There was a story in the news recently
that caught my attention. It appears that China has barred Miss
Canada from entering China to participate in the Miss World contest
being held there. She has apparently been an outspoken critic of
China's handling of the Falun Gong movement.
I have heard of, but never really
researched, Falun Gong. The following is a snippit of information I
found on YouTube which was created by an organization called China
Uncensored. Are all the claims true? I can't say.
There are a number of other videos that
follow, but I will let you decide if you want to continue on with the
series.
So why am I talking about this? We
have been very preoccupied with the events taking place in the Middle
East and Europe. Understandably so, as they affect so many around
the world. But China is a large player on the world stage now and it
too should merit a closer look. Because its internal struggles and
political machinations may affect us as well. Whether or not Falun
Gong is merely a peaceful movement with a religious bent or an “evil
cult” as China claims I do not know. But even if it is the latter
that does not excuse any human rights abuses that might have been, or are being committed, by the government of China.
95 comments:
I've been working under the not too deeply researched impression that Falon Gong is weird but basically harmless, sorta like the Hari Krishnas
That's kind of what I was thinking.
I watched the rest of that series of videos that China Uncensored put out about the group. They suggest that Falun Gong may be being used in some internal power struggle in China. While the videos are kind of off the wall, that suggestion kind of jives with that Op Ed piece I posted before about some kind of power struggle within the Chinese government. The content is fairly detailed about the internal workings of the Chinese government, so I have to think there may be a grain of truth to some of that.
Anonymous is "rickrolling" ISIS.
General Update re: American Politics
Prevailing Conventional Wisdom is that Bush is already toast. No way he's still viable for the Republican nomination. (He faded faster than even I'd predicted.) Rubio is the last chance for an ‘Establishment’ candidate to win the nomination.
Trump might actually win this. Cruz is a definite possibility. Maybe Rubio.
In contravention of the Prevailing Conventional Wisdom, I'd point out that Rubio was not, until very recently, considered an ‘Establishment’ Republican. He was a teabagger favorite with a thin veneer of civility air-brushed over the package. He rose as a teabagger, a right-winger primary challenger to ex-Republican Governor Charlie Crist (who's since become a Democrat on account of the damage Rubio did him with the Republican right wing in that primary; to no avail, as Crist is all but dead now in Florida politics). He, Rubio, was part of the teabagger surge of 2010 which came in promising to repeal ObamaCare. It's an indication of how badly the ‘Establishment’ wing of the Republican Party has already lost control of the Party that they're now pretending that Rubio is one of their guys. But, if they don't pretend, then they have to admit that they no longer have a dog in this fight.
That's a little more than they're ready to admit just now.
Lee: "I've been working under the not too deeply researched impression that Falon Gong is weird but basically harmless, sorta like the Hari Krishnas"
I was under the same impression basically. I also thought Falun Gong used pshysical Yoga-like excercises to "cleanse the soul" or something like that, which seems pretty harmless.
Can't say I know much more than that, and I can't even say for sure that that's correct, but anyway that was my view of it.
What I can say is that I fail to see how a regime could see the practitioners as a threat. From what I know so far they don't have a political program even.
Then, China is still communist (the Party is, if not the economy). And communism has always and in every location been extremely vigilant against any possible competitor for peoples' minds.
"…possible competitor…"
Might be just it. Might be the speed with which Falon Gong was catching on and spreading that freaked the commie overlords.
Yup, that'd be my take on it.
Lynnette: "As much as businesses would like to do business in the country the cost to our freedom may prove too high."
Nah, don't you worry about that, at least not for that reason. Your worries about "freedom" seems to greatly depend on the country and how it's positioned in completely other areas than that "freedom". Your longstanding and cozy ties to Saudi Arabia which is much less free than Communist China would be one good example on how the USA can manage to have great ties to very un-free nations.
A real beef with China may come. One reason given will be that of China's citizens personal freedoms. The real reason will be another altogether.
If you are extremely concerned about majority rule and stopping oppression what about doing something about Bahrein?
