The Guns thread - Part 1

[moviefreak]

Seems your research to assert your position was a bit flimsy on those mass shootings as nearly every one you listed had no semi-auto rifle involved or other guns were used in conjunction with a semi-auto rifle. Here's the breakdown:
-Virginia Tech shooter used 2 pistols to kill 30+ people.
-Both Fort Hood shootings were done by people carrying handguns to commit the crimes.
-The Aurora shooter used both a shotgun and handgun in addition to his rifle.
-The Sikh Temple shooting was done with a pistol also.
-Only Newtown as done solely by a semi-auto rifle.

Just going off the list of high-profile mass shootings since the AWB banned ended, it's pretty equally split between those committed with semi-auto rifles and those done with pistols/handguns.

Sorry my bad. Only some of the events I listed were done with semi-automatic. The assault rifle ban was implemented in 1994 and lapsed in 2004. It's just that assault rifle is becoming much more common in recent mass shooting, IIRC there were at least 5 mass shooting (Las Vegas, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook and the Texas Church shooting), and over 150 fatalities with semi-automatic since 2010s. It will get worst especially with the ease of access to weapons like AR15.

Only a small number of people in the USA out of total population own guns. It's just that these people own multiple weapons like that guy I met via a friend in Berkeley, CA who had guns all over his living room --on chairs, tables, shelves and floor. He is in nutshell a gun nut.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Sorry my bad. Only some of the events I listed were done with semi-automatic. The assault rifle ban was implemented in 1994 and lapsed in 2004. It's just that assault rifle is becoming much more common in recent mass shooting, IIRC there were at least 5 mass shooting (Las Vegas, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook and the Texas Church shooting), and over 150 fatalities with semi-automatic since 2010s. It will get worst especially with the ease of access to weapons like AR15.

Only a small number of people in the USA out of total population own guns. It's just that these people own multiple weapons like that guy I met via a friend in Berkeley, CA who had guns all over his living room --on chairs, tables, shelves and floor. He is in nutshell a gun nut.

The problem with that thinking is the FBI statistics don't show any drastic increase in murders using rifles (single-shot and semi-autos are lumped together so can't tell which does more) since the AWB was not renewed. The average number during the AWB was like 425 per year and the average since 2004 is like 450 per year. In comparison, from 1994 to now, shotguns are used to kill roughly 500 people per year. People never ask for a ban on those even though shotguns kill more people than rifles.

 

[Aximili86]

Training them to the standards of cops is a great idea. Cops never accidentally shoot the wrong person in high stress situations. I can say I've never heard of a cop shooting an innocent person.

It's rare, and the stats back it.

But you know this. Of course it happens - that's not reason alone to just dismiss the benefits. You're in "some cops are bad apples, so we shouldn't have cops" territory here.

 

[LTuser]

Maybe, just maybe, you should ask yourself why the military feels that weapons should be locked up as they are.

Maybe cause when you are NOT in the field, you don't need your weapon on you 24/7. And since bases are "SUPPOSED to be secure" (meaning armed guards at all entrances, chain walls/fences etc), you shouldn't need to fear NEEDING one on you..

In all likelihood he would’ve just mowed down some teachers first. The idea of arming teachers is ****ing moronic.

So just cause he MIGHT have decided to target teachers (assuming he knew who was and wasn't armed), lets not bother, cause it then becomes stupid?

How long would it be before a teacher with some psychological conditions shoots up a school because a gun is nearby and accessible? How long before a kid steals it to do what Cruz did? The dangers far outweigh the benefits.

Do we stop cops carrying weapons, just in case a "perp" manages to take his? No. Do we stop other security personnel doing so for the same reason? Again no.
And if that teacher had a psychological problem, how would he pass what ever checks they'd install ON the teachers to get qualified???

Right, first of all, the links you have posted to are Wikipedia, Fox News, GOPUSA and the Conservative Treehouse.

1. Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE
2. Fox News, GOPUSA and The Conservative Treehouse are not exaction bastions on unbiased fact-based articles.

So cause they have a right wing bias, that means they are 'unworthy of being believed/taken?? That's almost what it sounds like people around here are saying "It has a conservative bias, its meaningless"..

And YES i know Wikipedia is editable by anyone.. Which is why i don't use IT on its own to back anything up i claim.

So a combination of that, Fox News (owned by a very strongly right wing mogul) and the website for the GOP are not the most reliable of sources. The exact same is true of those who only post strong left wing sources, there has to be a balance.

Rupert Murdoch may have at one time been a right wing person, but these days i don't see that.. Plus both of his kids, are also on the board of directors for fox and they certainly are not right wing..

