Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:44 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
It's being reported that President Trump will not support the dems UBC bill.
  #102  
Old 09-17-2019, 03:49 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Color me shocked. Did not see that coming.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #103  
Old 09-17-2019, 04:10 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
He's still working hard on that health care bill. Priorities.
  #104  
Old 09-17-2019, 07:51 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,163
A guy killed three masked teenagers who attacked him and two others outside his house. He killed them with what a witness described (from hearing gunfire) as "Then I heard somebody have an assault rifle,"
This will be meat for both sides of the argument.
  #105  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:28 PM
Mundane Super Hero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
easy to move in a confined space like a vehicle

Ok, this phrase bothered me.

Are you planning a 'drive-by' shooting? Are you looking to upgrade your road rage antics to murder? Do you hunt your deer from your car window (that's illegal in all 50 states I believe)?

Please do tell me the scenario where you expect to legally and regularly shoot people from your vehicle? (Wouldn't it be better to dial 911 and show the other road rage Asshat your phone? Most will fuck right off at that point. )

Does your style of driving lead other cars to regularly try to force you off the road so they can try to get out and attack you? Are you some big-wig/politician/celebrity/multimillionaire? Do you drive a car that is so expensive that it is often carjacked?

Seriously... Inquiring minds want to know what a responsible gun owner is doing even thinking of shooting a weapon out of a car window.
  #106  
Old 09-17-2019, 08:37 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 647
You never know when you'll get your chance to live your dream.
  #107  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:26 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
No, you didn't.


NPR, no. You, possibly. And NPR, again, never claimed the media was "glorifying" the shooters.
Yep, I know, four scholarly cites, but you ignore them.

"My mind is already made up so I ignore the facts!"- pretty big problem from the climate change deniers, and now more science denying.
  #108  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:29 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intergalactic Gladiator View Post
Gun confiscation will never happen, of course. The NRA is too well funded by Russian resources and protected by the right wing cowards who are getting a nice paycheck from them.
Comparative pennies from the Russians- and the gun lobby is small potatoes compared to the healthcare, Big Pharma and tobacco lobbies. In fact it doesnt even come in the top 100, iirc.
  #109  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:42 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yep, I know, four scholarly cites, but you ignore them.

"My mind is already made up so I ignore the facts!"- pretty big problem from the climate change deniers, and now more science denying.
I ignore them because:

even if they do contain any truth to them, which I doubt due to the fact that we all watch the news but it still only happens (largely) in USA, not reporting the news in full is not a viable option for a non-facist state.
  #110  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:46 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Yeah good one liner, you're here all week right?
Well, we've had decades of variants on:

- "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
- "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
- "An armed society is a polite society."
- "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

The difference between those one-liners and "They're paranoid about losing their guns. We're paranoid about people losing their lives." is that that one is accurate and on point.
  #111  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:21 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Do you think the AR-15 platform rifle that is typically owned by millions of Americans is automatic? I'm trying to prove the depth or your ignorance. Basically everything you've opined relating to firearms has been mistaken or wrong in some fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Ignorance is awesome! I mean, if you or kirkrapine want to make sweeping and erroneous, ignorant, and foolish assertions that's your call. I could tell you what the generally accepted nomenclature is for that type of firearm, what the characteristics are that determine that nomenclature, but I'm not sure you actually want to know. The article you linked quotes a former special agent of BATFE calling it a weapon of mass destruction which is about on par with the rhetorical accuracy being displayed here.
You know what? We know enough. We know that people are being massacred on an all-too-frequent basis with weapons that can kill a shitload of people before a 'good guy with a gun' has a chance to react. (In the Dayton mass shooting, the cops shot the perpetrator within 30 seconds of when he began shooting, and he was still able to kill 9 people.)

Those weapons that can kill a shitload of people in a hurry - we want them gone. When the time comes that actual legislation has even a remote chance to get through Congress, we can hire experts to sort out the necessary specifics. In the meantime, inside-baseball stuff like the difference between a clip and a magazine is superfluous: we know more than enough for right now.
  #112  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:34 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Yeah good one liner, you're here all week right?

