and control their children properly so the number of murderous miscreants would be reduced. While some people think gun control is an answer, that's only the first step. Eventually the shrill and screeching haters of freedom, who push fascism and liberalism, would have us all forbidden to own metal, or glass or even plastic, and made to wear pajamas because they are soft and have no sharp edges and can't be used as weapons. hahaha well maybe that is overboard. If everyone would be responsible for themselves, none of this would be an issue.
To compare what is happening in large parts of Africa to a 2nd Amendment discussion in the US is moronic. Those men were not a bunch of farmers and business men who suddenly picked up their home defense weapons and started raising hell across the country. They are part of an organized group that is led by yet another third world wanna be dictator who went out and bought a bunch of black market military weapons. Military weapons that have been dumped on Africa by Russia, China and their surrogates for the last 40 years. News flash. The new UN ban on arms trading will do nothing to help Africa. If a nation does not agree to the new UN arms trading ban it is automatically exempt. Nations that have said they will not go along with the ban are the perennial arms traders of Iran, North Korea and Syria. And where do they get their weapons from? Primarily from Russia and China. Don't worry, Africa will still have plenty of guns coming in after the UN ban goes into effect.
Actually, you can (or used to) own fully automatic weapons in some states by passing a federal background check and paying the $200 federal transfer tax for that specific item. There are specific rules involved in storing the firearm as well. However, if I remember correctly, there are no new firearms being made available for personal use, so anything you get will likely by used. Is there someone out there that can verify my info is current? Although I fired the M16 in the military, full auto is mostly a waste for civilians. With todays ammo prices, it's hard enough to find enough to practice with a semi-auto, much less feeding a hungry machine gun.
Straight forward and honest. "[Article.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." The US Constitution could also use this added from the NH state constitution. "[Article.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
If you have a gun, or they think you have a gun, they won't be so quick to f**k with you. Yeah, the bad guys might get shot - what a concept!! When people are armed, trained in the use of weapons and are willing to defend themselves violent crimes decrease. That's a fact the gun control advocates don't like advertised. Take the legal means of self-defense away from ordinary people and you will see a rise in crimes with guns. This is a FACT you cannot dispute but the media doesn't want you to know about. Why? Because the media is pwned by the same folks that want you to be unarmed so they can control you. Yes I'm paranoid. I'm outnumbered, surrounded and out gunned and only fools believe what they see on TV. Where I'm from you don't want to try and rob me, a home owner, or you might get a clip emptied on you. Is that's wrong? Why are there so many outspoken idiots trying to restrict my ability to defend myself?
I am in agreement with the above poster. The right to bear arms is more of a protective device for us--against the government as well as against criminals. I seem to remember the initial idea being "If we become a corrupted government, depose us." or something along those lines.
The new state gun control laws in Connecticut do nothing that would have prevented the Newtown shootings. The governor admitted it. And what good are federal background checks when states can exclude relevant information? The Virginia tech shooter bought his gun legally. Back ground check and all. In spite of being found to have violent tendencies by a state doctor. Virginia state privacy laws withheld that dangerousness report from the federal government data base used to run gun background checks against. Including that report would have blocked the sale. FYI Virginia still withholds that data to this day.
Why not? We seem to be following the UK pattern on everything else. In spite of their very tight controls on firearms, they are now considering legislation concerning kitchen knives and table cutlery. You can't even carry a scout knife unless you're 18. BTW, the EU rates GB as the most violent country in the EU.
IF everyone would be responsible for themselves, none of this would be an issue. I agree with this statement whole-heartedly, but the problem is that one funny little word. "If". I'll quote Gregory House. "Everybody lies." -- Every human being is given to sin; say what you wish about religion, it's true. Humanity lies, cheats, steals to get ahead in almost all cases. The only way and reason we ever do "the right thing" is when we think of how it will benefit us in the long run. This doesn't have to be a conscious thought either. -- Point is, people are not, never can and never will, be responsible for *themselves*. That's the reason we have a government and a system of laws in place. -- So yes, in an idyllic world, people would be responsible for themselves, and none of this would be an issue. But this is not an idyllic world.
I get a gun buying permit from the county sheriff. I pay the fee and I come back for it in a few days to give them time to do a background check. It's good for 3 years. Then I go buy a gun. I'm still required to fill out the Federal form, they do a quick check with NICS (even at a gun show) and then give me the gun and out the door I go (or continue shopping). There is no licensing involved for any specific gun. I was curious, so I checked a few years ago. You can actually buy a machine gun, but there are hoops to jump through and I think the tax is now $500.00, but I'm not sure. I too, fired the M16 in the military. Never on fully automatic, though. One of the local firing ranges rents machine guns for use at the range. I may do that once just for the fun of it.
If you have to pass a background check to get ANY gun license, and a gun license is required to buy a gun, why do we need to rerun the background check for every gun bought? Just asking.
"Why are there so many outspoken idiots trying to restrict my ability to defend myself?" Simply because of what you said... "want you to be unarmed so they can control you" As we head toward a future of a one world government, there is something in the way. That something is The People! Once The People are successfully dumbed down all the way, and completely unable to defend themselves against a military, that is exactly what is going to happen! We are being steered in a direction in which a dumb, ignorant nation will be begging for every last remaining Liberty we have left to be taken from us. Please, they'll beg, please take everything away from us so we can't hurt each other anymore! Sure can do. Thank you very much for being a complete fool. And by the way, we need your property as well. Take care. SHEEP!