News flash, fam, if you look at the terrorist incidents in France and Belgium over the last two years you'd see even highly trained ops units can **** things up sometimes.

Hu?? So cause someone may **** it up, don't bother doing it?? That to me is a very pessimistic/defeatist attitude..
Its like saying "There is a chance of me failing this, so don't bother trying"..

We also have to consider the logic behind this in lieu of mass shooters are mentally ill every time (according to gun activists) and yet we're supposed to believe they logically will not go in and shoot up a school knowing the teachers are armed (something that is usually not associated with mental illnesses where "shoot up the school" is involved). How does this actually work?

It's the same mentality used at Concerts/sporting events and other public areas. "IF someone see's they might have a hard time doing their crime here, they will more than likely go elsewhere"..

With you being in TX, I'm sure you've been around someone who's conceal carrying and not even known. Even where I am, I've been in a room with multiple people conceal carrying and didn't know it until they started talking about guns. It's called concealed carry for that very reason.

Exactly. I've seen plenty of shoulder holsters, you wouldn't notice a guy had a gun in, unless their jacket was open and you looked In, in just the right manner..

What Americans at large really need to be asking themselves, and what we need some more insight on, is why there are so many people who find mass murder to be a path they want to go down.

It's clearly not solely access to guns, because there are countries with 50% as many guns, with less than 5% the number of mass shootings. What exactly is it about American culture and society that produces these guys?

+10000% deadpresident.. Something else, besides the 'availability' of guns is at fault.. We had rifles and even archery classes in many schools back in the 40-70, and never had the shootings we do now..

The part that gets me the most is the unreasonable appeal to the second amendment. Access to firearms being equated with liberty? Jesus Christ.

Because when the 2nd was wrote, it was to GUARANTEE the other amendments..

If you look back in history, most, if not all oppressive regimes started by disarming the populous..

Con't next post..

 

[LTuser]

In order for the high body count to come down, lawmakers need to craft & enforce legalisation for a countrywide ban on specific types of assault rifle like the AK 15 which can fire about 700 rounds/mins & scatter concrete.

You do realize an AR-15 (AR meaning Armilite, the name of the manufacturer) IS A SINGLE shot, single pull Semi-automatic weapon. NOT A FULL AUTO capable machine gun..
As per the dictionary (Miram webster), and CNBC
An Assault rifle is "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/def...sault-weapon-is-a-very-contentious-issue.html

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

Aren't guns barely ever used in self-defense? Like... a few hundred times a year, in a country with more than 300 million people.

Unfortunately we can't tell, as LE seems to track how many times a gun was used to STOP Or prevent a crime..
And for the most part, when they ARE used that way, the media ignores it other than maybe some local stations.

I'm suggesting ban on owning and sale of military grade assault rifle. That would be the first step. The GOP-led Congress let the assault rifle ban to expire in 2004. Since then there were increase in shooters with assault rifles resulting in mass fatalities in Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Aurora theater, a Sikh temple (Wisconsin), Newtown, and so forth.

The DOJ itself said that there was NOT a reduction in # of crimes cause of that AR ban..

Only a small number of people in the USA out of total population own guns. It's just that these people own multiple weapons like that guy I met via a friend in Berkeley, CA who had guns all over his living room --on chairs, tables, shelves and floor. He is in nutshell a gun nut.

Man that guy was a slob.
For me i know a solid dozen or so folks who have 3+ weapons. And not a ONE leaves weapons just laying around the floors or on chairs/couches..
hell one of the guys i know is one of those disaster preppers, who has over 2 dozen guns.. ALL locked up in his bunker.

 

[Mike5575]

Aren't guns barely ever used in self-defense? Like... a few hundred times a year, in a country with more than 300 million people.

I guess that depends on your definition of "used" is. What may not be counted as "used" in FBI crime statistics may be something like a store clerk casually lifting his shirt to show his revolver or the sound of someone caulking a shotgun? Or, what if I were to repeatedly bash someone's skull in with the but of a rifle in some sort of primal rage? Would that count as a "use?"

 

[Jericholyte]

Maybe cause when you are NOT in the field, you don't need your weapon on you 24/7. And since bases are "SUPPOSED to be secure" (meaning armed guards at all entrances, chain walls/fences etc), you shouldn't need to fear NEEDING one on you..



So just cause he MIGHT have decided to target teachers (assuming he knew who was and wasn't armed), lets not bother, cause it then becomes stupid?



Do we stop cops carrying weapons, just in case a "perp" manages to take his? No. Do we stop other security personnel doing so for the same reason? Again no.
And if that teacher had a psychological problem, how would he pass what ever checks they'd install ON the teachers to get qualified???



So cause they have a right wing bias, that means they are 'unworthy of being believed/taken?? That's almost what it sounds like people around here are saying "It has a conservative bias, its meaningless"..

And YES i know Wikipedia is editable by anyone.. Which is why i don't use IT on its own to back anything up i claim.



Rupert Murdoch may have at one time been a right wing person, but these days i don't see that.. Plus both of his kids, are also on the board of directors for fox and they certainly are not right wing..



Hu?? So cause someone may **** it up, don't bother doing it?? That to me is a very pessimistic/defeatist attitude..
Its like saying "There is a chance of me failing this, so don't bother trying"..



It's the same mentality used at Concerts/sporting events and other public areas. "IF someone see's they might have a hard time doing their crime here, they will more than likely go elsewhere"..



Exactly. I've seen plenty of shoulder holsters, you wouldn't notice a guy had a gun in, unless their jacket was open and you looked In, in just the right manner..



+10000% deadpresident.. Something else, besides the 'availability' of guns is at fault.. We had rifles and even archery classes in many schools back in the 40-70, and never had the shootings we do now..



Because when the 2nd was wrote, it was to GUARANTEE the other amendments..

If you look back in history, most, if not all oppressive regimes started by disarming the populous..

Con't next post..

That is not at all what I was saying. What I am saying is that because they have bias you cannot use them alone and state them as FACT. The Conservative Treehouse, in its news stories, talks about these school kids being puppets of the elite left. That dents the integrity of their value as a source of factual information. Whether you believe that to be the case is not the point, but that fact they put that in news articles, not editorials, damages their credibility.

Just like you said about Rupert Murdoch, what evidence do you have to back up your statement. You need reputable independent sources if you're looking to justify claims such as Rupert Murdoch no longer leans to the right.

Having seen your previous posts referencing sites such as joeforamerica, the sites you've mentioned and the Daily Mail.

As a UK resident it is widely accepted across the board that The Daily Mail is an extreme (for the UK) xenophobic joke source of information.

I'd like to refer you to mediabiasfactcheck.com - and independent fact checking site. They state who they are, how they are funded, and how they check their sites. It's not just an 'anti-right' page as they cite CNN as being questionable as well, but I genuinely suggest you take a look at their reviews of your key sources of information.

 

[Iceman]

NRA firms hit by boycott
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43173753

 

[Lily Adler]

That's a British website so Fake News.

 

[B]

^Rude

 

[Lily Adler]

What did ya think I am... Canadian!

 

[DeadPresident]

Hu?? So cause someone may **** it up, don't bother doing it?? That to me is a very pessimistic/defeatist attitude..
Its like saying "There is a chance of me failing this, so don't bother trying"..

No it's "Because this probably won't work, find a better solution". If someone tells me they want to start a company that manufactures car tires out of marshmallow it's not pessimistic if I say it won't work, it's just logic.

+10000% deadpresident.. Something else, besides the 'availability' of guns is at fault.. We had rifles and even archery classes in many schools back in the 40-70, and never had the shootings we do now..

Like I said, it's a convergence of factors, and access to guns is sure as **** a major contributor.

Because when the 2nd was wrote, it was to GUARANTEE the other amendments..

If you look back in history, most, if not all oppressive regimes started by disarming the populous..

Con't next post..

Another appeal to authority, like I mentioned to another poster it's a terrible line of justification - I couldn't give a **** what some fossil thought was appropriate for his time, and you shouldn't either. It's 2018 and people are dying highly avoidable deaths in their droves. The way some of you quote the constitution is the same way fundamentalist zealots quote the Bible and it's the same way Jihadists quote the Quran.

As to the bold, it's exactly this kind of unreasonable paranoia and fanaticism that has the USA in this position in the first place. Even if you took away half the USA's guns there would still be 150 million guns in circulation. Is that a "disarmed" population? By that logic every country in the world besides the US, Serbia and Yemen are 'disarmed' and at risk of oppressive regimes... Ask the Swedes, Japanese, Chileans, or Germans how oppressed they feel by their governments because they don't have one gun per citizen. If the US government ever had to deal with an uprising because they really were tyrannical the amount of military ordinance on home soil would ****ing annihilate every Joe Soap with his cute little 5.56 rifles.

P.S You could argue the US government being bought and paid for by lobbying groups and not upholding the best interests of its people means it's been an oppressive regime for decades, right?

 

[Lighthouse]

What did ya think I am... Canadian!