But seriously, my point is not that gun control people can get sanctimonious like you just did.
Yeah, it's sanctimonious to compare the right to own particular kinds of guns with the right to continue being alive, and imply that the latter is considerably more important.
  #113  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:14 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yeah, it's sanctimonious to compare the right to own particular kinds of guns with the right to continue being alive, and imply that the latter is considerably more important.
This is such an idiotic argument. No one is arguing you don't have "the right to continue being alive". I want people free to own things, even somewhat dangerous things like cars, knives, baseball bats, and yes, guns. Some tiny percentage of those items will be misused and cost people their lives. It's unfortunate, but it happens. The solution is not to take away everyone's knives, baseball bats, cars, or guns.
  #114  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:24 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yep, I know, four scholarly cites, but you ignore them.
No, I didn't ignore them. Unlike you, apparently, I read them. They don't say what you think they said.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #115  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:26 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is such an idiotic argument. No one is arguing you don't have "the right to continue being alive". I want people free to own things, even somewhat dangerous things like cars, knives, baseball bats, and yes, guns. Some tiny percentage of those items will be misused and cost people their lives. It's unfortunate, but it happens. The solution is not to take away everyone's knives, baseball bats, cars, or guns.
And you've responded with the idiotic "cars" argument.

We restrict ownership of lots of things where the danger to society is considered to outweigh the benefit - in some cases, restrict them to an extreme degree - even where actual usage and harm done has been minimal. You haven't actually made the argument that guns shouldn't be one of them.

Last edited by Gyrate; 09-18-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #116  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:57 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
- "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

The difference between those one-liners and "They're paranoid about losing their guns. We're paranoid about people losing their lives." is that that one is accurate and on point.
What exactly is wrong with this one? There have been plenty of occasions where a gun owner stopped criminals in instances where the police were indeed still a long ways off, yes.
  #117  
Old 09-18-2019, 01:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
I ignore them because:

even if they do contain any truth to them, which I doubt due to the fact that we all watch the news but it still only happens (largely) in USA, not reporting the news in full is not a viable option for a non-facist state.
No one is suggesting to not report the news. Just leave the names off.

We dont name the victims now in rapes, etc. Are we a facist state due to that?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...02764217730854

Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders
And a consensus is building. Many government and law enforcement officials have already expressed their desire to deny mass shooters fame. As former Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey explained after the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting,

You will notice that I’m not using the killer’s name and I will try not to do that. Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory. And I don’t want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families. And so that other twisted minds don’t think that this is a path to fame and recognition. (Gurman, 2016)

Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch shared a similar view:

we don’t want to glorify people who are so clearly seeking attention, because we don’t want to let others who may be thinking about this think, “Oh, gee, even if I’m killed in a hail of bullets, my name will live forever.” (Gurman, 2016)....Many other leaders have taken a similar approach. The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Police Association have both endorsed a “No Notoriety” approach. In turn, Colorado governor John Hickenlooper refused to name the Aurora, Colorado shooter, and Oregon Sheriff John Hanlin refused to name the Umpqua Community College shooter. As Hanlin explained, “I will not name the shooter. I will not give him the credit he probably sought. You will never hear me mention his name” (“Oregon Sheriff,” 2015). An online convenience poll found that more than 92% of respondents agreed with his decision (“Oregon Sheriff,” 2015).

There are also a growing number of media members who support this approach as well. They include CNN television anchor Anderson Cooper, MSNBC television host Lawrence O’Donnell, former Fox News television host (now with NBC News) Megyn Kelly, and former governor and Fox News television host Mike Huckabee. For instance, after the Orlando shooting, Cooper stated on air that “There’s one name you will not hear in the broadcast, one picture of a person you won’t see. We will not say the gunman’s name or show his photograph” (Wilstein, 2016). Similarly, O’Donnell tweeted, “Last night @TheLastWord I never mentioned the shooter’s name or showed his picture. It can be done. No viewer complained” (O’Donnell, 2016). Back in 2013, Kelly explained “I really think I’m at the point where I no longer want to utter the names of these people at all. I think we should all do it”—and then she subsequently implemented this approach (Wilstein, 2013). ...
  #118  
Old 09-18-2019, 03:18 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is such an idiotic argument. No one is arguing you don't have "the right to continue being alive".
They don't argue. They just actively terminate that right.
Quote:
I want people free to own things, even somewhat dangerous things like cars, knives, baseball bats, and yes, guns.
So do I. Just not guns that can kill a shitload of people in a hurry. For approximately the same reason I don't want people to own hand grenades, since we're getting into interesting analogy territory.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 09-18-2019 at 03:18 PM.
  #119  
Old 09-18-2019, 03:20 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
What exactly is wrong with this one? There have been plenty of occasions where a gun owner stopped criminals in instances where the police were indeed still a long ways off, yes.
In order to do so, did they need a gun that can kill 30-50 feral hogs in 3-5 minutes, or what?
  #120  
Old 09-18-2019, 03:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Most guns that are reasonably-suited and popular for self defense (you might choose to read this as "those in common use for lawful purposes") "can kill a shitload of people in a hurry".
  #121  
Old 09-18-2019, 05:36 PM
Mundane Super Hero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 157
"Reasonably-Suited' guns...?


