Why would anyone need an assault rifle?

[Andy Dufresne 7,748]

1 minute ago, fantasycurse42 said:

How about they can kill a lot of people rather quickly, they aren't difficult to obtain, and we have lax gun laws where people like this Orlando guy, James Holmes, and the sandy hook scumbag can get their hands on them without much difficulty... Is that better? Plus they are far from a necessity in 2016 USA.

Yes, those are more compelling arguments.

[FreeBaGeL 6,880]

1 minute ago, Andy Dufresne said:

He'd have gone in with a shotgun and the carnage, while lessened of course, would have been enough to "begin the conversation" about banning shotguns.

So basically fewer people would be dead right now?

[pollardsvision 2,410]

1 hour ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Handgun down? I'd think they'd be easier to carry around. Furthermore, if a handgun isn't adequate, you might not be suited to use an assault rifle.

Not that I disagree with your original point (I'm fine with banning them), but a handgun is pretty damn hard to shoot with any accuracy. I'd say a good chunk of the population would have a much smaller chance than you'd think of successfully stopping a home invasion with a handgun. They'd make Lloyd Christmas look like a Navy SEAL. 

You probably mean shotgun, which is what most people would really need. 

But yeah, the general public really doesn't need assault rifles, even though they are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. Whether it makes sense to outlaw them, or how, I really don't know.

[eoMMan 4,759]

1 minute ago, Hov34 said:

So if this idiot didn't have access to the type of weapons he had, what would he have done to cause the chaos he did?  Because I don't think he would have been deterred.

 

 

He definitely could have done lots of damage with a couple handguns (see VA shooter) and/or shotguns. 

But not nearly as much damage as with the AR 15 and he would have put himself at more risk for injury/capture with the previously mentioned weapons.

Of course, he could have just used a uhaul full of explosives but that wouldn't have been as exciting for him I think.

[Lester Burnham 52]

or he would have used a bomb

[FishTacoTuesday 849]

or locusts on gay Florida crops

[Andy Dufresne 7,748]

Just now, FreeBaGeL said:

So basically fewer people would be dead right now?

Of course. But I don't think either of us think there's an acceptable level of murder.

[Lester Burnham 52]

I still miss lawn darts. The gene pool has suffered since those were banned

[Christo 6,013]

3 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

So basically fewer people would be dead right now?

Guns aren't the only way to kill a lot of people.

[Amused to Death 5,464]

2 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Of course. But I don't think either of us think there's an acceptable level of murder.

Well, some people do.  What's been accomplished?  I mean besides thoughts and prayers?

[fantasycurse42 7,045]

5 pages in and the number one reason so far:

"fun"

good stuff

[Buddy Ball 2K3 1,465]

Why do we need religion? I mean how many people have to be killed in the name of a "god" before we do something about it?

[Lester Burnham 52]

Ban god now!

[Amused to Death 5,464]

Just now, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

Why do we need religion? I mean how many people have to be killed in the name of a "god" before we do something about it?

That problem's taking care of itself.  Religion in the U.S. is in decline 

[Hov34 2,986]

13 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

He would've killed 5 people or 7 people, not 50 while wounding over 50 more.

 

So you don't think he would have gone the bomb route?  I just think it's not the guns so much (although I voted ban them) but the nuts are gonna be nutty.

 

 

[Lester Burnham 52]

I have several AR-15s. Am i going start a civil war if they get banned? Of course not... but I hope I get fair value for them. That will cost about as much as Obama care. 

[Sconch 4,257]

6 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

Why do we need religion? 

You want an honest answer?

[Slapdash 14,413]

Banning assault weapons again seems like a much more effective step ideas like using the no-fly list or other ways to ban people from guns

[Sconch 4,257]

54 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Until liberals would tone down their anti-anti-gun zealotry, rhetoric, and preference for governmental overreach there will be no compromise

 

Same can be said about the far right/gun nuts. 

[Lester Burnham 52]

Using the no fly list denies due process, so thats a sticking point.

[Buddy Ball 2K3 1,465]

3 minutes ago, Sconch said:

You want an honest answer?

I would love an answer to as why millions and millions of people have been killed over thousands of years, all due to a belief that there is a creator up in the sky and here we are worried about a tool.

[Lester Burnham 52]

1 minute ago, Sconch said:

 

Same can be said about the far right/gun nuts. 

Also true

[Amused to Death 5,464]

Just now, Lester Burnham said:

Using the no fly list denies due process, so thats a sticking point.

I understand that point but why not be able to use to at least trigger more stringent background checks?  We hold suspected criminals in jail every day.

[Northern Voice 6,570]

4 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

 

So you don't think he would have gone the bomb route?  I just think it's not the guns so much (although I voted ban them) but the nuts are gonna be nutty.

But it is the guns... Every study shows more guns = more homicide.

[Northern Voice 6,570]

5 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

I would love an answer to as why millions and millions of people have been killed over thousands of years, all due to a belief that there is a creator up in the sky and here we are worried about a tool.