You know that Shia majority country ruled by a Saudi backed minority Sunni regime and a King. The ones who tried to rebel during the "arab spring" but who were swiftly beaten down into the tarmac by Saudi troops coming in across the border to defeat the populace on behalf of the King in place. The place you, the USA, has a huge and convenient military base?
How about giving some thought to the "freedom" in Bahrain and what your country could or should do to further that?
Boots on the ground?
What I can say is that I fail to see how a regime could see the practitioners as a threat. From what I know so far they don't have a political program even.
The gist of that video series was that a party in the Chinese leadership was using Falun Gong as a prop to puff himself up as a tough leader who could handle a possible internal threat. In short, he manufactured that threat, using Falun Gong. Anyway, the same might be happening with the bases being built on the artificial islands. Falun Gong didn't work real well so the threat has been transferred to outside the country. A bit like North Korea does when talking about the US.
Your longstanding and cozy ties to Saudi Arabia which is much less free than Communist China would be one good example on how the USA can manage to have great ties to very un-free nations.
I'm thinking our economic ties with China surpass those with Saudi Arabia. At least they are more ubiquitous. Some day we might find ourselves in a more serious economic standoff with China than we did with the Gulf oil states during the oil embargo days. I think a certain amount of caution would be wise. Western companies bending over backwards to please the Chinese censors might prove unwise in the future. We ignored warnings about the Middle East, do we want to possibly replay that scenario again?
Marcus,
Jeffrey replied to you.
I'd point out that Rubio was not, until very recently, considered an ‘Establishment’ Republican. He was a teabagger favorite with a thin veneer of civility air-brushed over the package.
Looking moderate, comparatively speaking? Scary.
Trump might actually win this.
Shhhhh...don't even think it. Our world is bad enough as it is.
The place you, the USA, has a huge and convenient military base?
So it would be okay for us to push for regime change in a country where we have a military base, yet it isn't where we don't? Isn't that a double standard?
Okay, so this is seriously creepy.
An unsettling mystery has washed up on Japan's shores.
Over the past two months, at least eight wooden boats have been found in the Sea of Japan on or near the coast, carrying a chilling cargo -- the decaying bodies of 20 people, Japan's coast guard told CNN.
Marcus,
I replied to your electric-scooter question at the end of the last thread.
About Falun Gong, let me ask a few Chinese here and find out what they think.
Seriously?
On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion.
Ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting American control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.
*sigh*
Some people will believe anything if the stories are repeated often enough.
Presumably those are Shia Iraqi, aligned with Iran. It is de rigueur in the Middle East to espouse the belief that the U.S.A. is aligned with ones enemies.
Jeffrey: "I replied to your electric-scooter question at the end of the last thread."
I responded back.
Lynnette: "On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion."
While I don't put it past any major power to secretly arm some rebels against other forces I have to say I find the idea that the US would be actively supporting Daesh so far fetched I can't believe how some people can believe in it.
For one thing the predecessor to Daesh, AQI, was the US´s most mortal enemy in Iraq not long ago. Second the US was instrumental in creating and suppporting the Awakening that temporarilly defeated AQI in Iraq. Third the US is leading the coalition which is running the vast majority of the bombing campaigns against Daesh in both Syria and Iraq at the moment.
Lee: "Presumably those are Shia Iraqi, aligned with Iran. It is de rigueur in the Middle East to espouse the belief that the U.S.A. is aligned with ones enemies."
That does seem to be the case. Either the US on its own behalf or the US at the behest of Israel.
"Second the US was instrumental in creating and suppporting the
Awakening that temporarilly defeated AQI in Iraq."
Supporting, yes. Creating? Not even close. Petraeus stumbled across a piece of luck that he had no part in cultivating. Occasionally one does draw to an inside straight. It's still bad poker to play for that hand.
(Petreaus is now widely considered a military genius mostly on account of his exploitation of a piece of blind luck.)
(Petreaus is now widely considered a military genius mostly on account of his exploitation of a piece of blind luck.)