Or Bullet Guzzlers...?
  #122  
Old 09-18-2019, 06:27 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Most guns that are reasonably-suited and popular for self defense (you might choose to read this as "those in common use for lawful purposes") "can kill a shitload of people in a hurry".
Cool. Maybe we bring back the old-fashioned six-shooter, which would suffice quite well for self-defense, and ban everything else besides single-shot hunting rifles.

Sounds like you're satisfied. Glad we had this conversation.
  #123  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:17 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,422
Now some Democrats are also pushing back.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats...205103038.html

Senator Manchin (D-WV): "Beto is not taking my guns away."
  #124  
Old 09-18-2019, 07:26 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,721
Joe Manchin. Some on the left throw around the epithet “DINO” much too easily, but he is the rare example of someone who qualifies.
  #125  
Old 09-18-2019, 08:44 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No one is suggesting to not report the news. Just leave the names off.

We dont name the victims now in rapes, etc. Are we a facist state due to that?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...02764217730854

Don’t Name Them, Don’t Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders
And a consensus is building. Many government and law enforcement officials have already expressed their desire to deny mass shooters fame. As former Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey explained after the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting,

You will notice that I’m not using the killer’s name and I will try not to do that. Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory. And I don’t want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families. And so that other twisted minds don’t think that this is a path to fame and recognition. (Gurman, 2016)

Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch shared a similar view:

we don’t want to glorify people who are so clearly seeking attention, because we don’t want to let others who may be thinking about this think, “Oh, gee, even if I’m killed in a hail of bullets, my name will live forever.” (Gurman, 2016)....Many other leaders have taken a similar approach. The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Police Association have both endorsed a “No Notoriety” approach. In turn, Colorado governor John Hickenlooper refused to name the Aurora, Colorado shooter, and Oregon Sheriff John Hanlin refused to name the Umpqua Community College shooter. As Hanlin explained, “I will not name the shooter. I will not give him the credit he probably sought. You will never hear me mention his name” (“Oregon Sheriff,” 2015). An online convenience poll found that more than 92% of respondents agreed with his decision (“Oregon Sheriff,” 2015).

There are also a growing number of media members who support this approach as well. They include CNN television anchor Anderson Cooper, MSNBC television host Lawrence O’Donnell, former Fox News television host (now with NBC News) Megyn Kelly, and former governor and Fox News television host Mike Huckabee. For instance, after the Orlando shooting, Cooper stated on air that “There’s one name you will not hear in the broadcast, one picture of a person you won’t see. We will not say the gunman’s name or show his photograph” (Wilstein, 2016). Similarly, O’Donnell tweeted, “Last night @TheLastWord I never mentioned the shooter’s name or showed his picture. It can be done. No viewer complained” (O’Donnell, 2016). Back in 2013, Kelly explained “I really think I’m at the point where I no longer want to utter the names of these people at all. I think we should all do it”—and then she subsequently implemented this approach (Wilstein, 2013). ...
I couldn't tell you the name of a single mass shooter from the past 50 years, in any country. Not one. But I remember each event. So I guess we just fundamentally differ on the what we think the cause is.
  #126  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:24 PM
cutman74 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 169
As a liberal gun owner, I would like to add a few things. I have an assault rifle. Not an AR15, a mini 30. Cheaper ammo, and larger projectile. The reason that it is classified as such is because it has a 20 rnd magazine and a pistol grip and a an adjustable and foldable stock. These are not features I was seeking. Thone with the walnut stock cost $250 more. I'm not concerned about "gun grabbers" in the least. I live in Illinois. According to most gun nuts this is a hellhole for gun owners. I can buy ammo online and have it delivered to my house. I ordered my assault rifle online and was able to pick it up at a pawn shop near my house the day it arrived in the mail. No 3 day waiting period be cause it took five to get there. I agree that it was a little too easy for me to get that weapon. I'm not sure what the background check entailed. I would melt it down tomorrow if it would guarantee that that would be the solution to the gun problem in this country. I'm not convinced that it would. That being said, in the past two plus years, my confidence that I live in a society in which I will not not need it for self defense has decreased. With certain "prophets" calling for the killing of anti fascists in their beds and such, I feel much safer owning it. Especially considering the fact that the majority of gun owners in this country differ from me politically. Unfortunately, I feel like being left of center puts a target on all of our backs for a certain portion of the radical right. Thus, I'll hang on to mine for now. There have already been cries for dems to be dragged though the streets and stuff, so...
  #127  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:38 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Cool. Maybe we bring back the old-fashioned six-shooter, which would suffice quite well for self-defense, and ban everything else besides single-shot hunting rifles.

