Jump to content
Kiyoat Husker

Parkland, FL High School Shooting

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

 

I think you missed the point. An assault rifle is just a semi-automatic rifle that is styled to look like a weapon used by the military. All that is different from a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an AR-15 is how it looks (not how it works). The question you posed wasn't why do people NEED guns, you asked why do people NEED AR-15's. They don't. I then used fast cars as an analogy to explain why people WANT them. I don't need a car that can go 100 miles an hour (no one does, well except for professional racers), but maybe I want one. People that are buying a gun don't need an AR-15 but they want one. It's normally the same reasoning used in both cases. It's not equivocating the purchases, just explaining the psychology.

 

It's why I always roll my eyes when people want to ban assault weapons. It's a made up term to refer to any semi-automatic weapon that looks a certain way (it's definitely not based on how it functions, other than requiring it has a removable magazine). Take a look at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban text some time; it's hilarious that we passed a law to prevent violence based on what a gun looks like and not how it functions.

 

The fact that we saw reduced gun violence is amazing, the effectiveness of weapons didn't decrease but people apparently didn't buy guns that weren't their weapon of choice.

 

Are there modifications that can be made to any long rifle that’s makes them “automatic”? Take for instance the bump stock used in the Vegas shooting.  What are the legal magazine limits for AR guns? Can you easily obtain a magazine that exceeds the legal size? Just curious, my experience with anything beyond a weapon used for hunting is pretty limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wiby_NU said:

Are there modifications that can be made to any long rifle that’s makes them “automatic”? Take for instance the bump stock used in the Vegas shooting.  What are the legal magazine limits for AR guns? Can you easily obtain a magazine that exceeds the legal size? Just curious, my experience with anything beyond a weapon used for hunting is pretty limited.

 

I have no idea about bump-stocks for non-ARs. I'm not a fan of a fast rate of fire in a weapon, I prefer precision. I rarely used the three-round burst in my assigned weapon unless we were trying to use the last of our ammo.

 

There is no national legal max magazine size, but they tend to max out at 30. Some states have legal limits set.

 

12 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

France has an average of just under 3 gun deaths per 100,000 people per year. The United States has an average of almost 11. France has an average of 2.16 gun suicides per 100,000 people, compared to 6.3 gun suicides in America. God, I'd love to have France's problem.

 

Edit: The numbers on my source might be off, but according to this link, I was being generous to the United States. Original numbers came from this Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

 

636425641505158901-100117-GunHomicides.p

 

I wasn't claiming France had high amounts of gun violence, but that they have mass shootings. Two different metrics. Both are going to be lower than the US, because we are #1 when it comes to both. But the goal shouldn't be to have fewer mass shootings, we should be aiming for 0. That requires both a control of availabilty of weapons to violent people, and figuring out a way to help those violent people.

Edited by Branno
Forgot to make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Branno said:

But the goal shouldn't be to have fewer mass shootings, we should be aiming for 0. That requires both a control of availabilty of weapons to violent people, and figuring out a way to help those violent people.

 

0 is an unrealistic goal that makes easily dismissive arguments for the other side. Nobody has 0 gun violence/deaths. Even as an idealist who wants to fight for that kind of unobtainable utopia, I realize that you have to talk realistically in these discussions or people won't take you seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

0 is an unrealistic goal that makes easily dismissive arguments for the other side. Nobody has 0 gun violence/deaths. Even as an idealist who wants to fight for that kind of unobtainable utopia, I realize that you have to talk realistically in these discussions or people won't take you seriously.

 

I think 0 mass shootings is a realistic goal though, harder due to our larger borders than a nation like Australia (0 mass shootings since 1996 I think), but possible.

 

Gun deaths, is a different story (and why I didn't mention a goal for it). I'm trying not to conflate the two.

Edited by Branno
Fixing autocorrect nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a minute and feeling fruatrated at where we are as a nation with gun deaths?   If you have already called your local reps, below is a list of the top 10 NRA donation recipients from Senate and Congress. Give them a call. They do keep track of the numbers of calls they get.  

 

Just call and say (ex)  "I understand Sen. McCain has accepted $7.7 million from the NRA. I don't know how many thoughts and prayers that buys but I hope he feels good about it. We're watching. Have a GREAT day." And hang up. Dial the next number and repeat.