He did have to recognize the possibilities in that situation and then choose to run with it. So I still give him credit. :)
When other people start killing your enemies for you it's hard to miss ‘the possibilities’, at least if you're a military type. But, I too will give him credit for noticing the obvious and claiming credit for having caused it.
According to WaPo even Iraqi Sunni believe the U.S.A. is supporting Da’esh.
"‘It is not in doubt,’ said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S.
helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions. He is a
commander in one of the Shiite militias that last month helped push
the militants out of the oil refinery near Baiji in northern Iraq alongside
the Iraqi army.
"The Islamic State is ‘almost finished,’ he said. ‘They are weak. If only
America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in days.’
"U.S. military officials say the charges are too far-fetched to merit a
response. ‘It’s beyond ridiculous,’ said Col. Steve Warren, the
military’s Baghdad-based spokesman. ‘There’s clearly no one in the
West who buys it, but unfortunately, this is something that a segment
of the Iraqi population believes.’
"The perception among Iraqis that the United States is somehow
in cahoots with the militants it claims to be fighting appears,
however, to be widespread across the country’s Sunni-Shiite
sectarian divide…"
(emphasis added)
Lee: "Supporting, yes. Creating? Not even close. Petraeus stumbled across a piece of luck that he had no part in cultivating. Occasionally one does draw to an inside straight. It's still bad poker to play for that hand."
OK, you may be right about that. I'm not so sure it was a mutual program but I'm not sure it wasn't either. Seems like I give Petraeus a bigger benefit of doubtb than you do.
In any case that was beside my main point and my main point was that I think the idea that the US is supporting Daesh is just folly. I do believe we can agree on that. That was the topic right? Whether the US is supporting Daesh. And I said no, and you said no, and lynnette said no. So...
Russia - evil villain.
Saudi - staunch ally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf-npDX9rO4
Can you see the hypocricy? Or are you completely blind over there?
Just for the record, I will repeat my notion that the preferred position for a new Syrian refugee camp would be on the southeastern border of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as far away from Jordanian settlements as possible and still be within walking distance of Saudi population centers.
"Or are you completely blind over there?"
Which one of us do you believe to be a fan of the Saudi, me or Lynnette?
Re: American politics:
We have here a Republican spokesman finally noticing that Marco Rubio is not really an ‘establishment’ Republican at all; they've adopted him only as a means of keeping alive what they consider the necessary fraud of a claim that they've actually got a viable candidate still in the race for the Republican nomination.
"In this scenario, the so-called establishment candidate would be the
guy who ran for Senate in Florida in 2010 against a sitting Republican
governor with presidential ambitions and the firm backing of the
National Republican Senatorial Committee. As far as RINO-hunting
goes, by stopping Charlie Crist and chasing him out of the party,
Rubio still has the best and most consequential hide.
"And, in a Cruz-Rubio scenario, the grass-roots candidate would be
the guy who emulated the establishment candidate’s upstart campaign
two years later in Texas.
"The tea party has over the years backed some flagrantly unsuitable
candidates in Senate primaries —***— but it invested very wisely in
Cruz and Rubio."
Rich Lowry (Republican pundit)
Terrorism, job related or a combination of the two?
The woman didn't work there; for her it was certainly not job related.
Muslim leaders trying to get ahead of the inevitable anti-Muslim reactions that will come from some people…
"Islamic community leaders reacted with shock and grief after a
Muslim couple apparently embarked on a deadly shooting rampage at
a community center for people with developmental disabilities.
"The Council on American-Islamic Relations — a nationwide advocacy
organization — condemned the ‘horrific and revolting attack’ in San
Bernardino, California, and offered ‘heartfelt condolences’ to families
of the victims.
"‘The Muslim community stands shoulder to shoulder with our fellow
Americans in repudiating any twisted mindset that would claim to
justify such sickening acts of violence,’ Hussam Ayloush, the executive
director of CAIR for the Los Angeles area, said in a statement."
NBCNews
The FBI is treating the matter as an incidence of Islamist inspired international terrorism. NYT Of course, that is a jurisdictional matter for them--workplace violence and it'd be tossed back to the State of California to investigate, ‘cause he worked for the state.