Sounds like you're satisfied. Glad we had this conversation.
A six shooter can kill six people in a hurry. A double rig can kill twelve. Add in some speedloaders, and in about 3 seconds you can kill 6 more. Continue until your ammo runs out.

An AR-15 cannot kill people any faster than a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle. A Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridge, and fires it just as fast. A standard M1911, probably the second most common American-owned handgun, can shoot 8 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. A Glock 19, the most popular handgun, can shoot as many as 6 to 33 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger, depending on the magazine you have in it.

Even the old western lever action rifle like the Winchester model 1873 has a 15 round magazine, and a skilled shooter can shoot the thing just about as fast as an AR-15.

There is nothing special about an AR-15 when it comes to deadliness. The characteristics that make it unique are lightweight design, ease of repair, modular construction, and military features like a pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, collapsing stock and other things that have nothing to do with lethality in a private setting.

People who understand guns know these things, and that's why they get frustrated by people who want to take them away while exhibiting complete ignorance about them.

Also, the AR-15 and other assault rifles are not the problem with respect to gun violence. The vast majority of murders are committed with handguns, because handguns are concealable. It's hard to walk up to a rival gang member with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder. It tends to be noticed.

Anyone who understands the issues knows that banning AR-15's wouldn't make a dent in firearms fatalities. At best, you might cause some spree shooter to change his weapon of choice to any number of other firearms equally deadly, or even more deadly. In the meantime, you'd be stripping the constitutional rights from millions of people just so some people can feel good that they 'did something', without actually doing anything at all.

Of course, we all know that once the AR's are gone, you'll just move on to the next weapon on your list of things to ban. Nobody believes that anti-gunners just want 'common sense' regulation. You hate guns, and you want them all gone. Beto just made that clear, when the left cheered his gun confiscation plan and none of the other major candidates for president pushed back against him.
  #128  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:45 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
A six shooter can kill six people in a hurry. A double rig can kill twelve. Add in some speedloaders, and in about 3 seconds you can kill 6 more. Continue until your ammo runs out.

An AR-15 cannot kill people any faster than a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle. A Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridge, and fires it just as fast. A standard M1911, probably the second most common American-owned handgun, can shoot 8 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. A Glock 19, the most popular handgun, can shoot as many as 6 to 33 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger, depending on the magazine you have in it.

Even the old western lever action rifle like the Winchester model 1873 has a 15 round magazine, and a skilled shooter can shoot the thing just about as fast as an AR-15.

There is nothing special about an AR-15 when it comes to deadliness. The characteristics that make it unique are lightweight design, ease of repair, modular construction, and military features like a pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, collapsing stock and other things that have nothing to do with lethality in a private setting.

People who understand guns know these things, and that's why they get frustrated by people who want to take them away while exhibiting complete ignorance about them.

Also, the AR-15 and other assault rifles are not the problem with respect to gun violence. The vast majority of murders are committed with handguns, because handguns are concealable. It's hard to walk up to a rival gang member with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder. It tends to be noticed.

