🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Aximili86]

Your side of the issue is making it about the mass shootings specifically. If you want to broaded it out to gun crime generally, sure, I'm game. ARs and rifles aren't responsible for much of that.

 

[Kelly]

But, ARs and rifles are responsible for these shootings where upwards of 20+ are killed why? because they can unload enough ammunition to kill that many people within minutes.

Lets take the shooting in Texas, it was for all practical purposes a domestic issue. The guy wanted his in-laws dead. Had he had access to only a hand gun, yes people still would have been killed, that is the sad truth in the end.....but 20+? no....

You say that those only looking at certain weapons are not being fair in this debate, yet you are wanting to broaden it so much that it becomes a ridiculous no win for either side debate.

You are like the kid who gets mad at the dinner table because he can't eat his dessert first and so throws a tantrum and pushes away all the food...........then goes to bed hungry.

 

[Aximili86]

But, ARs and rifles are responsible for these shootings where upwards of 20+ are killed why? because they can unload enough ammunition to kill that many people within minutes.

So can other carbines, see Columbine. So can pistols, see Virginia Tech (which, again, was twice the death toll of Parkland, not a rifle in sight).

Lets take the shooting in Texas, it was for all practical purposes a domestic issue. The guy wanted his in-laws dead. Had he had access to only a hand gun, yes people still would have been killed, that is the sad truth in the end.....but 20+? no....

Depends, I guess. How much extra ammo the guy's possessing, whether he knows how to use the pistol or not, where the shooting's taking place and how long it takes a cop to get on scene.

You say that those only looking at certain weapons are not being fair in this debate, yet you are wanting to broaden it so much that it becomes a ridiculous no win for either side debate.

You are like the kid who gets mad at the dinner table because he can't eat his dessert first and so throws a tantrum and pushes away all the food...........then goes to bed hungry.

Hardly. Again, not a gun owner personally, likely never will be - have no personal dog in the "we want our guns!" race.

And hey, if we as a country want to ban ARs, if they take votes on it state by state and it comes back a majority "do it", I'd accept that in a second. The only point being made here is that they're a tiny amount of gun crime, massacres can and have been committed with pistols, and yet they're not even on the radar with this - the ARs are the devil and if we nix them the shootings will stop.

Which is irrational beyond belief.

 

[MaceB]

It's not irrational at all. AR-15s and semiautomatic weapons are the ideal choice for someone who wants to inflict mass casualties... mass shootings as it were.

The argument that we shouldn't ban semiautomatic weapons because hand guns can kill people in mass too, is comparing apples and oranges. Hand guns can kill in mass in the right situations, but so can a butcher's knife... that's hardly the point. Using that logic, you could rationalize the legalization of anything. (Why ban commercially weaponized drones? It's not like people can't already get ladders and throw grenades) Of course, in the right circumstances, a hand gun can be very lethal. So? What does that have to do with the high lethality capability of the AR-15? You're using a few anecdotal circumstances to refute the larger trend, which is that mass shootings are much easier in our current society when folks can buy these weapons.

The argument that we shouldn't ban semiautomatic weapons because more deaths are hand gun related is also confusing two issues. There are more handguns in this country than semiautomatic weapons, firstly. I really don't know what to get from this comparison. Yes, there are more hand gun deaths in this country.. and that's a problem. But banning assault weapons is not mutually exclusive with hand gun legislation, so it really shouldn't be an either-or thing. It's "what-about-ism" honestly, and another logical fallacy. The difference with handguns is that they do serve as a much more reasonable and practical form of self defense, and as such, they are more protected by the 2nd amendment. But again, this is really muddying the waters, because these two things don't need to be connected in the way that you insist they do.

Again and again and again, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. Just because there are more handgun deaths or that hand guns can on occasion be lethal in mass.. that's not a reason to keep semiautomatic weapons which make it far more easy for people to kill others in mass. You're forcing a false choice on us.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sidearms are sidearms for a reason. A pistol is not the preferred choice for combat for a reason. To even suggest that pistol is as destructive as a semi-auto rifle is just being disingenuous.