[Lynnette]: Terrorism, job related or a combination of the two?
[Lee]: The woman didn't work there; for her it was certainly not job related.
The whole thing just seems odd. Sure, he could have been radicalized, as could she, but it's kind of a weird target for international terrorists to pick. That's why I wonder if it's a little bit of both. It appears that he chose the target.
The FBI is treating the matter as an incidence of Islamist inspired international terrorism.
Probably a wise move. I can't help but wonder at what the arsenal they had amassed at their home was to be used for? Because unless they thought they would survive this attack, who would use it? And, really, to believe they could get away with this clean is rather foolish. I would start to look at all of their friends and associates to see if there aren't others who may have been in the pipeline to make use of the weapons & ammo & pipe bombs they had stockpiled.
"The perception among Iraqis that the United States is somehow
in cahoots with the militants it claims to be fighting appears,
however, to be widespread across the country’s Sunni-Shiite
sectarian divide…"
I think there may be multiple reasons for this. First you have the propaganda spread by those who would blame the US for everything. Second, it's easier to believe the inability of those in the region to defeat Daesh on their own is because it has a powerful backer, such as the US (who is the convenient scapegoat). It is far more difficult to lay the blame at any internal problems being the reason.
"I think there may be multiple reasons for this."
Multiple justifications are often given--whatever they can think up for moment. It's habitual. Whomever is the enemy of the moment is labeled as the recipient of American aid. No matter how far-fetched the tale has to become; they'll adjust their thinking to believe it. That's just what they do.
Voltaire supposedly once said that, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
They are simply preparing themselves in case the opportunity shall arise.
"Because unless they thought they would survive this attack, who would
use it?"
They did try to escape, so they probably hoped to survive this attack. It would seem to follow logically.
Re: American politics Speculation scenario
Assume things go as they've been going. Donald Tump wins a plurality of delegates, but not the majority he'd need to sew up the Republican nomination on the first ballot. So, the decision goes to a so-called ‘brokered’ Republican convention. Trump doesn't win at the convention (the Republican ‘establishment’ is, after all, aghast about him running so well with their ‘base’ in the first place). Somebody else wins (‘who'd win a brokered convention is anybody's guess--they might even resurrect Jeb!).
Trump decides he's not been treated ‘fairly’, and he jumps ship and launches a third party bid.
Hillary wins; Trump comes in second; the Republican comes in last.
Eliot Cohen says we're not taking the Islamists seriously enough. (I think of Cohen as a successor of sorts to Samuel P. Huntington, a modern day alarmist.)
Andrew Bacevich says Cohen's mostly fulla shit.
I go mostly with Bacevich on this one. (Warning on length; it's fairly long)
Oliver Roy says the phenomenon of home-grown Islamic radicals is mostly a matter of home-grown radical nihilists (who're out there every generation) finding a cause in Islamism. They'd find something else to justify their interest in violence he thinks if Da’esh did not exist. (Take up the cause of the poor Palestinians for instance.)
Trump decides he's not been treated ‘fairly’, and he jumps ship and launches a third party bid.
That's always been the danger for the Republicans. That's probably what keeps the establishment side up at night. Because splitting the party vote would give the Democrats an edge.
Portrait of a terrorist?
Sad that they threw their lives away for nothing and took innocent people with them. This action is not religious in nature, it is the exact opposite.
I'll have to read your links later, Lee.
What should have ‘em spooked is the prospect of comin’ in third, behind Trump running as an Indy. They got reason to be spooked ‘bout that―Trump is pullin’ away from the pack:
"Donald Trump is the top choice of more than one out of every
three Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters, according
to the results of a new CNN/ORC poll released Friday. And it's not
even close — at 36 percent, Trump's closest competitor for the GOP
presidential nomination is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, at 16 percent."
Politico.com
Lee: "Eliot Cohen says we're not taking the Islamists seriously enough. (I think of Cohen as a successor of sorts to Samuel P. Huntington, a modern day alarmist.)"