Anyone who understands the issues knows that banning AR-15's wouldn't make a dent in firearms fatalities. At best, you might cause some spree shooter to change his weapon of choice to any number of other firearms equally deadly, or even more deadly. In the meantime, you'd be stripping the constitutional rights from millions of people just so some people can feel good that they 'did something', without actually doing anything at all.

Of course, we all know that once the AR's are gone, you'll just move on to the next weapon on your list of things to ban. Nobody believes that anti-gunners just want 'common sense' regulation. You hate guns, and you want them all gone. Beto just made that clear, when the left cheered his gun confiscation plan and none of the other major candidates for president pushed back against him.
I love guns. They are fun as all hell. But I just dont see them being cool as a good enough reason to justify the evil/idiotic uses/users being able to get them so easily.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #129  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:49 PM
cutman74 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
I love guns. They are fun as all hell. But I just dont see them being cool as a good enough reason to justify the evil/idiotic uses/users being able to get them so easily.
This
  #130  
Old 09-18-2019, 09:54 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Cool. Maybe we bring back the old-fashioned six-shooter, which would suffice quite well for self-defense, and ban everything else besides single-shot hunting rifles.

Sounds like you're satisfied. Glad we had this conversation.
Nothing I've said indicates I'd be satisfied with your proposal. I'm just trying to correct your ignorance.
  #131  
Old 09-18-2019, 11:09 PM
MacTech is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 6,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Cool. Maybe we bring back the old-fashioned six-shooter, which would suffice quite well for self-defense, and ban everything else besides single-shot hunting rifles.

Sounds like you're satisfied. Glad we had this conversation.
Jerry Miculek's trigger finger is probably illegal in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM
__________________
Freakazoid> dumb, Dumb, DUMB!, NEVER tell the villain how to trap you in a cage!
Gutierrez> You probably shouldn't have helped us build it either...
F!> I know, DUMB!
  #132  
Old 09-19-2019, 07:44 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Of course, we all know that once the AR's are gone, you'll just move on to the next weapon on your list of things to ban. Nobody believes that anti-gunners just want 'common sense' regulation. You hate guns, and you want them all gone. Beto just made that clear, when the left cheered his gun confiscation plan and none of the other major candidates for president pushed back against him.
Ah, the "I'm going to define the other side by picking the most extreme interpretation of their position" approach. Yes, that's totally intellectually rigorous.

Ooh, can I play? Because in that case it's been made abundantly clear, here and elsewhere, that what gun fetishists want to go armed everywhere and to have the right to shoot anyone that they can, after the fact, claim they felt posed a threat to them (and as long as the other party is too dead to dispute the shooter's version of events). Oh, the gun crowd claim they're all "responsible and law-abiding" but - and again, as has been made clear here and elsewhere - that only applies as long as the law allows them to do whatever they want. The minute anything that might spoil their fun is proposed, suddenly there's talk of guns "going missing in boating accidents" or even threats of violence against law enforcement. And nobody on that side "pushes back" against those claims, so we can extrapolate those views to everyone who is pro-gun. So much for being "law-abiding" and "responsible".

(That's how this works, right, Sam?)
  #133  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:33 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post

An AR-15 cannot kill people any faster than a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle. A Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridge, and fires it just as fast. .

If you had to shoot* as many children as you could in one large school using any easily obtainable gun (shooting inside the school buildings and outside the buildings on the school grounds) and you could only choose one gun what would it be? I can see a case for something like a Glock with extended magazines, and I can see a case for an AR with large capacity magazines. What would you choose? I'm asking because you seem to be implying that all (well, many) guns are equal. I just want to know which gun you think can kill more kids. Can you give an honest answer?






*note I didn't say kill because I don't want bombs to be an option, because bombs require more knowledge and skill to get and use.

Last edited by Isamu; 09-19-2019 at 08:36 AM.
  #134  
Old 09-19-2019, 08:39 AM
Wolf333 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,174
Of all guns are equal then banning the AR-15 would make gun grabbers happy and have no effect on gun owners.

Unless, of course, all guns are NOT equal.
  #135  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:01 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
There are several very popular semi-automatic deer rifles.
I don't doubt they're marketed that way, nudge nudge, wink wink.
Quote:
And no one hunts with a "automatic rifle" since they are effectively illegal.
But not because they don't want to, right?
  #136  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:24 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,630
Remember when only Nixon could go to China?

