O'Rourke on gun confiscation, then and now (a.k.a. Francis' flip-flop)

Politics & Elections
81

First of, let me state that I am a firearm owner and a 2A supporter, AND I own at least one AR-pattern rifle (that has not been used against any living thing whatsoever, and I hope I never have to), my reasons for owning it are not relevant to this thread.

That said, the AR “Pistol” in the linked article above, I can understand why people would want to ban it, I can say as an AR owner, that I do not see any functional reason to own one, other than “it’s a cool range toy”, it doesn’t really have any true “sporting purpose”, and there are far better defensive firearm choices, (ironically, one of which is the AR RIFLE)

The AR “Pistol” only seems to exist because it can be built that way, i see no difference between a AR-P and a sawed off pistol grip shotgun, legally, the ARP should be classified as either a “Destructive Device”, “Short Barrel Rifle” or “AOW” (Any Other Weapon", and i’d have no problem with the ARP being moved to the Class 3 list of firearms, along with fully automatic rifles, sawed off shotguns, destructive devices, which require being fingerprinted, federal background checks, and a $200 tax stamp

there’s no reason an AR platform rifle needs to be concealable, it serves no sporting purpose, and there are better defensive weapons.

in the spirit of compromise, i say move the ARP to Class 3, and stop going after the AR rifles, which are rarely used in crimes and actually have a legitimate defensive/sporting use.

82

And here’s another club in the Reactionary Gun-Fetishist’s Bag: When all else fails, Blame the Media for the ills of the country.

None of the above constitutes “glorifying” the shooters in any sane person’s lexicon, BTW.

Let us know when you come up with science and facts.

83

“Assault weapon” is a poor term, but it has been used in several laws. So, it works.

84

I just did.

And to reiterate:

*There’s really no useful debate on the point. The consensus of social scientists since David Phillips’ groundbreaking work in 1974 is that highly publicized stories of deviant and dangerous behavior influences copycat incidents.
*

I suppose you also ignore scientists global warming, despite their consensus?

And NPR? Reactionary?

85

It’s an AR Pistol. We can even have them in CA, but here they would be required to be single shot only.

Mactech gave solid explanation of why and what it is. I personally find them pretty dumb, but they rose in popularity due to other stupid rules. I’d rather have an SBR.

86

No, you didn’t.

NPR, no. You, possibly. And NPR, again, never claimed the media was “glorifying” the shooters.

87

It was “science and fact” that violent video games cause violence IRL. That has been largely discredited. Give it a bit of time and you’ll find your favored hypothesis will be discredited as well. (There is a disclaimer in what you quoted that says the extent to which media contributes was not included in the scope of the study.)

It’s not that I entirely disagree with you that media has no role to play in these events. Clearly copycat behavior among individuals inclined to commit these types of acts is a thing. However, the extent to which it motivates and amplifies this effect has not been effectively studied, much less concluded.

Lack of sufficient and conclusive evidence, however, does not appear to deter you from drawing your conclusion. So consider the possibility you’re in no position to lecture anyone about “science and facts”.

There is plenty wrong with the 24/7 news cycle. The sensationalism of news “BREAKING” every minute of the day is hard to take seriously anymore and I wish it would stop. The fact that news stations feel the need to fill hours and days with repeated coverage ad-nauseam is frankly annoying as fuck and serves no-one but the advertisers and the media companies. That said, mass shootings are a problem in society and should not be downplayed because they are inconvenient PR to otherwise upstanding gun rights supporters.

88

Yeah, the ARP makes no sense to me either, and I like the AR platform…

Hmm, lets take a perfectly functional AR and…

Put a shorter upper receiver/barrel assembly on it (make it even Louder and less accurate, and produce a bigger muzzle flash)

take off the butt stock and put on a “wrist brace” (that can be used almost like a butt stock) (lets remove functionality and accuracy, and look for a way to illegally skirt the rules against Short Barreled Rifles, after all, an AR with normal buttstock and “pistol” upper is legally a Clas 3 Short Barreled Rifle)

Add on a 100 round drum, further shifting the weight farther forward (necessitating the “wrist brace”), and requiring the need to use the front grip on the gun (like with a rifle)

And now we can “conceal” it………under a trenchcoat, which certainly won’t look suspicious… :smack:

I have no problems with 100 round drums, and i’d love to own one myself, lots of fun at the range, but unless you’re fighting off the inevitable Zombie Uprising (which Will eventually happen :wink: ) or engaging in a long target shooting/competition setting, i can see no real functional use for one (once again, cool range toy)

ARP’s make no logical sense (and this is from an AR owner.)