Take away religion and guns and what would we use as reason and method to kill each other though?

Edited June 14, 2016 by Northern Voice

[Lester Burnham 52]

Just now, Northern Voice said:

But it is the guns... Every study shows more guns = more homicide.

False. The number of guns has skyrocketed under Obama. Show me the stats that show a commensurate rise in homicides.

[eoMMan 4,759]

Just now, Lester Burnham said:

False. The number of guns has skyrocketed under Obama. Show me the stats that show a commensurate rise in homicides.

How about a rise in mass murders?

[Amused to Death 5,464]

5 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

I would love an answer to as why millions and millions of people have been killed over thousands of years, all due to a belief that there is a creator up in the sky and here we are worried about a tool.

Every religion that has ever existed claimed to be loving, peaceful and caring.  And if you don't believe them, they'll murder, rape and pillage until you do.

[FreeBaGeL 6,880]

21 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Of course. But I don't think either of us think there's an acceptable level of murder.

So if we can't get to an "acceptable level" why bother, right? 

5, 50, 500, 5000, 5 million, it's all the same? 

[Northern Voice 6,570]

Just now, Lester Burnham said:

False. The number of guns has skyrocketed under Obama. Show me the stats that show a commensurate rise in homicides.

Here's a Harvard study on Homicides.  I posted another earlier.  It's not specific to the Obama administration but maybe I'll point you to the mass shootings that occur in your country every other day?

[cobalt_27 2,560]

1 minute ago, Lester Burnham said:

False. The number of guns has skyrocketed under Obama. Show me the stats that show a commensurate rise in homicides.

That's not a study, that's an anecdote.  Study it comprehensively, and it's undeniable that guns=homicide.

[fantasycurse42 7,045]

13 minutes ago, Lester Burnham said:

I have several AR-15s. Am i going start a civil war if they get banned? Of course not... but I hope I get fair value for them. That will cost about as much as Obama care. 

I vote no on almost every tax increase, but id take a few year increase to pay fair value to those that are having them taking away.

[Lester Burnham 52]

2 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

That's not a study, that's an anecdote.  Study it comprehensively, and it's undeniable that guns=homicide.

Its not a study or an anecdote. Its a statistic compiled by the FBI, who btw performs background checks on gun purchases.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425272/americans-bought-half-many-guns-september-are-owned-all-australia-charles-c-w-cooke

 

[fantasycurse42 7,045]

16 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

 

So you don't think he would have gone the bomb route?  I just think it's not the guns so much (although I voted ban them) but the nuts are gonna be nutty.

 

 

The article in the OP cites the time and effort the Boston bombers put in.

3 deaths... Hard to pull off a McVeigh thing in these times. Could it be done, sure, but much less likely, much more difficult to accomplish, and a much higher chance of being caught beforehand.

[cobalt_27 2,560]

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

In the end, this is still the most compelling argument for me. If I truly believed that we could save lives by banning them, I'd be for that, and I wouldn't care about this argument. But I have my doubts that this is the case. And unless somebody can convince me that it really would save lives, I don't see why we should take away these guns from law abiding citizens who enjoy using them. 

I see you're not familiar with the overwhelming data/research on gun prevalence and homicide rates.

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by cobalt_27

[FreeBaGeL 6,880]

20 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

 

So you don't think he would have gone the bomb route?  I just think it's not the guns so much (although I voted ban them) but the nuts are gonna be nutty.

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Christo said:

Guns aren't the only way to kill a lot of people.

There's a reason you have to go back 20 years to find the last example of a bomb killing more than a couple of people.

This isn't Die Hard 4 people.  Building and triggering a bomb capable of killing a lot of people here in real life is not easy.

Of all of these mass shooters the last few dozen years, the Columbine kids were the smartest of the bunch.  Bombs were part of their plan, but the bombs failed.  If they couldn't pull it off, how many of these other chumps could have?

The "they would just build a bomb" argument is ridiculous.  I'm sure it would happen, occasionally, but at significantly lower than the rate it does now with guns.  It's not nearly as easy.

Edited June 14, 2016 by FreeBaGeL

[Northern Voice 6,570]

1 minute ago, Lester Burnham said:

Its not a study or an anecdote. Its a statistic compiled by the FBI, who btw performs background checks on gun purchases.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425272/americans-bought-half-many-guns-september-are-owned-all-australia-charles-c-w-cooke

 

The US according to your article is "a dramatic outlier" in gun ownership and a dramatic outlier in gun homicides. Every study over any significant period of time, across countries, across states shows the link between gun ownership and gun deaths. There is no arguing this.

[cobalt_27 2,560]

4 minutes ago, Lester Burnham said:

Its not a study or an anecdote. Its a statistic compiled by the FBI, who btw performs background checks on gun purchases.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425272/americans-bought-half-many-guns-september-are-owned-all-australia-charles-c-w-cooke

 

A statistic is an anecdote.  It is not a study.  HTH

[Andy Dufresne 7,748]

8 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

So if we can't get to an "acceptable level" why bother, right? 

5, 50, 500, 5000, 5 million, it's all the same? 

No, the point is that the gun confiscators would use any gun deaths as justification for taking guns.

And it's rhetoric like this that causes gun users to tune out. The implication being that gun owners aren't horrified by or interested in reducing gun deaths.

[Sconch 4,257]

7 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

No, the point is that the gun confiscators would use any gun deaths as justification for taking guns.

And it's rhetoric like this that causes gun users to tune out. The implication being that gun owners aren't horrified by or interested in reducing gun deaths.

You're making a lot of assumptions about people that are interested in keeping things like the AR-15 out of the hands of lunatics.

[Christo 6,013]

15 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

 

There's a reason you have to go back 20 years to find the last example of a bomb killing more than a couple of people.

This isn't Die Hard 4 people.  Building and triggering a bomb capable of killing a lot of people here in real life is not easy.

Of all of these mass shooters the last few dozen years, the Columbine kids were the smartest of the bunch.  Bombs were part of their plan, but the bombs failed.  If they couldn't pull it off, how many of these other chumps could have?

The "they would just build a bomb" argument is ridiculous.  I'm sure it would happen, occasionally, but at significantly lower than the rate it does now with guns.  It's not nearly as easy.

As someone pointed out earlier, the insurgents in Iraq got pretty good at it. Without access to easier mechanisms, the committed will still find a way. So I disagree that the "they would just build a bomb" argument is ridiculous.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Christo

[FreeBaGeL 6,880]

9 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

No, the point is that the gun confiscators would use any gun deaths as justification for taking guns.

And it's rhetoric like this that causes gun users to tune out. The implication being that gun owners aren't horrified by or interested in reducing gun deaths.

Maybe.  Even if we knew for sure that were the case (we don't) I would think someone that has both guns and empathy would rather be arguing about shotguns in the face of 5 deaths than arguing about assault rifles in the face of 50 deaths.

[Lester Burnham 52]

13 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

A statistic is an anecdote.  It is not a study.  HTH

an·ec·dote

ˈanəkˌdōt/

noun

 

1. a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

   "told anecdotes about his job"

   synonyms:

   story, tale, narrative, incident; More

   • an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.

     "his wife's death has long been the subject of rumor and anecdote"
   • the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.

 

This is NOT an anecdote:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

[cobalt_27 2,560]

4 minutes ago, Lester Burnham said:

an·ec·dote

ˈanəkˌdōt/

noun

 

1. a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

   "told anecdotes about his job"

   synonyms:

   story, tale, narrative, incident; More

   • an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.

     "his wife's death has long been the subject of rumor and anecdote"
   • the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.

 

This is NOT an anecdote:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf

Yes it is.  You are covering a common but embarrassing misunderstanding of statistics and how they are useful and unuseful.  Until you put your statistic under the rigorous conditions of a well-designed study, it is unreliable.

Edited June 14, 2016 by cobalt_27

[Amused to Death 5,464]

The problem I see is the complete lack of ideas coming from the right. OK, so the left is vocal and the right doesn't like what they hear.  What are their ideas besides thoughts and prayers?  Can there be ANY conversation?

[Lester Burnham 52]

1 minute ago, cobalt_27 said:

Yes it is.  Until you put your statistic under the rigorous conditions of a well-designed study, it is unreliable.

Heres an anecdote for you...

The figures don't lie, but liars figure.

 

A study can be DESIGNED to produce the desired result/conclusion.

[Amused to Death 5,464]

1 minute ago, cobalt_27 said:

Yes it is.  Until you put your statistic under the rigorous conditions of a well-designed study, it is unreliable.

Well you know why we don't have any well-designed studies?  Because the NRA pressured Congress to remove gun violence research funding from the CDC back in '96.

[FreeBaGeL 6,880]

3 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

The problem I see is the complete lack of ideas coming from the right. OK, so the left is vocal and the right doesn't like what they hear.  What are their ideas besides thoughts and prayers?  Can there be ANY conversation?

Well there literally can't.  There is a ban on even studying it.

Edited June 14, 2016 by FreeBaGeL

[fantasycurse42 7,045]

15 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

No, the point is that the gun confiscators would use any gun deaths as justification for taking guns.

And it's rhetoric like this that causes gun users to tune out. The implication being that gun owners aren't horrified by or interested in reducing gun deaths.

The gun owners regardless of their feelings on gun deaths have zero interest in doing anything about it.

[Christo 6,013]

2 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

The problem I see is the complete lack of ideas coming from the right. OK, so the left is vocal and the right doesn't like what they hear.  What are their ideas besides thoughts and prayers?  Can there be ANY conversation?

You may not like it, but building a wall and banning Muslim immigration are ideas.