 

SENATE:
John McCain-R/AZ $7.7mil (202) 224-2235
Richard Burr-R/NC $6.9m (202) 224-3154
Roy Blunt-R/MT $4.5mil (202) 224-5721
Thom Tillis- R/NC $4.4mil (202) 224-6342
Cory Gardner-R/CO $3.9mil CO (202) 224-5941
Marco Rubio-R/FL $3.3mil (202) 224-3041
Joni Ernst-R/IA $3.1mil (202) 224-3254
Rob Portman-R/OH $3mil (202) 224-3353
Todd Young- R/IN $2.9mil (202) 224-5623
Bill Cassidy-R/LA $2.9mil (202) 224-5824

 

HOUSE:
French Hill-R/AR $1.1mil (202) 225-4076
Ken Buck- R/CO $800k (202) 225-4676
Mike Simpson-R/ID $385k (202) 225-5531
Greg Gianforte-R/MT $334k (202) 225-3211
Don Young-R/AK $246k (202) 225-5765
Lloyd Smucker-R/PA $222k (202) 225-2411
Bruce Poliquin-R/MA $201k (202) 225-6306
Pete Sessions-R/TX $158k (202) 225-2231
Barbara Comstock-R/VA $137k (202) 225-5136
(from NYT)

Edited by NM11046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Got a minute and feeling fruatrated at where we are as a nation with gun deaths?   If you have already called your local reps, below is a list of the top 10 NRA donation recipients from Senate and Congress. Give them a call. They do keep track of the numbers of calls they get.  

 

Just call and say (ex)  "I understand Sen. McCain has accepted $7.7 million from the NRA. I don't know how many thoughts and prayers that buys but I hope he feels good about it. We're watching. Have a GREAT day." And hang up. Dial the next number and repeat.

 

SENATE:
John McCain-R/AZ $7.7mil (202) 224-2235
Richard Burr-R/NC $6.9m (202) 224-3154
Roy Blunt-R/MT $4.5mil (202) 224-5721
Thom Tillis- R/NC $4.4mil (202) 224-6342
Cory Gardner-R/CO $3.9mil CO (202) 224-5941
Marco Rubio-R/FL $3.3mil (202) 224-3041
Joni Ernst-R/IA $3.1mil (202) 224-3254
Rob Portman-R/OH $3mil (202) 224-3353
Todd Young- R/IN $2.9mil (202) 224-5623
Bill Cassidy-R/LA $2.9mil (202) 224-5824

 

HOUSE:
French Hill-R/AR $1.1mil (202) 225-4076
Ken Buck- R/CO $800k (202) 225-4676
Mike Simpson-R/ID $385k (202) 225-5531
Greg Gianforte-R/MT $334k (202) 225-3211
Don Young-R/AK $246k (202) 225-5765
Lloyd Smucker-R/PA $222k (202) 225-2411
Bruce Poliquin-R/MA $201k (202) 225-6306
Pete Sessions-R/TX $158k (202) 225-2231
Barbara Comstock-R/VA $137k (202) 225-5136
(from NYT)

Unreal..it’s amazing how much McCain has changed his tune on other issues now that his health is deteriorating. Makes you wonder how he currently feels about his stance on gun issues. Either way I feel no sympathy for a man that has profited so much at the cost of innocent lives.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stumpy1 said:

I see you are being dense but thats fine. 

 

If someone wants to cause mass casualties and dont have access to guns, they will find other ways of doing it.  Sure, guns make it easier but i imagine that it doesnt matter to someone who has the intent from the get-go.  

 

 

But guns (especially semi-automatic) are the most accessible and easiest way of causing mass harm and casualties, especially in a closed building. Yes, someone could drive a car through a crowded street, but that person won’t be able to drive into a school. Someone can try to build a bomb, but he’s just as likely to end up killing/harming himself first while he’s trying to build that bomb. The easy access to guns allow deranged individuals to carry out mass destruction with little effort and little time to plot their attack. The harder It is for someone to carry an attack out, the less likely that person is to carry out that attack. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stumpy1 said:

I see you are being dense but thats fine. 

 

If someone wants to cause mass casualties and dont have access to guns, they will find other ways of doing it.  Sure, guns make it easier but i imagine that it doesnt matter to someone who has the intent from the get-go.  

 

 

 

Guns don't just make it easier. They make it a lot easier. Exponentially easier. They have also been wildly over-romanticized as the equalizer for every weak and marginalized male who wants to be recognized just once, and is willing to go out in a blaze of glory. 

  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

 

I mostly agree with your general premise, but as far as the bold goes: those items are not designed to kill. So yes, the need for them, necessarily, isn't there, but it's a false equivalency to compare them to an AR-15 (or any firearm, for that matter). 

And to drive a vehicle you need a license and have to qualify to get one

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Branno said:

 

 

I think you missed the point. An assault rifle is just a semi-automatic rifle that is styled to look like a weapon used by the military. All that is different from a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an AR-15 is how it looks (not how it works). The question you posed wasn't why do people NEED guns, you asked why do people NEED AR-15's. They don't. I then used fast cars as an analogy to explain why people WANT them. I don't need a car that can go 100 miles an hour (no one does, well except for professional racers), but maybe I want one. People that are buying a gun don't need an AR-15 but they want one. It's normally the same reasoning used in both cases. It's not equivocating the purchases, just explaining the psychology.