 

[Teelie]

The logical fallacy of "oppressive regimes start with banning guns" is completely false. I don't see Canada, Australia, the UK, Japan, Germany, etc. as oppressive regimes but I'm sure in the eyes of gun rights activists they are oppressive enough to qualify. And additionally, no one is saying ban guns. Gun regulation is not a ban!

 

[Joeyjojo72]

That is not at all what I was saying. What I am saying is that because they have bias you cannot use them alone and state them as FACT. The Conservative Treehouse, in its news stories, talks about these school kids being puppets of the elite left. That dents the integrity of their value as a source of factual information. Whether you believe that to be the case is not the point, but that fact they put that in news articles, not editorials, damages their credibility.

Just like you said about Rupert Murdoch, what evidence do you have to back up your statement. You need reputable independent sources if you're looking to justify claims such as Rupert Murdoch no longer leans to the right.

Having seen your previous posts referencing sites such as joeforamerica, the sites you've mentioned and the Daily Mail.

As a UK resident it is widely accepted across the board that The Daily Mail is an extreme (for the UK) xenophobic joke source of information.

I'd like to refer you to mediabiasfactcheck.com - and independent fact checking site. They state who they are, how they are funded, and how they check their sites. It's not just an 'anti-right' page as they cite CNN as being questionable as well, but I genuinely suggest you take a look at their reviews of your key sources of information.

Brick wall man. Great post tho

 

[Aximili86]

What Australia did would be seen as oppressive here, and with good reason. They frame it as a "voluntary buy-back", but that doesn't mean it wasn't confiscation. You didn't have a choice, it was pretty clearly mandated.

Which, hey, that's fine for Australia, they don't have our constitution. There's no way that ever flies in the U.S. though. Limiting for those who shouldn't have weapons, fine. Not banning everyone regardless of their clean history.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

No it's "Because this probably won't work, find a better solution". If someone tells me they want to start a company that manufactures car tires out of marshmallow it's not pessimistic if I say it won't work, it's just logic.



Like I said, it's a convergence of factors, and access to guns is sure as **** a major contributor.



Another appeal to authority, like I mentioned to another poster it's a terrible line of justification - I couldn't give a **** what some fossil thought was appropriate for his time, and you shouldn't either. It's 2018 and people are dying highly avoidable deaths in their droves. The way some of you quote the constitution is the same way fundamentalist zealots quote the Bible and it's the same way Jihadists quote the Quran.

As to the bold, it's exactly this kind of unreasonable paranoia and fanaticism that has the USA in this position in the first place. Even if you took away half the USA's guns there would still be 150 million guns in circulation. Is that a "disarmed" population? By that logic every country in the world besides the US, Serbia and Yemen are 'disarmed' and at risk of oppressive regimes... Ask the Swedes, Japanese, Chileans, or Germans how oppressed they feel by their governments because they don't have one gun per citizen. If the US government ever had to deal with an uprising because they really were tyrannical the amount of military ordinance on home soil would ****ing annihilate every Joe Soap with his cute little 5.56 rifles.

P.S You could argue the US government being bought and paid for by lobbying groups and not upholding the best interests of its people means it's been an oppressive regime for decades, right?

The US Government aka SCOTUS has actually held up 4 different times that the 2nd Amendment does not mean each individual citizen has the right to infinite weapons. The last ruling in the 70's is were we get this perversion of it and it has not been challenged since.

Funny how LT makes bogus claims about dictators in history yet seems awfully unfamiliar with American history.

 

[BillPardy]

The logical fallacy of "oppressive regimes start with banning guns" is completely false. I don't see Canada, Australia, the UK, Japan, Germany, etc. as oppressive regimes but I'm sure in the eyes of gun rights activists they are oppressive enough to qualify. And additionally, no one is saying ban guns. Gun regulation is not a ban!

In fact all these countries rank higher on the Human Freedom Index.

 

[squeekness]

The logical fallacy of "oppressive regimes start with banning guns" is completely false. I don't see Canada, Australia, the UK, Japan, Germany, etc. as oppressive regimes but I'm sure in the eyes of gun rights activists they are oppressive enough to qualify. And additionally, no one is saying ban guns. Gun regulation is not a ban!

I know, right? They don't get it.

 

[Kelly]

What Australia did would be seen as oppressive here, and with good reason. They frame it as a "voluntary buy-back", but that doesn't mean it wasn't confiscation. You didn't have a choice, it was pretty clearly mandated.

Which, hey, that's fine for Australia, they don't have our constitution. There's no way that ever flies in the U.S. though. Limiting for those who shouldn't have weapons, fine. Not banning everyone regardless of their clean history.