89

I don’t have issues with most of what you said, but a wrist brace on an AR pistol is a way to legally “skirt the rules” (if that’s how you want to characterize it) against SBRs, not “illegally”.

90

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.

91

Goodpoint, i mistyped, i meant legally, not sure why i typed illegally

you’re correct on this one

92

I disagree with Mactech’s assessment of the utility of the AR-pistol. SBRs are extremely useful. The standard military small arm in the US Army is the M4 carbine, which has a 14.5 inch barrel, and that makes it an SBR. They seem to think a short weapon is useful.

I’d love a 10.5-12 ish inch SBR with a can: light, low noise, far more accurate than a handgun, easy to move in a confined space like a vehicle or dwelling, and no meaningful loss of effectiveness at typical defense ranges (<50m).

With the right brace, what’s the meaningful difference between an AR pistol and an SBR?

93

There are several people saying that the name and information about the shooter should be with held to not encourage others.
I think people who go out and murder a building full of people are crazy. Perhaps before scary looking semi-auto rifles, they were arsonists.

94

I don’t blame O’Rourke for changing his mind or at least changing what he says. Deaths of innocent children at the hands of madmen and perhaps a few madwomen is something that is going to stir a lot of emotions. It’s not problematic imo for people to debate and reconsider ideas that may save lives. Maybe it’s impossible to do anything to prevent crime and terrorism but it doesn’t hurt to try. Do I think confiscating rifles is the way to go? Not really. But I think it’s messed up that my kids have to waste some of their time in school on active shooter drills.

95

The shoulder stock. A pistol brace could work, but I’d think that would be questionable legally by a creative DA.

96

This is much less toxic than proposing to ban private health insurance the way Warren and Sanders do.

97

Bump stocks, telescoping stocks, thumbhole stocks, brace “stocks” - I don’t think the liberals hate guns nearly as much as they appear to hate the various permutations of stocks that have been banned over the years.

98

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. Everyone knows that. :slight_smile: My point is that it’s ridiculous when they claim it’s just a paranoid fantasy that they want to confiscate (at least some, not necessarily all) guns. Because just preventing new sale is a half measure. Or less. I believe a new sale ban on semi auto rifles* would have such a small effect on mass shooting it would, like the historical debate about the 1990’s law, be a matter of torturing statistics till they confessed it had any effect (though could have a small effect, I don’t know that it wouldn’t). Actually, ceteris paribus for all the other social sickness which cause these things, I think you’d not only have to ban semi-auto rifles but also pistols, or at least enforce small magazine limits, and on a ‘mandatory buy back’ (ie confiscation) basis. Since pistols wouldn’t kill a lot fewer people in most of those situations, assuming big magazines, and especially if the attacker has more than one.

So of course you’d have to confiscate a lot of guns to really cut down that problem from ‘hardware’ side. And so it’s ridiculous to claim that isn’t the aim, but Beto was making that standard claim till pretty recently and many Democrats still do.

That’s really my only point. I personally don’t think this problem is very solvable** and I don’t get that worked up about it either way, which I know is true of some other people who participate in these discussions but most are pretty worked up one way or the other, and are always looking to read any point made that doesn’t follow their catechism fairly exactly as being ‘the other’. :slight_smile:

*assuming the political bumper stick term ‘assault weapon’ was broadly defined as the actually relevant weapons, box magazine semi-auto rifles, not laws full of silly loopholes where a weapon with wooden furniture and no flash hider (eg. Ruger Mini 14 or such) was not an ‘assault weapon’ but an AR15 or such was, even though basically the same thing functionally.
**I really do think social contagion is a big part of it now and will probably die down at some point, like years ago when there were also plenty of guns including ‘assault weapons’ but not this problem to same degree. It’s not some ‘excuse’, I just think that’s probably a good deal of what it is. Whereas confiscating lots of guns nationally is not gonna happen, and half-half-measures like banning new sale of just a narrow range of guns, though no skin off my own nose, and which very well might not happen either, is not going to do much practically.

99

I am going to go contrarian and suggest flip-flops are actually good. A politician should flip-flop if their constituency changes. I have no use for a politician who governs according to their principles. Their principles should be whatever I (the voter) dictate to them.

My choice would have been for Beto to run for Senate instead of cluttering the presidential field with a stupid and quixotic bid, so I am content to see him flounder in shame and failure.

100

There, see, we can agree on some things :slight_smile: