There are multiple Kurdish groups. There are the Kurds in Iraq who are our allies. Then there are the Syrian Kurds, the YPG, who are allied the Iraqi Kurds, but who also work with the Turkish Kurds (PKK), whom the Turks hate. So the Turks are working with the Iraqi Kurds, but are bombing the Syrian Kurds, and are suspected of helping Daesh fight the YPG. It’s a mess.
I agree, Syria is a mess. It sounds like purely a free for all.
But I vote for the Malbec and Morphine combo.
I shoot with cops, and they have made it very clear that if they show up at the scene of an active shooting and see someone with a gun, they will likely shoot them and the law will almost certainly back them up. As an exercise preceding this statement, we were presented with a scenario where we were told that we were at the scene of an active shooting (no other information) and that each of 4 lanes represented a potential shooter. Numbers 1 and 3 showed men with guns (everyone shot them), number 2 showed someone without a gun (about 20% shot them), and number 4 showed a man with a gun… and a badge. And everyone shot him.
When you are pumped up on adrenaline and afraid for your life, it is a very tough decision to make, and if you are going to put yourself into that position you have to accept that you have a much larger chance of screwing it up than you would like to believe. You are likely to make a mistake and shoot the wrong person, and the cops are likely to make a mistake and think you are the criminal and shoot you. And since they are not legally required to announce themselves you might not have the chance to drop your gun.
Perfectly legal, but pretty danged shady. You are circumventing legal safeguards meant to keep guns out of the hands of people who cannot have them. That you are doing so legally is no excuse.
How many times have we said this about some group and how many times have we come to regret it? We don’t like to fight if we can get someone else to do it for us, but when we do that we give that group a ton of power and get saddled with responsibility for their actions. I would rather have our own boots on the ground than supply arms so that someone else will fight instead.
honest question: do you know what percentage of annual gun deaths are linked to these “high power rifles” that you want to ban?
In 2014, the FBI connected 248 murders to rifles. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
out of almost 12,000 murders. That is roughly 2%.
Why focus on the 248? Because the guns look “scary” (whatever that means)?
Why does any civilian need an AK-47, soccerguy?
^^^ Because they show up with sickening regularity in the arsenals of mass murderers.
Because their sole reason for existence is mass murder.
Do we have to justify each and every firearm purchase? I don’t like restrictions on firearm types because (in my opinion) the much bigger issue is the shooter. I absolutely agree that firearms are more dangerous than almost all non-firearms, but the distinction between firearms matters only in a gunfight - some of the biggest body counts have come from relatively innocuous firearms.
It feels like someone at the liquor store seeing me pick up a bottle of 151 rum and asking “Do you really need that? I think you should just have wine.”
No, the sole reason for their existence is war. The reasons for their continued popularity are numerous.
^^ lets just give an AK-47 to every citizen then and I’m sure we’ll see the end of murder and terrorism, eh?
No, and I think you know that that was not my point. I am okay with background checks, and I am okay with imposing harder requirements on those wish to purchase high-powered weapons… but I think it is more effective to keep all weapons out of the hands of the dangerous than it is to keep scary weapons out of the hands of everyone. Plus, I really do believe in the whole “land of the free” thing and I don’t like Prohibition.
@busdriver11 - you are correct, but things are changing.
However, the main reason what Congress does is irrelevant re more troops and equipment is because Congress is approval only and is not Commander-in-Chief, and thus, Congress cannot mobilize forces and the President has final say on what troops do. Congress cannot make the President send anything anywhere, so even if Congress votes to approve sending troops and equipment does not mean they go anywhere.
Strategically, a majority of dems in the Senate are against sending more troops to this area AND hold a filibuster vote margin on the issue, since anything approved by the House, must also pass the Senate. Although, things are slowly changing as a couple top dems are slowly breaking the other way on this issue, so maybe enough dems would break in order to get cloture to authorize more force.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/260173-senior-democrat-calls-for-more-military-action-against-isis
In short, the President is trying to cut the baby in half and is pleasing no one - therefore, stalemate.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-war-against-isis-will-go-undeclared/390618/
That was dodging the question, cosmicfish. I think a person SHOULD justify-- Why does any civilian need an AK-47? Why?? There is no good reason.
Inability to pass through the Senate never stops them from taking umpteen million votes on other legislation that they seem to spend most of their time on. My theory is twofold: The President asked for it so of course they won’t do it reflexively, and If they actually put their name to a vote instead of just heckling him from the sidelines then it’s their baby too. If they give authorization for action then they might have to give up this “leading from behind” mantra and no authorization has the added benefit of leaving him open to the criticism of “Executive Action” without consultation.
I don’t require or expect that people will agree on every point about what’s best for this country including keeping us safe internally and globally. However, I do expect that they will act out of a true feeling for the country’s best interest rather than just their own. Many of our elected officials seem to be more concerned with sticking it to the President than having a rational discussion on what the best course of action would be.
No one wants to go on record before the election. That’s why they won’t vote.
And the election process is so attenuated not that it is pretty much always “before and election”. The time between mass shooting is so short that there is never a “right time” to talk about guns without appearing crass and the time between campaigns is so short that political will is hard to come by. Heaven forbid anyone show leadership or willingness to compromise a year before an election.
wish those lifetime politicians would have some kahones for a change.
Before I answer your question, let me dodge a little more.
Right now, everywhere in this country, I can go and buy cars that not only fail to serve any practical purpose but are specifically designed to operate in a manner that is illegal just about everywhere… so why are they legal? I can also go out and buy alcohol, a poison that directly leads to thousands of deaths every year, including the deaths of many who just had the bad luck to be in the vicinity of a consumer. Heck, I can walk down to my local drug store* and buy and use tobacco, poisoning anyone who happens to be near me.
Why does any person need any of these things? Why aren’t they illegal?
Now, why does a civilian need an AK-47? No, there is no reason that you would consider “good”. They are fun, cheap to purchase and shoot, reliable (ridiculously so) and for many people and styles of shooting more comfortable than more traditional alternatives. While they are scary to non-shooters and no doubt exciting to many chest-beating types, they** are not really any more dangerous than other magazine-fed rifles like the Mini-14.
Regardless, I reject the premise of your question. Unless you have evidence that [insert firearm here] is either inherently dangerous or usable only for criminal purposes, what basis do you have to make it illegal? Because it scares you? Last I checked, I have a constitutional right to purchase firearms***, I don’t remember any constitutional right for you to not be scared. And is that what you consider America to be, the country where anything scary is illegal? We would need a new national anthem.
By the way, if there is a study to be done on this, I would like to see it happen. If [insert firearm here] really does lead to violence against innocent people then I would support it being outlawed. We really do need to study this subject with all the seriousness it deserves.
**: This is simultaneously a joke, and not a joke at all.
**: “They” meaning semi-auto versions, not full-auto. Although there are a bunch of fully-legal, fully-automatic weapons in private hands in this country, none of which have been used to commit a crime… because there are huge legal controls that keep them out of even vaguely questionable hands.
***: And no, I don’t own an AK-clone nor do I have any plans to buy one. Not my personal thing. *