lol.  what sort of executive order will restrict gun rights?  is obama going to nominate a head of the atf that won't be rejected by the gop?  enforce background checks at gun shows?

what do you need a gun for anyway?  watching too many charles bronson films?  i think he's the wrong architect to emulate.

http://youtu.be/aNjxzFgKcHY

Here's what Joe said today...

Fuck guns. I prefer grenades. 

Before its too late for what?  Anything I could want to do with a gun I'll still be able to do after  the legislation is passed.  I guess my AR-15 hunting group might suffer a bit....

so what are you concerned about maestro?  obama unilaterally bypassing congress and renewing the assault weapon ban without the gun lobby or nra interfering?  i don't see that happening.  maybe he'll ask biden to write a strongly worded letter to the NY Times op-ed?

(obama gonna) MELT THE GUNS !!

yeah, it makes me want to go out and get me a Tek-9 and start shooting up some mother fucking bad architecture!! yeahhhhhh......biyatches!

Well, since you asked, I own 5 guns - three shotguns that are vintage (but very nice) family weapons that passed to me over the years from relatives and two pistols (a 9mm Baretta and a .38 cal. Colt) that my Dad carried while a B-24 pilot in Europe during WW2. All are stored safely behind lock and key. I've never fired either pistol and haven't fired any of the shotguns in more than forty years.

I'm not worried in the slightest about losing my right to own these weapons. However, I STRONGLY support needed restrictions (even confiscation) of semi-automatic and large-magazine weapons - such weapons have NO legitimate sporting or security purpose in a civilized society. I believe the NRA is nothing more than a lobbying organization for the gun industry and, because of that conflict of interest, has no legitimate role to play in the current public policy debate on this issue.

might have more luck locking up all 20 - 30 year old white males w/ anger/mental problems than confiscating scary looking guns with giant magazines

more importantly, did you buy your tickets to the gun show?  

pew.  pew.

Nice, logical, reasoned post, stone.  I'm right there with you.  I don't own a gun and likely never will.  I did target shooting in  he desert with my dad as a kid but I can honestly say I have not touched a gun since I accidentally discharged the one I pulled out of my parents' closet out of curiosity when I was 12 - I was alone in the house at the time and that experience was enough to make me realize I don't especially like them.

I'd like to take up archery, though.  As long as I don't have to listen to Ted Nugent while doing it.

I thought architects were into creating things, not destroying them?

nah, wolf prix says 'architecture must burn!'

and don't forget everyone's favorite (fictional) architect of all time, HOWARD ROARK!!!

and corbu's paris, i mean, come ON!  destruction is everywhere!  need more examples?

Don't forget Albert Speer.

k

you can look at guns from a design perspective

there's a whole range of super-ornate old school design and craftsman(and woman!)ship to super-clean modern design.  hey i'm not into guns either but i can definitely think of the relationship between being an architect-type and guns.

plus the whole rush of target shooting or hunting which i've never experienced but i can see how some people can get into that, architects included.  like driving a fast car or snow skiing or rock climbing or posting on archinect or any other adrenaline-pumping thrill-seeking activity to take us away from the often mundane typical day in the world of architecture.

Donna, I would love to hear a more detailed version of that story!  What did your parents say?  Did you quickly repair any damage?  Break out the spackle?  Is this why you became an architect?

I don't like hand gun, but I know this is just because I don't understand them.  I've never been around them, and they make me nervous.  I think, however, if I knew them inside and out, I'd feel better about them.

Anything Donna says I always assume is said in a sexy voice.

The villains in movies (who also have guns) are the one's who hire architects to design their hide-outs. We've always been profiting from gun violence 

we only profit in movies....

Assuming I was willing to discuss my hypothetical gun ownership on a public forum while the usual suspects are all losing their tiny minds over something they don't even understand, I would certainly not also admit to ordering several semi-automatic handguns just in case they get outlawed by the morons in DC this year. Just like I wouldn't want to go into detail about how I may or may not have purchased several AR-15s right before the "assault weapons ban" in the 1990s and later sold them at a profit of several hundred percent.

By the way, Americans have purchased several million high capacity pistol magazines in the last three months. So many that all the major manufacturers and distributors are now out of stock and have back-order lists that are hundreds of thousands of names long (order fill dates are now out to late summer 2013). And semi-automatic pistols are flying off the shelves at unprecedented rates. Way to go, silly people. Your theatrical panic attacks are arming America at the highest rate in our history.

I guess it it time to buy gun stocks...ya you know the butt of the gun..

I have to say, I was sure that when I clicked this link it would be nothing but a troll bridge. Stay Classy Archi-baby.

