On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:55:43 -0700, "graham" > wrote:

>http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...nald-guns.html
>

OK- I don't know the guy [Neil Macdonald, apparently a Canadian
stationed in Washington DC] but he hooked me with his first line-
"Yet another "national discussion" about guns is under way here, and
it's so anti-rational, so politically cowardly, so …unbearably stupid
that you have to wonder how a nation that has enlightened the world in
so many other ways could wallow in this kind of delusion."

And then he goes on to show his own ignorant irrationality.

"shooter used a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, a commercial model of
the military M-16" [it isn't an assault rifle by any standard I know--
the magazine is too small and there is no full automatic option.]

Then he says;
"The weapon is designed for war, firing ultra-destructive bullets that
travel at 3,000 feet per second. It is designed to destroy human life
as efficiently as possible, causing maximum internal damage."

Again he is all wet. The M-16 was designed for war. It [and its
ammo] weighed about 1/2 of what the M-14 did. It had a plastic stock
that was expected to fair better in jungles; it also fired rounds
faster than the M-14. But trust me-- I've seen folks shot with .223
ammo [5.56 metric] and if I had my druthers, I'd take that over a 30
cal, 7.62, 9mm, a shotgun or an explosion.

Personally I think the whole AR-15 line [all the M-16 look alikes] are
ugly, and poor hunting rifles--- but they aren't assault weapons, and
they don't do 'maximum damage'.

He *does* take a fairly reasoned tone in the article and has some
points-- but I didn't see anything that he proposed that might
prevent the next one.

My mind is open -- but I'm leaning more towards feeling that most of
these are mental health problems, *not* gun problems.

Jim