These types of weapons aren't just more accurate, give more range, allow for more ammo off the bat. They have way more destructive ammunition. Meaning being hit by one increase the chance of death or serious injury exponentially.

Again, its pretty simple:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

A year ago, when a gunman opened fire at the Fort Lauderdale airport with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun, hitting 11 people in 90 seconds, I was also on call. It was not until I had diagnosed the third of the six victims who were transported to the trauma center that I realized something out of the ordinary must have happened. The gunshot wounds were the same low-velocity handgun injuries that I diagnose every day; only their rapid succession set them apart. And all six of the victims who arrived at the hospital that day survived.

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.

One of my ER colleagues was waiting nervously for his own children outside the school. While the shooting was still in progress, the first responders were gathering up victims whenever they could and carrying them outside the building. Even as a physician trained in trauma situations, there was nothing he could do at the scene to help save the victims who had been shot with the AR-15. Most of them died on the spot; they had no fighting chance at life.

 

[Kelly]

So can other carbines, see Columbine. So can pistols, see Virginia Tech (which, again, was twice the death toll of Parkland, not a rifle in sight).








Depends, I guess. How much extra ammo the guy's possessing, whether he knows how to use the pistol or not, where the shooting's taking place and how long it takes a cop to get on scene.







Hardly. Again, not a gun owner personally, likely never will be - have no personal dog in the "we want our guns!" race.

And hey, if we as a country want to ban ARs, if they take votes on it state by state and it comes back a majority "do it", I'd accept that in a second. The only point being made here is that they're a tiny amount of gun crime, massacres can and have been committed with pistols, and yet they're not even on the radar with this - the ARs are the devil and if we nix them the shootings will stop.

Which is irrational beyond belief.

They are being talked about for a reason, but you are too damn blind to see it....It isn't JUST ABOUT AR-15, any semi-automatic weapon (hand gun or rifle) that can fire off 100 rounds in seconds IS A PROBLEM. Do you not get that?

No one has said the "shootings will stop" good god stop simplifying this to try and make it sound plausible to a 5 year old. We are adults here....

 

[Aximili86]

Sidearms are sidearms for a reason. A pistol is not the preferred choice for combat for a reason.

Absolutely. A school or mall shooting isn't "combat", though. It's going after unarmed civvies who can't do a thing about it, at close range.

Clearly a handgun and a bunch of extra clips rises to the bar of an unnacceptable threat in that type of situation too.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Its almost like you avoided the rest of the post because you don't have an actual response.

 

[Aximili86]

Not at all. Pretty sure I've never said an AR round doesn't do more damage than a pistol round - that'd be ridiculous, they do.

The assertion here is that banning ARs isn't going to stop loons shooting places up. They'll use a different rifle, or they'll switch to getting proficient with pistols.

Then where are we? "We'd better look into glocks."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is why people talk about all semi-automatic rifles. Banning most if not all. Also what is this fall back to getting more proficient with pistols? As if that doesn't change the obvious destructive difference. If someone is taking the time to get more proficient with a pistol, why wouldn't they do the same with a more deadly weapon like a AR-15, thus making it an even worse situation?

 

[Hotwire]

Not at all. Pretty sure I've never said an AR round doesn't do more damage than a pistol round - that'd be ridiculous, they do.

The assertion here is that banning ARs isn't going to stop loons shooting places up. They'll use a different rifle, or they'll switch to getting proficient with pistols.

Then where are we? "We'd better look into glocks."

You are deliberately putting the goal post in a completely unreachable place. We all know that mass shootings will not stop completely with the banning of one type of firearm. This country has too big of an infatuation with guns for that to happen. What we are trying to do is, at the very least, make them harder to pull off! You taking the stance that nothing will work so let's do nothing serves no purpose but to frustrate everyone else here. You are intentionally antagonizing those of us looking for a rational discussion. You honestly have no other argument than, "Yeah, but!"