I would agree he's alarmist in naming the fight against Daesh and Al Qaeda type groups a "world war". But there are truths to what he's writing. The part I thought was most important was this:
"If they ever acquire weapons of mass destruction (which they would like to do), they can and will kill thousands and tens of thousands rather than tens and hundreds."
I believe they, Daesh, would use WMD:s if they had the opportunity. In fact I feel certain they would.
All other groups/nations that we have associated with a WMD threat I believe would not have used them, if they had aquired them, just because.
The crazy regime in North Korea has them, but has never used them, and I don't think they would unless attacked and with their back against the wall. The Iranians if they got "da bomb" I still feel would think long and hard before actualy using it (not that I'd feel safe knowing they had one mind you). The Pakistanis have the bomb - bad but still a low risk that they would launch one. Even Saddam or Khadaffi would IMO most likely use it as a threat only if they had gotten one.
But Daesh would very likely use a WMD just because if only they could. Now, I don't really see them getting their hands on an actual nuke in the foreseeable future. But a nuclear dirty bomb is possible. Chemical agents are perhaps even likely. It's a scary thought that Daesh might aquire WMD:s as far as I'm concerned.
Daesh has kids as young as 8 YO play "hide and go seek" in old palace ruins. Hunting for hidden bound captives to execute with a shot to the head once they find 'em:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344897/ISIS-child-soldiers-play-horrifying-Hide-seek-game-search-ruins-prisoners-shoot-head-latest-shocking-footage.html
They film it thinking it's good propaganda to show how they make children into murderers.
"Daesh, would use WMD:s if they had the opportunity."
Almost certainly true.
I don't even have much of a quibble with him denominating it as World War IV (WW III being the Cold War). That's just a labeling question.
Thing Cohen doesn't seem to get is that the Islamists got no chance. They're trying to beat back the 21st Century with all the power and appeal that a 14th Century tribal civilization can muster and offer.
Ya'll can ask the American Indians how that sort of thing works out in the end. Don't work worth a shit.
Actually, their preferred model probably more closely resembles the 8th Century. Still no chance.
Lee: "Thing Cohen doesn't seem to get is that the Islamists got no chance. They're trying to beat back the 21st Century with all the power and appeal that a 14th Century tribal civilization can muster and offer."
Obviously they´re deadenders. They will never get to see their caliphate blossom. And if they do launch more extreme attacks they will just be flattened all the sooner.
BUT, they might very well cause some serious troubles in the mean time.
"…they might very well cause some serious troubles in the mean time."
This is true. The Indians fought like hell, made some serious troubles for some white folks along the way. (Fabled now in song and story and especially in Hollywood Westerns.)
But…
They are primarily a threat to other Muslims. They're trying to mask that by turning this into a "clash of civilizations", i.e. Islam against The West. We have to be careful about letting them get away with that. The Middle Eastern Muslim autocrats (monarchs and ayatollahs and dictators alike) would like nothing better than to let that narrative string itself out a little longer so they could continue to eat up their own nations in the meantime.
Da'esh will fail on its own. We should allow that to happen. We should make its Muslim neighbors live with it until that happens, or until they get off their asses and make that happen.
Both countries being of an arrogant and thin-skinned nature, Russia and Turkey have come to trading blows where it really hurts, public insults to the leaders' and to the national honor.
Finally finished the links regarding Daesh.
I also think that while it may be true that Daesh cannot survive as a state, it will cause some serious problems during its death spiral. While this may not exactly be WWIV as the one fellow suggested, it appears that it will involve multiple countries.
I think I will have to sleep on the rest of my comment regarding Daesh. I've been running around all day and am falling asleep even as I read, despite the very good articles you all linked to. *sigh*
You guys were going on about electric assist bicycles. I noticed that bicycle ownership has dropped by half in the last couple of decades. Thought I might mention it.
I still have a bike but haven't ridden it for a number of years. I keep wanting to get back to it, because I always enjoyed it, but I am so busy now that it just isn't an option.