I suppose architects are notoriously utopian futurists. But I don't think making guns, even assault rifles, illegal will bring about any kind of glorious future. When we made boozie time illegal we got the mafia (and NASCAR). When we made drugs illegal we got drug cartels and have basically destroyed Columbia, Guatemala, and Mexico. What happens when we make high powered weapons illegal

That being said I think there is basically zero chance of guns becoming illegal. 

I think it was a pretty smart move of the constitution to include a safeguard of mass gun use to keep any tyrants hesitant from taking over. But, as Simon Norfolk describes in this great BLDGBLOG interview from a while back, the government has moved far beyond guns as a means or war and power. What militia with AK-47s will be any match to drones, f-22's, and digital surveillance?

So maybe we should be expanding the second amendment to include public availability of drones, as well as some sort of rights for the anonymous hacker types.

...

such weapons have NO legitimate sporting or security purpose in a civilized society.

Unfortunatly this is not a civilized society.  The purpose is not for sporting it is to discourage tyranny.  Most people think that there is no way that the gov't will ever become a tyranny but I would argue that in the future it is very likely.  Not only possible but likely once the real problems that are brewing take hold such as peak oil, the dollar collapse, war, ect.....I don't see this happening in the near future, but in time all societies fail one way or another.  There is no instance ever in the history of the world where a gov't was able to sustain itself forever. When they fail they do anything to hold onto power. All societies tend toward tyranny.

  I don't personally like any weapons and wish there were no nukes, guns, drones.....but there are, and to ensure balance between gov't and its people gun rights are essential. 

Also, a ban on weapons will be a failure just like the war on drugs and alcohol prohibition.  If pushed underground, this would create an exceptionally dangerous criminal empire. 

Lets look at the real causes of these mass shootings..

-neglected kids

-materialism

-the horrible example from our own gov't with their war mongering

-all the perscription drugs being pumped into kids

-our violent culture

-lack of mental healthcare

-the stupid media that creates a sick deranged fantasy of infamy for sick deranged suicidal people.....

I hate violence and don't even kill bugs, but if I had a gun and was in a situation where I needed to protect myself or others I would without any hesitation.  It sucks that this is the world we live in, but unarming law abiding people will not solve anything.  And this is comming from a liberal leaning person not a right wing nut.

lautner probably did NOT design for villains. 

and, as save western notes, guns are no longer an effective tool of revolution in the u.s. not an effective protection against tyranny at all. nor, probably, are drones, etc. i think we've seen that the most effective tools of revolution - i.e., weapons of mass destruction - will be financial instruments and major cyber attacks. the groups best prepared to deal with tyrants will be "anonymous" and wall street. 

guns are small potatoes - only effective in our killing of each other. 

If you don't think small arms are still effective tools of revolution, you have not been paying attention to what's been happening around the world during the last ten years.

i'm paying attention, but i don't think the regimes of tunisia, egypt, or libya are as sophisticated or stable/entrenched as ours. and i'm not talking about the current administration, more the government-industrial structure. no matter who's in the white house or congress - or even if they're all on vacation - this institutionalized machine could move against any small arms action and squash it in no time flat. 

Got it!

jla-x: "unarming law abiding people will not solve anything."

Nobody serious is talking about disarming law abiding citizens - other than the NRA, who love to stir the pot in order to inflame emotions among its base. I watched the head of the NRA on tonight's news after his meeting with Biden. What a pompous ass. Who appointed this turkey to speak for gun owners and those who believe the 2nd amendment has validity? He does NOT speak for me!

wtf, who is asking for a ban on guns?

here's a thought, lets just stop having laws against drunk driving, because we all know that having laws against drunk driving don't actually stop drunk drivers.

Guns are for rednecks with tiny penises. That's all I will say.

large magazine clips and assault weapons should require a background check of course, and even a mandatory safety course, but an all out ban would just create an underground market.  I don't like assault weapons, but functionally it won't work.  I don't like drugs either, but the war on drugs don't work. 

stone: of course they're talking about disarming law-abiding citizens. Criminals will have guns anyway. Banning them by law means taking them out of the hands of people who abide by the law (the only people a ban would affect).

Interestingly, at the same time the Obama administration is talking about gun bans for law-abiding Americans, they have voided the waiting periods and limitations for immigrants (legal or otherwise) to obtain guns. Isn't that curious? And, of course, they don't seem to have any trouble arming drug cartels.

@sameolddoctor: "Guns are for rednecks with tiny penises." That tired old argument makes no more sense than saying "Architects who design tall buildings have a penis fixation."

@jla-x: " I don't like assault weapons, but functionally it won't work. I don't like drugs either, but the war on drugs don't work." Based on this logic, I guess we should just eliminate the laws against murder and robbery too since those laws haven't stopped either of those crimes. Laws aren't totally about prevention - they're also about punishment.