Perhaps only a Texan can take your guns.

Last edited by JohnT; 09-19-2019 at 10:25 AM.
  #137  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:18 AM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
If you had to shoot* as many children as you could in one large school using any easily obtainable gun (shooting inside the school buildings and outside the buildings on the school grounds) and you could only choose one gun what would it be? I can see a case for something like a Glock with extended magazines, and I can see a case for an AR with large capacity magazines. What would you choose? I'm asking because you seem to be implying that all (well, many) guns are equal. I just want to know which gun you think can kill more kids. Can you give an honest answer?






*note I didn't say kill because I don't want bombs to be an option, because bombs require more knowledge and skill to get and use.
I think in the hands of someone relatively untrained, the most deadly weapon in that circumstance would be a pump shotgun like a Remington 870 with a short barrel. Then when it's empty (9 rounds), a couple of pistols would let me shoot at least 16 more bullets, and up to 66 more, without reloading.

A rifle is rather hard to use in confined spaces - especially if you are untrained.

You simply can't legislate safety by banning certain model of gun. There are way too many options.
  #138  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:21 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Remember when only Nixon could go to China?

Perhaps only a Texan can take your guns.
Nah, they only see the (D)(R.) If gun confiscation is to happen, it has to be done by a conservative Republican.
  #139  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:29 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I think in the hands of someone relatively untrained, the most deadly weapon in that circumstance would be a pump shotgun like a Remington 870 with a short barrel. Then when it's empty (9 rounds), a couple of pistols would let me shoot at least 16 more bullets, and up to 66 more, without reloading.

A rifle is rather hard to use in confined spaces - especially if you are untrained.

You simply can't legislate safety by banning certain model of gun. There are way too many options.
If there is one thing we can sensibly rely on, it's that mass shooters are well informed and trained in their weapon of choice. We ought not limit their options.

Or do they just pick the coolest looking fuck-off gun they can get their hands on?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #140  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:39 AM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
If there is one thing we can sensibly rely on, it's that mass shooters are well informed and trained in their weapon of choice. We ought not limit their options.

Or do they just pick the coolest looking fuck-off gun they can get their hands on?
That's exactly what they do. The AR-15 is used not because it's the deadliest, but because it looks bad-ass. There are also a whole lot of them out there, so they are relatively easy to find/steal.

But if the AR is banned, there are lots of other guns that look 'badass'. And all it will take is some action movie where the hero uses twin shotguns or something, and we'll start seeing shotgun killings. If that happens, are we going to ban shotguns?

London banned all the guns. Then knives became the cool thing to have. Now people are being murdered with knives, and the government wants to ban scary looking knives and make it illegal to carry a knife on your person.

You let them take away all the knives, and next they'll come for your screwdrivers. Because it's easier than admitting that you have large scale social problems of your own making,
  #141  
Old 09-19-2019, 11:55 AM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Isn't there a heirarchy of how destructive different weapons are? (You guys who love "heirarchy" ought to be up on it.)

Yes of course there is. Some guns are more destructive than others. Some are illegal by this reasoning. There is no slippery slope coming, it's here now.

The knife argument: Wow. Wow. We really need another amendment in case they come for our screwdrivers, I'm telling you.

The control of firearms is based first on lethality. So gun arguers should introduce this thing called "proportionality" into their arguments, or at the very least admit that it exists, for fucks sake, or they will lose the arguments they have with others.
  #142  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:12 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
That's exactly what they do. The AR-15 is used not because it's the deadliest, but because it looks bad-ass. There are also a whole lot of them out there, so they are relatively easy to find/steal.

But if the AR is banned, there are lots of other guns that look 'badass'. And all it will take is some action movie where the hero uses twin shotguns or something, and we'll start seeing shotgun killings. If that happens, are we going to ban shotguns?

London banned all the guns. Then knives became the cool thing to have. Now people are being murdered with knives, and the government wants to ban scary looking knives and make it illegal to carry a knife on your person.