Daesh has kids as young as 8 YO play "hide and go seek" in old palace ruins. Hunting for hidden bound captives to execute with a shot to the head once they find 'em:
This seems to imply that this will be a generational fight. It also seems to imply that this is their choice.
So while the warnings in the Bacevich article regarding the difficulty we would experience if we actually went to full scale war with Daesh are probably correct, we still must prepare to meet a challenge that may be being sown by people who will not be around to see the results of their work.
Oliver Roy says the phenomenon of home-grown Islamic radicals is mostly a matter of home-grown radical nihilists (who're out there every generation) finding a cause in Islamism. They'd find something else to justify their interest in violence he thinks if Da’esh did not exist.
Possibly so. But there are those who seem to be using Islam as a way to motivate the "nihilists" of this generation.
"This seems to imply that this will be a generational fight. It also
seems to imply that this is their choice."
I believe both of those things to be true. I've consistently said this is gonna be a long war. Neither Harry Truman nor Dwight Eisenhower were around to see the victory of their containment policy for the Soviet Union. This does not mean that Da'esh should not be taken out and Raqqa and Mosul both razed to the ground. (They should not, but not just because it's gonna be a generational fight; that 's not the determining facto; this is gonna be a long war either way.)
No matter how we handle things, this is gonna be a long fight--The West stomping on their current Caliphate dream will just morph it into a new front. They'll regroup; they'll come back. This is ultimately gonna havta be settled inside the Muslim world. We need the Muslims to come to grips with this being fought in their name. If they all embrace it, we'll havta take them all out, but most do not embrace it, nor will they. But, they gotta deal with it. Until then, we gotta deal with it, and with them.
Personally, I think that it's too easy for them to chose flight when they're making the fight or flight decision. We need to encourage Muslims to fight for their homes and for their children's freedoms, not flee to The West. I am, accordingly, not much interested in taking in refugees. Keem ‘em closer to the action so they can easier decide it's better to fight than to flee.
Couple of typos; I'm gonna assume ya'll will get the point anyway.
I listened to the President speak tonight about the San Bernardino attack and terrorism in general. It was a good speech.
I played it back and listened to it a second time to make sure I'd gotten it all. I thought it was generally rather anodyne, but I suppose, given Trump specifically and some of the Republican candidate outrageousness of late in general, he may have thought the part about tolerance for American Muslims and religious tolerance in general was necessary about now. Can't say I disagree.
..."there are no boots on the ground because they are all wearing sneakers."
...given Trump specifically and some of the Republican candidate outrageousness of late in general...
It was nice to see someone speak who was, well, Presidential.
"…they are all wearing sneakers."
I think most of us have just assumed that the supposed distinction between ‘assisting’ in front line combat and actually engaging in front line combat has always been more theoretical than real. It's sorta like women being supposedly banned from serving in military ‘combat’ positions (at least in past and current practice--looks like they're gonna dispense with that fiction in the near future).
I think most of us have just assumed that the supposed distinction between ‘assisting’ in front line combat and actually engaging in front line combat has always been more theoretical than real.
Yes. In reality you can't just sit back and advise.
France's right-winger National Front Party (FN) may have benefited from the same turnout effect that's kept America's Republican Party alive in American elections, low turnout in off-year elections. French voting levels were only at 49.9% of eligible voters in the recent elections; that's rather low for a European country, even for France. EU Observer
The U.S. Supreme Court has left a Chicago area ban on assault weapons alive and in place. NBCNews We shall no doubt be hearing much wailing and gnashing of teeth from among our Second Amendment purists in the next few weeks.
You don't need an assault rifle to hunt. I doubt very much if the average American is going to bring one with them to the movie theater or work, which is where some of these mass shootings have taken place. So it's not as if they could be used in defense if an attack occurred. I can see no reason for them to be available.
I go with the theory that if some folks are going to have them, then one of the folks who has them should be me.
Lynnette: "You don't need an assault rifle to hunt. I doubt very much if the average American is going to bring one with them to the movie theater or work, which is where some of these mass shootings have taken place. So it's not as if they could be used in defense if an attack occurred. I can see no reason for them to be available."
