Children and Guns - Photojournalism

[Alan Goldhammer]

I think the underlying problem is television. I've been around since that pestilence began and I've watched it envelop the world. To get viewers the damned thing has to be exciting, and killings look exciting -- as long as you're not personally involved in them. To a kid, killing somebody with a gun looks like a game.

Not so much television but rather the first person shooter video games.  I got a free game several years ago when I built my new workstation; it came with the graphic card.  It was Metro: Last Light which is set in the dystopian future and was really quite violent with lots of different kinds of weapons.  I played it through to the end just to see what it was like.  The graphics were great and the violence was mighty.  I've not been tempted by any game since that time.

I also don't by the TV thing as movies were violent since almost the beginning with lots of gangster as well as cowboy/Indian killlings.  TV just picked up on this

[Alan Goldhammer]

I generally keep all guns muzzle up when I'm out.  Partly that's because the ground is often frozen hard and bullets are likely to ricochet, and partly because I don't want to chance getting the barrel packed with mud and then have it explode.  Since I'm covering lots of ground when antelope hunting, rifle is usually shouldered on a sling anyway.


Kent in SD

I was only a field bird shooter in the day and had a nice Beretta over/under.  I always carried it split over my shoulder so it would never be able to fire.  My pacifist wife made me sell it when we were married which was OK as hunting opportunities were few and there were very few skeet ranges around.

[Rob C]

I understand that kids out on some huge farms, with few other homes in sight/range can be relatively safe with guns of some types, but accidents always can happen to the best of us. A shotgun doesn't have that much range, but at close quarters it can probably destroy a door or make a wide hole through your tummy.

I believe that a pistol makes sense as home defence, but carrying one outwith the boundaries of your home looks like being a good reason for losing your licence, at least. As for guns that shoot multiple rounds in seconds, how on Earth can anyone not in a war justify possession? You wouldn't hunt with one, would you? Maybe some would - improve their chances against a deer or a wolf? Or how about a bear? Being quite big and bulky, one might actually hit it.

The news often shows pictures of guys wearing towels on their heads standing still and shooting up into the air. I have never seen one falling down due to his action. Maybe falling bullets burn out, just like a rocket on reentry. (Joke. Probably a feeble one.) Perhaps somebody falls down out of sight. I was going to say out of shot, but thought better of it.

How any law can remove the millions of guns already out there, I don't know; it probably can't. But, that would not imply that carrying those weapons around with you should not carry a severe punishment if you get caught, whether using it or not: possession could facilitate removal, of at least the ones so discovered, from off the streets. Not making any more for sale outwith military controls is a great start, if you think it matters whether folks get killed by guns or not.
 
There's a not so subtle difference between home defence and carrying weapons in public. 

I'm sure nobody wants to stop people enjoying target practice etc. but hey, not in public where somebody else can get killed.

Rob

[RSL]

pistols used to be revolvers that only fired 5-6 shots before they had to be manually reloaded.  Growing up the police in San Diego carried S&W revolvers.  Now everyone has access to Glocks with magazines that are easy to swap out.  Sporting rifles fired few rounds before they had to be reloaded.  The semi-automatic assault rifles can be used with high capacity magazines that are also easily swapped out.  I've seen YouTube videos that show even without a bump stock one can get off a lot of rounds in a short period of time.  I don't know when the assault weapons became popular but prior to that it would be difficult to carry out a mass shooting without having multiple weapons.

What do you think an "assault rifle" is, Alan? Please describe it.

The standard 1911, 45 caliber pistol, which was a military standard, and which by choice I carried in Vietnam and was widely available was/is a semi-automatic with an 8 round magazine. You can carry an array of magazines. Swapping an empty one for a full one is a three or four-second job if you know what you're doing.

[degrub]

Rob,

We are licensed to carry, concealed or openly (they are different) depending on the state.

Many pick up trucks have a rack added behind the seat, in the window, for holding rifles and shotguns....although in many cases it is only an umbrella.

Perhaps it goes back to when we forcefully, with the help of France and others, separated from the Crown. If we had not the rifles then as part of life, it may never have happened, except perhaps by the way of India. That plus the necessity of being able to feed and defend oneself during the western expansion, created an ethos that stands 'til even today.

They are looked at as necessary tools, not a means to react to perceived slights. That has been lost with the change to an urban population.

[32BT]

The TV per sé wasn't the problem, but i'm fairly certain the story telling is. The previous generation read books. The stories help to form your character. Imagine next TV: about 90% of the stories is about revenge. The initial deed that needs retribution ever more horrific. The revenge similarly so.

Now imagine videogames with again 90% the same theme and a first-person world view to ensure you can fully experience the sweet taste of revenge.

And then you enter high-school and somehow feel mistreated. Clearly then you have the emotional bagage and maturity to make a sound decision what to do about it.

[Rob C]

Rob,

We are licensed to carry, concealed or openly (they are different) depending on the state.

Many pick up trucks have a rack added behind the seat, in the window, for holding rifles and shotguns....although in many cases it is only an umbrella.

Perhaps it goes back to when we forcefully, with the help of France and others, separated from the Crown. If we had not the rifles then as part of life, it may never have happened, except perhaps by the way of India. That plus the necessity of being able to feed and defend oneself during the western expansion, created an ethos that stands 'til even today.

They are looked at as necessary tools, not a means to react to perceived slights. That has been lost with the change to an urban population.

Yes, some states do permit carrying, but that should not be thought as written in stone; that's where legislation could make at least an attempt at a start to the ending of the tragedies.

True, urban populations look at life differently, but if anything, that makes the matter even more pressing as people increasingly move away from the country to the cities.

Independence battles are one thing, and laws drawn up in an era when folks poured powder and shot down barrels do not make a lot of sense today. I'm pretty sure no legislator of the day would have suggested folks have an eternal right to bear arms if they'd known what weaponry was coming down the line. But then, did a gun lobby exist in those days, too?

Rob

[32BT]

I distinctly remember this was supposed to be about pictures

[degrub]

Independence battles are one thing, and laws drawn up in an era when folks poured powder and shot down barrels do not make a lot of sense today.

Rob

And that is the crux of the matter. It is enshrined in the amendments to our constitution that requires 3/4 of the states to approve a change ( if i remember my government class correctly).  They can be regulated up to the point where the regulation would interfere with the right to bear arms.

[LesPalenik]

Back to the OP about children and guns.

Here is the Reuters photo reportage with 40 pictures from the anti-gun demonstrations:

https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/pictures-report-idUSRTX5B5A0

[RSL]

The TV per sé wasn't the problem, but i'm fairly certain the story telling is. The previous generation read books. The stories help to form your character. Imagine next TV: about 90% of the stories is about revenge. The initial deed that needs retribution ever more horrific. The revenge similarly so.

Now imagine videogames with again 90% the same theme and a first-person world view to ensure you can fully experience the sweet taste of revenge.

And then you enter high-school and somehow feel mistreated. Clearly then you have the emotional bagage and maturity to make a sound decision what to do about it.

Well said, Oscar. And I'd agree with you except for this: As you say, the generation prior to TV read books. I'm part of that generation. The essential thing about books is that a book is just a book. It doesn't require the publisher to fill hours and hours of air time with stuff that'll draw viewers. I remember the stuff that was on TV in the beginning. One of the most violent things on there was "Have Gun, Will Travel." I watched it every week. Beyond that was stuff like Ed Sullivan showing off that shocking kid, Elvis. In the beginning it was all pretty tame.

When all this was getting under way I was stationed in Great Falls, Montana. I had a friend who had a friend who was the news guy on the only local TV station. The three of us used to go pheasant hunting together. We could get permission to go onto any ranch in the area and hunt. As soon as the owner opened the door and saw the TV guy we were in like Flynn.

But the need to draw viewers changed the nature of the beast. I watched it happen, and then, about ten years ago stopped watching TV altogether. It just got more and more violent and crappier and crappier. For a long time I didn't think it could get any worse, but I always was wrong. My wife watches it when she's cooking, and I can see the same process is still going on.

According to what I can get on Google, the average US adult watching time on TV is five hours and four minutes a day. It's more for teen-agers, and growing. Did you used to spend five hours and four minutes a day reading violent crap?

See a problem?

[OmerV]

What do you think an "assault rifle" is, Alan? Please describe it.

The standard 1911, 45 caliber pistol, which was a military standard, and which by choice I carried in Vietnam and was widely available was/is a semi-automatic with an 8 round magazine. You can carry an array of magazines. Swapping an empty one for a full one is a three or four-second job if you know what you're doing.

Would the Las Vegas shooting had been as tragic had the shooter used some 45s?  Even hunting rifles would not have caused that carnage.

I’m not an expert on guns, but except for the shotguns, there didn’t seem to be a traditional hunting rifle used by those kids.

[Alan Goldhammer]

What do you think an "assault rifle" is, Alan? Please describe it.

The standard 1911, 45 caliber pistol, which was a military standard, and which by choice I carried in Vietnam and was widely available was/is a semi-automatic with an 8 round magazine. You can carry an array of magazines. Swapping an empty one for a full one is a three or four-second job if you know what you're doing.

I don't know why you are asking about the definition of assault rifle, I think the term is pretty well understood but here goes anyway, "...any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire..."  At the time the 2nd Amendment was written the typical musket could fire only one round before reloading and a good rifleman might be able to get off three rounds in one minute.  Muzzle velocity was 1000 feet/sec with an effective range of 50 meters.  The AR-15 has a 30 bullet magazine with an effective fire rate of 45 rounds per minute in semi-automatic mode with a muzzle velocity of 3260 feet/sec and an effective range of 550 meters.  I wonder what the founding fathers would make of the advance in weaponry.