 

It's why I always roll my eyes when people want to ban assault weapons. It's a made up term to refer to any semi-automatic weapon that looks a certain way (it's definitely not based on how it functions, other than requiring it has a removable magazine). Take a look at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban text some time; it's hilarious that we passed a law to prevent violence based on what a gun looks like and not how it functions.

 

The fact that we saw reduced gun violence is amazing, the effectiveness of weapons didn't decrease but people apparently didn't buy guns that weren't their weapon of choice.

 

 

Ah, 10-4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we allow people to own guns but treat them how we do cars. Sure you could walk to work or take public transportation and maybe you don't need a hemi that's pumping out 500 hp but we still allow you to have one...if you have a drivers license and pass a test proving you can drive. 

 

So how about if you want to own a semi auto rifle with a high capacity magazine you have to pass some sort of test. Maybe that your not mentally ill or i don't know not on the terrorist watch list. 

 

And if you can loose your license to drive for speeding or driving drunk you can loose your guns if you beat your spouse or are the member of a terrorist group.

 

As someone who has owned guns and comes from a family of people who have always owned guns i think that is a pretty good compromise that will still allow law abiding citizens to own guns.

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think yearly mental health exams need to be mandatory for all registered gun owners because s#!t happens in peoples lives that can mess you up, and if getting one done yearly is too much for you then you probably shouldn't own a gun to begin with. And AR-15s still don't need to be available to the general public. We wouldn't hold a stone throws chance of beating our or any military with them anyways so there's no logical bear arms excuse for having them. You can hunt, shoot for sport, and protect your home with many weapons like pistols, shotguns, machetes, tasers, etc that wouldn't be nearly as effective in the case of mass shootings.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty liberal, but when it comes to guns I am definitely a right-winger.  

 

Here's what I do not understand: why do people always blame the gun(s)? 

 

When people lose their lives in a car wreck, (assuming no manufacture defect) nobody blames the car.

 

If you go skiing and hit a tree, no one blames the ski resort.

 

If you get stabbed by a crazy ex, no one blames the knife manufacturure.

 

But when people are killed by guns, most everyone blames the gun makers and it doesn't make sense.

 

I have a conspiracy theory about why most mass shootings occur at schools but am hesitant to put it into this thread.

 

I do agree though that Trump was 100% wrong to end Obama's ban in selling guns to people with a history of mental issues.  That law/executive order should have stayed in place.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

But guns (especially semi-automatic) are the most accessible and easiest way of causing mass harm and casualties, especially in a closed building. Yes, someone could drive a car through a crowded street, but that person won’t be able to drive into a school. Someone can try to build a bomb, but he’s just as likely to end up killing/harming himself first while he’s trying to build that bomb. The easy access to guns allow deranged individuals to carry out mass destruction with little effort and little time to plot their attack. The harder It is for someone to carry an attack out, the less likely that person is to carry out that attack. 

 

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Guns don't just make it easier. They make it a lot easier. Exponentially easier. They have also been wildly over-romanticized as the equalizer for every weak and marginalized male who wants to be recognized just once, and is willing to go out in a blaze of glory. 

 

Couldn't +1 these enough. You two essentially made my point for me.

 

I don't get why people argue "they'll just find something else to do it with" or "they'll get a gun anyway" as a rebuttal to reasonable gun control. Specifically the former.

 

Think about it this way. Tanks are incredible weapons of war that are capable of wreaking incredible death & destruction. Thus, we are extremely careful about who can use them & what they are used for - one could say the use of tanks in our society is highly regulated. For good reason, only the military has access to them.

 

Set aside the 2nd amendment. Guns are tools that anyone can use that were designed specifically to maim & kill living things. Cars can do this too, but have other, more common, societal utilities. As do knives. 

 

Bombs do not. They are designed specifically for destruction & are utilized chiefly by demolition experts & the military. I would think everyone would agree only these folks should have access to bombs. We should rightly freak out if Joe Blow has access to them. Again, access to bombs (or component materials) are extremely tightly regulated.

 

I don't get why people don't lump guns, bombs & my silly example of tanks in the same category. If we woke up tomorrow & the layperson had zero access to any of these, I'd be OK. I'd prefer if only the people who had a legitimate purpose to use these and were trained to use them had access to them. To say that an effort to make items with the express purpose of inflicting destruction, injury or death LESS accessible wouldn't make us safer is ludicrous, IMO.

Edited by dudeguyy
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...