No maybe not. I might even agree with you on most of that. But you do in some cases need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt. If you hunt boar, or run across a boar, you might well need more than one round to bring it down. I would assume the same goes if you accidently encounter a bear.
Breivik in Norway used a .22 Ruger hunting rifle, a semi automatic one, in his terrorist attack. Not an "assault weapon" per se, but it functions much the same. He got hold of 15 shot magazines online since there's a cap on 7 shots per mag in Norway. A 15 shot Ruger semi-automatic is much the same as an "assalut rifle" except it looks less military style.
A normal handgun is also a semi automatic. And to my knowledge most school shootings and mass shootings in general have been done with regular handguns, not assault rifles.
What I'm trying to get at is that I don't think a ban on assault rifles would change that much. Impulsive shootings and school shootings are more often done with regular handguns. And in a case of a planned terrorist attack the perp could either upgrade a semi-auto hunting rifle to function as an assault rifle, or get an illegal weapon with at least the same capacity, since there would be some planning involved in any case.
"…mass shootings in general have been done with regular handguns,
not assault rifles."
Here in The States assault rifles are used more often than in Europe. That's mostly because: 1. They look ‘kool’ to the crazie, giving him (usually a him) a sense of increased power, something he often craves. And, 2: They're available. Ordinary hunting rifles would generally do the job on civilians just as well, handguns as well. (Glocks come with 15 round mags I believe.) Theoretically the assault rifle would give an edge when the cops show up and engage with the shooter, but they usually shoot themselves at that point anyway, so the better fit for gunplay in tight quarters against a cop wearing body armor doesn't really come into play.
Mind you, I was discussing the capacity for committing murder and mayhem in large gatherings of unarmed civilians in large rooms or open spaces. Marginal advantages designed into assault rifles have much more significance in situations where the target is closing instead of fleeing and is shooting back.
I agree with all of that Lee. And that's why I believe a ban on assault rifles in and on its own would only have marginal effect and only in some cases. It COULD save lifes if a mass shooter or terrorist went with a less potent weapon, I don't argue against that, but if we look at past incidents in what percentage of cases would that be a factor?
Lee: "Here in The States assault rifles are used more often than in Europe."
But isn't it still the case that they are used in relatively few mass shootings? I know that that "Joker"-killer from the movie theatre used one. The Columbine killers had some sort of compact rapid fire gun that might be designated (or might not, I'm not sure) as an asssault rifle. But in most cases I can remember they've mostly used handguns such as the Glock you mention.
I could be wrong about this though. I was just speculating from memory of past incidents and didn't doo any research.
Columbine featured a Hi-power hunting rifle (a carbine, i.e. a compact rifle) and shotguns and a TEC handgun (the TEC is halfway considered an assault gun itself, although it's technically a handgun). The Virginia Tech shooting also featured handguns. Most of the rest have featured assault rifles of one version or another; AR-15s being the most popular (Sandy Hook for instance), SK-47s (semi-auto AK's) being second most popular.
Post Script:
‘Hi-point’ not ‘Hi-power’. They used a model 995. Wiki entry with pics.
A case of "friendly" fire?
Theoretically the assault rifle would give an edge when the cops show up and engage with the shooter, but they usually shoot themselves at that point anyway, so the better fit for gunplay in tight quarters against a cop wearing body armor doesn't really come into play.
Those who shoot up schools, maybe, but other criminal elements or a true terrorist would have no problem engaging in a shoot out with police. In that case it would be nice if we could lower the probability that the shooter would have greater fire power than the police.
And in a case of a planned terrorist attack the perp could either upgrade a semi-auto hunting rifle to function as an assault rifle, or get an illegal weapon with at least the same capacity, since there would be some planning involved in any case.
Since explosive devices also seem to be the weapon of choice for a terrorist a ban on assault rifles probably wouldn't do much good in this case.
Post-Post-Script:
It'd do more good to ban high capacity magazines no matter what they fit into. I've yet to see or hear of a hunter ever needed a sixth shot.
I go with the theory that if some folks are going to have them, then one of the folks who has them should be me.