Regarding your second point, I only note that during the time I lived in California both local police and highway patrol carried revolvers and not magazine loaded pistols of the type you mention.  I don't know when the newer model of weapon became standard police issue.

[Two23]

Would the Las Vegas shooting had been as tragic had the shooter used some 45s?  Even hunting rifles would not have caused that carnage.

Probably not, but it would have been a lot worse if he had parked a propane truck along the curb there and detonated it with explosives.


Kent in SD

[Alan Goldhammer]

Would the Las Vegas shooting had been as tragic had the shooter used some 45s?  Even hunting rifles would not have caused that carnage.

I’m not an expert on guns, but except for the shotguns, there didn’t seem to be a traditional hunting rifle used by those kids.

The shooter was approximately 365 meters from the crowd.  Most handguns that I am aware of only have a 50 meter range.  An AR-15 depending on the type of ammunition has a range of 400-700 meters.  Sniper rifles with appropriate ammunition have a very long range but require careful sighting and I'm unsure whether semi-automatic sniper rifles exist. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Probably not, but it would have been a lot worse if he had parked a propane truck along the curb there and detonated it with explosives.


Kent in SD

A propane truck would look out of place at a concert venue and I believe these are heavily regulated by DOT so it is a real stretch to think that this would happen.

[OmerV]

The shooter was approximately 365 meters from the crowd.  Most handguns that I am aware of only have a 50 meter range.  An AR-15 depending on the type of ammunition has a range of 400-700 meters.  Sniper rifles with appropriate ammunition have a very long range but require careful sighting and I'm unsure whether semi-automatic sniper rifles exist.

Although the original discussion has taken a tangent (with my help,) I appreciate your posting the link to the photo article. It is interesting. Thanks.

[Two23]

1. I believe that a pistol makes sense as home defence,

2. but carrying one outwith the boundaries of your home looks like being a good reason for losing your licence, at least.

3.As for guns that shoot multiple rounds in seconds, how on Earth can anyone not in a war justify possession? You wouldn't hunt with one, would you? Maybe some would - improve their chances against a deer or a wolf? Or how about a bear? Being quite big and bulky, one might actually hit it.

4. The news often shows pictures of guys wearing towels on their heads standing still and shooting up into the air. I have never seen one falling down due to his action.

5. How any law can remove the millions of guns already out there, I don't know; it probably can't.
I'm sure nobody wants to stop people enjoying target practice etc. but hey, not in public where somebody else can get killed.

Rob

1. I have a small sized shotgun (20 ga.) for that.  Kept unloaded, but with four rounds of medium powered birdshot hidden nearby.  I once shot a coyote ten feet away with that combo, and it tore it in half.  Birdshot is less likely to penetrate walls, and aim is less critical.

2. I actually have a license to carry concealed pistol, but have yet to do it.  I photo at night a lot and am mostly afraid of mountain lions.  Lately there's been an uptick in robberies/assaults carried out by meth addicts too.  My strategy has always been to wear black and disappear into the shadows when sketchy charecters turn up, but if I'm ever actually attacked I would not hesitate to turn the tables with my little Sig .380 pistol.  Police are often an hour away out here, and there isn't even cell phone coverage in many places.  I'm on my own and take precautions.  I always have a razor sharp Swiss Army knife with me, but have only needed the screwdriver bits on it.

3. People do hunt with them in the West.  I've hunted problem coyotes on a sheep farm a few times, and I know they are popular for hunting in Alaska.  I think they use them because of quick follow up shots, and they are lightweight.  Most of these guns are .223 rounds which are low powered though.  I've hunted deer with mine (a Ruger Mini-14) but greatly prefer the .30-06.  Don't have to track an animal hit with that.

4.  I asked my physics professor about that once.  Here's the deal--the projectile goes up very quickly, reaches apogee, and then returns solely propelled by gravity.  It will only go as fast as the speed of gravity, which is dramatically slower than the 3,000 feet per second muzzle velocity.  While not harmless, a bullet coming straight down has nowhere near the kinetic energy as one being propelled by the initial explosion.

5. No one I know will ever surrender their semi-automatic rifles, no matter what the penalty.  They will simply hide them well.  There is pretty massive distrust at the moment of central government, as well as a realization that in times of turmoil (LA riots, NOLA riots, etc.) there are too few police to protect you.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

I'm unsure whether semi-automatic sniper rifles exist.

They certainly do.  The one preferred by the military can punch a hole through a car's engine.  One of my friend's has one and shoots prairie dogs with it, of all things.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/759446278

Kent in SD

[Two23]

A propane truck would look out of place at a concert venue and I believe these are heavily regulated by DOT so it is a real stretch to think that this would happen.

How about a minivan with a propane tank inside it, of the sort you see in the yards at many farmhouses?  Or, a propane truck repainted and disguised to look like a septic tank cleaning truck?


Kent in SD