Although I commend Australia for what they have done....we are the 3rd largest country in population and 4th largest in size. What works for Canada, Australia, the UK, wherever cannot simply work in our country because it has worked there....whether it is gun control, health care, whatever.......it is quite frankly comparing apples and oranges.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that reforms in our health care system and our gun control laws are needed NOW? Yes.....I just don't believe that comparisons of the US to this or that country are viable arguments. Histories, size of area and populations, etc....are far too different to really compare.

BUT, YES WE NEED TO FREAKING DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MILITARY TO "close to" MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS being in FAR TOO MANY HANDS along with butt loads of ammunition.....and no one knows where the hell this stuff is......

But, can we say, that hey this or that country did this or that so we should be able to do that in the US. No......it is not that simple of a solution.

Also, it is not Trump's fault, Obama's fault, Bush's fault, Clinton's fault, Bush's fault, Reagan's fault, Carter's fault......it is the fault of a bureaucracy that at the center of it all are people that are far more engaged in keeping their power than in serving the people. Because of that nothing gets done of any real significance....and therefore laws that should have been evolving to keep people safe, and also giving them the opportunity to enjoy their hobbies has grown into a monster that ONE ORGANIZATION seems to want to keep feeding, and they feed it by handing money to those in this bureaucracy that want to hold on to their power.

 

[Aximili86]

There's that "military grade or close to military grade" thing again, though.

That's not what an AR-10 or AR-15 is.

People spurting this "assault rifle" or "military grade" terminology are people that the other half of the country who own these things aren't going to listen to or take seriously. It's the old Dianne Feinstein "what's a magazine?" thing. I actually approve of some of the ideas Feinstein was putting out there, but if she's asking a question like that she shouldn't be remotely anywhere near anything to do with this debate.

And it's the same with the AR thing. Anyone who equates a semi-auto hunting rifle with anything even remotely what a soldier carries, just really needs to get a hold on the basics. These things have so much more in common with the most basic handgun on the market, firing-rate wise, than an M-16 or an AK-47 or whatever. It's apples & oranges, there's nothing "military grade" or even approaching military grade about it.

 

[BillPardy]

There's that "military grade or close to military grade" thing again, though.

That's not what an AR-10 or AR-15 is.

People spurting this "assault rifle" or "military grade" terminology are people that the other half of the country who own these things aren't going to listen to or take seriously. It's the old Dianne Feinstein "what's a magazine?" thing. I actually approve of some of the ideas Feinstein was putting out there, but if she's asking a question like that she shouldn't be remotely anywhere near anything to do with this debate.

And it's the same with the AR thing. Anyone who equates a semi-auto hunting rifle with anything even remotely what a soldier carries, just really needs to get a hold on the basics. These things have so much more in common with the most basic handgun on the market, firing-rate wise, than an M-16 or an AK-47 or whatever. It's apples & oranges, there's nothing "military grade" or even approaching military grade about it.

So you're saying restrictions should be put on rifles like the Ar-15 AND hand guns. Great point.

 

[Sithborg]

Yeah, I think the pressure is going to start to grow on the NRA.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/companies-cutting-ties-nra-grows-include-hertz-metlife/story?id=53322436

I guess it's a good thing they aren't acting all crazy and sounding unhinged for their remaining base.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

There's that "military grade or close to military grade" thing again, though.

That's not what an AR-10 or AR-15 is.

People spurting this "assault rifle" or "military grade" terminology are people that the other half of the country who own these things aren't going to listen to or take seriously. It's the old Dianne Feinstein "what's a magazine?" thing. I actually approve of some of the ideas Feinstein was putting out there, but if she's asking a question like that she shouldn't be remotely anywhere near anything to do with this debate.

And it's the same with the AR thing. Anyone who equates a semi-auto hunting rifle with anything even remotely what a soldier carries, just really needs to get a hold on the basics. These things have so much more in common with the most basic handgun on the market, firing-rate wise, than an M-16 or an AK-47 or whatever. It's apples & oranges, there's nothing "military grade" or even approaching military grade about it.

I like how you nitpick this weak as argument out of all of the knowledge Kelly just dropped on you that you specifically ignored.

Any given weekend I go to a gun show here in FL and pick up an AR-15 or any other rifle with the capability to be modded and either with the same dealer or another can purchase a kit "off the books" to make it fully automatic.

FYI I'm ex-military who is weapon qualified from rifle to pistol. I'm also a gun owner, small business owner, and as bleeding heart liberal as they come.

Would you mind letting all of us know what branch you served in and why you are the resident gun expert around here?

 

[Jericholyte]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IOZ-5Nk5k&feature=share

For those who haven't seen, this is quite an eye-opening video about how bump stocks affect the fire rate of an AR-15.

My question...Why does any private citizen need this?