I assume this is for your own protection. Are the odds of you meeting up with an attacker using an assault weapon greater than your odds of someone breaking into your home and stealing yours? Which is the greater risk?
It'd do more good to ban high capacity magazines no matter what they fit into.
Perhaps this would be a good compromise. How easy would it be to remove the ability of people to purchase these things over the internet?
"…odds of someone breaking into your home…"
Lowered by Rottweiller.
And I don't expect to be ‘meeting up’ with an attacker. If I expected the odds of needing such firepower was high enough to justify packing it with me, then I'd just not go there. Those stay home--as back up for the Rottweillers.
Lee: "It'd do more good to ban high capacity magazines no matter what they fit into. I've yet to see or hear of a hunter ever needed a sixth shot."
Yes, definety. It's not so much the case of what a weapon looks like or what it's called. Which I believe I illustrated by the Breivik example above.
Then, that would possibly limit the carnage in impulsive shootings. Which might be a big step in the right direction as those likely are the majority of mass shootings.
But for a dedicated and pre-planning mass shooter or terrorist they could probably quite easily get around such a ban.
First, with a litle training, it wouldn't be that hard to fire them six shots and reload in seconds. Second if a firearm is built for a magazine it's not that hard to illegaly buy or even construct a new magazine that fits more bullets.
My point is that when it comes to pre-planned shooters it's not really relevant.
But for impulsive shootigs, for sure a cap om the number of bulllets in the mag might make a difference.
There are even more potent "mass shooting" guns that are not "assault rifles" already. Think a short barrel pump action shotgun with buckshot. In a school or an office that'd be even worse than an AR15.
My first line of defense is a Remington 870 short barreled pump (¼" over legal); #4 shot instead of 00. Double aught is for deer at some distance; #4 doesn't penetrate through multiple walls, but will take out a wooden door and hurt whomever's behind it. (Gotta have something handy that's not gonna be in the gun-safe starting out.)
"The sound of the pump action shotgun when chambering a
round is like no other sound on Earth."
Survivopedia
The sound itself will tend to clear out the immediate neighborhood. If that don't work; there's the stuff in the gun-safe.
My first and only line of defence is a 32 inch aluminum baseball bat just inside my front door and good relations with my neighbors. My closest neighbor however does pack both a handgun and a rifle punch. So far so good. I hve plans though..
I have a handle from a post hole digger next to the front door (held vertical against the door frame by a small velcro patch); hickory--50 inches. Less conspicuous than an aluminum bat, and longer.
Lowered by Rottweiller.
lol! Big teeth will do that.
It sounds like you guys are preparing for imminent attack...
"…are preparing…"
Not so much. Prepared the hickory stick only the once. and that was only the ½ inch square of velcro stuck on the end, and it's still there good to go. The 12 gauge pump gets cleaned and oiled occasionally, but only occasionally. (Gotta feed the Rottweiler regularly, but she's my friend, so I'd do that part anyway.)
According to FoxNews, Donald Trump is a Democratic Party plot, in cahoots with the ‘liberal’ mainstream media. (They were doing a gangbuster business on Trump for a long time there, but apparently even Roger Ailes is getting worried this is getting away from them.)
According to FoxNews, Donald Trump is a Democratic Party plot, in cahoots with the ‘liberal’ mainstream media.
lol!
He certainly has a talent for giving the Republicans a bad name.
I find it vaguely amusing, and vaguely disquieting, that FoxNews, in an attempt to discredit Trump, now is making up the faerie tale that he's the result of a deep, dark Democratic Party plot. It's as if they're counting on the notion that they've trained their viewers to believe in hidden conspiracy theories so they're now cooking up one of those against Trump on account of that's the sort of shit they're expecting their viewers to believe. We'll have to wait and see if it takes hold or if they have to abandon that narrative in favor of something else. But it does indicate the level of their contempt for the teabaggers they can no longer quite control.
I guess it could be worse. At least the FoxNews viewers don't widely believe the U.S.A. is secretly arming and funding Da’esh. Not yet anyway.
Post a Comment