You let them take away all the knives, and next they'll come for your screwdrivers. Because it's easier than admitting that you have large scale social problems of your own making,
You're right. Nothing can be done. We should do nothing. Last thing we want is for disturbed individuals to come into a school with a screw driver or have one throw sharp rocks at a concert crowd from his hotel window.

-OR-

Prohibit "assault style" weapons. Prohibit large capacity magazines. Prohibit OC/CC, with very strictly defined exceptions. Set limit on type and max number of weapons for household. Prohibit people from taking weapons designated for home defense from being removed from home. Strict laws about transporting weapons (triger locks and disarmed). Comprehensive background checks and red flag laws (nationally).

Can we try that for a while? Like for a generation or two. See what happens.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #143  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I don't doubt they're marketed that way, nudge nudge, wink wink. But not because they don't want to, right?
The Browning is marketed that way. It was a wood stock and a limited capacity magazine.

Doubtful, since in the past, when you could buy a Tommygun in a hardware store, few people hunted with them.
  #144  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Isn't there a heirarchy of how destructive different weapons are? (You guys who love "heirarchy" ought to be up on it.)

Yes of course there is. Some guns are more destructive than others. Some are illegal by this reasoning. There is no slippery slope coming, it's here now.

The knife argument: Wow. Wow. We really need another amendment in case they come for our screwdrivers, I'm telling you.

The control of firearms is based first on lethality. So gun arguers should introduce this thing called "proportionality" into their arguments, or at the very least admit that it exists, for fucks sake, or they will lose the arguments they have with others.
They have banned "zombie knives" in the UK. So the slope is slippery.

Not really, it's based on them looking scary and being used in mass shootings, but mass shooting are a tiny % of murders in the USA. There are about 17,000 murders in the USA, 11000 with guns, 1600 with knives, etc. Of those 7000 are with handguns, and rifles (which include the AR15) account for a mere 400. Thus knives are four times more deadly than rifles, in terms of murders.


https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/
  #145  
Old 09-19-2019, 12:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
You're right. Nothing can be done. We should do nothing. Last thing we want is for disturbed individuals to come into a school with a screw driver or have one throw sharp rocks at a concert crowd from his hotel window.

-OR-

Prohibit "assault style" weapons. Prohibit large capacity magazines. Prohibit OC/CC, with very strictly defined exceptions. Set limit on type and max number of weapons for household. Prohibit people from taking weapons designated for home defense from being removed from home. Strict laws about transporting weapons (triger locks and disarmed). Comprehensive background checks and red flag laws (nationally).

Can we try that for a while? Like for a generation or two. See what happens.
Or- simply prohibit/ask the broadcast media from using the names of mass killers.

CA has banned assault weapons since 1989 has no OC and almost no CCW, background checks for all gun sales. So there, it has been tried for a generation or two- and it made not a dent in the murder rate. CA is still where it was- right in the middle of all states.

Oh and " Prohibit people from taking weapons designated for home defense from being removed from home. " they cant go to the range and practice?
  #146  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:31 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post

Oh and " Prohibit people from taking weapons designated for home defense from being removed from home. " they cant go to the range and practice?
You beat me to it.
  #147  
Old 09-19-2019, 01:34 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutman74 View Post
As a liberal gun owner, I would like to add a few things. I have an assault rifle. Not an AR15, a mini 30. Cheaper ammo, and larger projectile. The reason that it is classified as such is because it has a 20 rnd magazine and a pistol grip and a an adjustable and foldable stock.
I didn't know the Ruger mini .30 had a model with a folding stock.

Back to "easily moved in the car." Several hunters loading into a car trying to not point a rifle at someone, and hoping no one was stupid enough to take a loaded rifle into a car.
  #148  
Old 09-19-2019, 02:52 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 777
Massacre machines?

#branding
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #149  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:14 PM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 12,971
O'Rourke has an impressive -5,142 downvotes on Reddit right now from his response to the question "How will you confiscate the millions of AR 15s?" His answer:

Quote:
Americans will comply with the law. It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for war. Because we understand that theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country — in their schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts... everywhere. I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense, it’s fun to shoot but would give it up. Because they also have kids and grandkids and want them to be safe.
And Reddit definitely leans more liberal than conservative.
  #150  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:22 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,422
More direct link here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...ent=t1_f0ss3v8


That being said, I'm impressed he's willing to interact with people directly on Reddit.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017