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

It's the perfect solution fallacy.

 

[MaceB]

Yep, since we can't do everything... we should do nothing.

It's a disingenuous argument at worst, and a highly misguided argument at best.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Not at all. Pretty sure I've never said an AR round doesn't do more damage than a pistol round - that'd be ridiculous, they do.

The assertion here is that banning ARs isn't going to stop loons shooting places up. They'll use a different rifle, or they'll switch to getting proficient with pistols.

Then where are we? "We'd better look into glocks."

This is the same dumb logical fallacy that we've been refuting for months on here. Just because there are other types of firearms that exist doesnt mean we shouldn't ban the ones with the capacity to do the most harm the easiest.

This is like saying we shouldn't ban weapons-grade plutonium because "if someone wants to blow something up they can just as easily get a hold of ammonium nitrate at a fertilizer plant."

In both situations you're avoiding restricting access to something that can do harm on a mass level, because someone could potentially also kill people with something that is far less deadly and serves some other practical societal purpose. This is like one step slightly above the "Durrr, cars kill people too. You wanna ban them?" arguments.

Do better.

 

[Aximili86]

And I'm out, really not worth the mod heat.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

This is like saying we shouldn't ban weapons-grade plutonium because "if someone wants to blow something up they can just as easily get a hold of ammonium nitrate at a fertilizer plant."

What if they just want to build a time machine out of a Delorean

 

[ComicBookNerd]

I’m pretty liberal on most issues, but I sort of agree with the people who say, “the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, but omitting the part about good guys & bad guys. Sadly, the government has proven to be ineffective in controlling arms smuggling; in fact, the U.S. government makes more money from arms deals than any nation in human history. Fact is that we live in a gun crazed society and the only thing stopping us from shooting each other up is the fear of getting shot ourselves. It’s like Mutual Assured Destruction at a micro scale.

Granted this increases the likelihood of accidental shootings 10 fold, but at least it could serve as a deterrence to violence.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

I am real interested in how the next school walkout, planned for this Fri, for the 20th anniversary of Columbine will be like.

Already know plenty will be talking about how kids should be seen and not heard.

High school kids in Colorado walking out of school on 4/20, I think we all know what that will be like.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

High school kids in Colorado walking out of school on 4/20, I think we all know what that will be like.

Playing God of War.

 

[ComicBookNerd]

Playing God of War.

For the first time ever, I wish I were back in high school.

 

[Hotwire]

And I'm out, really not worth the mod heat.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

What if they just want to build a time machine out of a Delorean

Then they're going to have to steal it from the Libyans like everyone else....

 

[ComicBookNerd]

Then they're going to have to steal it from the Libyans like everyone else....

That never ends well

 

[DoubleOhSeven]

How is this the NRA's fault??? This was a failure of law enforcement on every level. The Youth Promise Act, passed by democrats is part of the reason why the Broward County Sheriff department failed to act. They say "see something, say something." Well, people said a lot and nothing happened. And the solution is to chip away at the freedoms of law abiding citizens? This is why gun control fails.

Here is Jake Tapper interviewing Sheriff Scott Israel, grilling him on his incompetence and failure to act:

[YT]GfGJ_SRcBSE[/YT]

Edit: As far as Republicans failing to act, here's Senator Marco Rubio introducing legislation to keep our schools safe:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376270-rubio-announces-school-safety-background-check-plan-after-florida-shooting

In my opinion I believe that the right may have taken this out of context but I may be wrong because I have not studied on this matter at hand too much, At first glance I believe the young student refereed to when he returned home, He then went back to the school. I think its a simple mistake to do but a mistake we shouldn't do. (If my perspective is correct) One thing is for sure, I don't believe these youngster's should be getting involved in things grown ups do. But if they want to they can. That's just my opinion. Also I disagree with their point. I don't believe removing weapons from the United States will help anything. (This is my first post, sorry If I did something wrong. )

 

[Sithborg]

Looks like the walkouts planned for the 19th anniversary of the Columbine Shooting is pretty popular.