@gwharton: "of course they're talking about disarming law-abiding citizens." Bollocks! You've got to start getting your news from sources other than the NRA and Fox.

WTF are you talking about, babs?

Putting restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines is not "disarming law abiding citizens".

Sure it is. You're talking about passing a law against something that many, many people currently own legally (350 million plus guns in private hands in the USA). So, you either grandfather their ownership (in which case, LOL - why bother), or you make that ownership illegal. People who abide by the law are then disarmed. People who don't abide by the law remain armed. At that point, two things happen: you have disarmed and made defenseless a large group of people who respect the law, and have created a large new class of law-breakers who are armed. Duh.

And none of that does anything to prevent mass shootings or gun violence.

Putting limited restrictions on the ownership of certain types of guns is like putting speed limits on the highways. Responsible people can still drive their cars (just as responsible people still will be able to own reasonable weapons for sporting and protection purposes) but reckless individuals are subject to penalties.

Sure, many Americans already own guns (myself included) but there aren't 360 million semi-automatic weapons floating around - those are the weapons that are subject to the current debate. Nobody's going to convince me that owning semi-automatic weapons is either 'necessary' or a 'right'.

This concept of tying gun ownership to the concept of 'an armed militia' is simply outdated now that we have local and state police and a standing Federal army. Anybody who feels an armed citizenry is necessary - or even effective - as a defense against a potentially overreaching Federal government is, in a word, delusional - and totally under the sway of the NRA mindset, whose sole purpose is to sell more - and more expensive - hardware.

Now you've just gone into pure LOL territory.

You might want to do a little research before saying things that are so obviously dumb.

gwharton - you and you gun-stroking buddies don't have any respect for anyone who disagrees with your 'obviously right' point of view. That's why these 'discussions' over gun restrictions always devolve into insults and name calling.

the mass shooting people were typically law abiding citizens before they became criminals.  so, if it would been possible to remove their access to guns before they committed the crimes they did, then they would still be law abiding citizens and a number of good people would not be dead because of them.  this isn't a question of specifically taking guns away from gang members or habitual criminals.

if it was illegal to sell or own a high capacity magazine or assault rifle, then manufacturers would produce less (due to reduced demand) and it would reduce the number of these things available.  there would be a bunch of people that hold on to their banned items, but at least it would slow down the increased availability.

gwharton, can you link to a credible source confirming your assertion that immigrants (legal or otherwise) are given easier access to purchasing guns?  also, how would you have potentially sold your assault weapons after the ban?  wouldn't they have had some sort of identifying feature that could have been tied to you if the gun was used in a crime?

@jla-x: " I don't like assault weapons, but functionally it won't work. I don't like drugs either, but the war on drugs don't work." Based on this logic, I guess we should just eliminate the laws against murder and robbery too since those laws haven't stopped either of those crimes. Laws aren't totally about prevention - they're also about punishment.

thats a false argument. robbery and murder is not something that can be sold on the black market like alcohol, drugs, guns.....

Laws aren't totally about prevention - they're also about punishment.

last I checked crazies and criminals don't care about laws.  the only ones being punished are the law abiding people who make up the majority of gun owners.

A wave pussification is sweeping the nation....remember the words of Jefferson...

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”
 

Oh, please!

Owning a gun makes one neither a 'man' nor a 'patriot'. Supporting restrictions on semi-automatic weapons does not make one a 'pussy'. If anything, opposing the self-interested gun lobby requires much more courage than just letting them continue to have their own way.

Owning a gun makes one neither a 'man' nor a 'patriot'. Supporting restrictions on semi-automatic weapons does not make one a 'pussy'.

what'd you just say, PUNK?

jefferson didn't have an assault rifle (though there is a fair chance he had a musket).  was he a pussy because he didn't have an ar-15?

there is a certain sort of person who thinks they need a rapid firing weapon that holds a bunch of extra rounds.  i don't think this is the sort of person who is concerned with hunting or home safety.  it's more the sort of person who wants to shoot a lot of stuff really quick.  my off-the-cuff-withouth-any-data-or-reasoning-like-every-other-tea-partier-or-right-wing-nut thought would be that these people are already more likely to shoot up a school or a movie theater, and they're really the ones we don't want having these weapons.

edited to add, if clint eastwood shot up that school with the above pictured weapon, he would have paused after 6 shots to reload.

i'm sorry, but what does "well regulated" mean exactly?

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

exactly.

look, b3ta,  you just can't be any geek off the street,

ya gotta be handy wit da steel if ya know what I mean, earn yo' keep!

REGULATORS!!! MOUNT UP!