What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

USA Shootings (9 Viewers)

KCitons said:
This is a taking the path of least resistance. (if that's possible with the gun culture in this country). As horrifying as a mass shooting event is, is it more horrifying than some of the other events that fill the other pages of the national newspapers? 

Man charged in murder of 7-year-old son whose body was found encased in concrete

Believe it or not, this isn't the first time a father tried to hide a child's body in concrete. 

Every day there are examples of people doing horrific things to other people. Many of them have no guns involved at all. The only common denominator is the perpetrators disregard for other people. (sometimes even their own flesh and blood).

This was the second post I made in this thread. I think it still addresses the fundamental problem.
Click to expand...
The difference is that mass shootings is something that we might be able to affect by enacting certain laws and regulations which we do not have currently. 

 
timschochet said:
I don’t think so, no. It seems to me that if Cho had an AR-15 instead he would have, in the same time span, shot and killed even more people. He also might have been harder to stop. 

As someone pointed out previously, there is a reason that we give our military AR-15s and not pistols. It’s a more effective weapon. Its not meant for civilian use and there is no reason for a civilian to own one. 
Click to expand...
Because it is a weapon with a wide range of application.  It was designed for warfare at a bit of a distance, not for shooting fish in a barrel.  Oh, we do supply military personnel with handguns, just not all of them.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
One does not have to steal a plane to deliver gas to a building.  Also, your supposition about the AR 15 is supposition alone, based upon cherry picked incidents.  Handguns are very efficient in close quarters against defenseless folks.  You have some nearly magical thinking about the capabilities of an AR 15 and lack some about the capabilities of handguns.  That's fine, many do.
Click to expand...
Not magical at all, and not cherry picked either. If you look at a list of mass shootings in the last 20 years (or basically ever since the ban on AR-15s) was listed, here is what you find: 

1. The vast majority of mass shootings involve AR-15s. 

2. The frequency of mass shootings has increased heavily in the years since the ban was lifted. 

3. Mass shootings that involve AR-15s result in far more casualties than mass shootings from pistols. 

No cherry picking. 

 
timschochet said:
The difference is that mass shootings is something that we might be able to affect by enacting certain laws and regulations which we do not have currently. 
Click to expand...
We might.  We can chase that regulatory white dragon.  We have for decades.  Or we can do what you always say is impossible, we can face the need to address the second amendment.  Your way we may make minimal headway until the courts inevitably roll any progress back.  We can ride the pendulum going no where but back and forth, or we can strike on on the daunting, but not impossible path.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Because it is a weapon with a wide range of application.  It was designed for warfare at a bit of a distance, not for shooting fish in a barrel.  Oh, we do supply military personnel with handguns, just not all of them.
Click to expand...
You’re a smart guy DW and I respect you. I know you are a responsible gun owner and I trust you with your weapons. Why are you fighting this so hard? Talking about bombs and gas and bringing up 9-11- This isn’t like your usual great ability to reason. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Well guns are certainly a more efficient tool for killing than bladed weapons or bludgeons.  Are they the most efficient means for killing persons in buildings, maybe not.  There may be better tools as we saw in the Oklahoma City bombing or the twin towers.    Gas and fire are very efficient, particularly if the egress is blocked or locked with debris or locks. I just think focusing on one weapon platform is distracting the debate.  When both "A" and "Not A" inexorably lead to "B" as is Tim's current stance I don't think it offers anything other than distraction.  
Click to expand...
That is where we disagree then.   I don't think it's distracting to the debate at all, and I don't believe that we would have the exact # of incidents if people have to use blades and fire.   I understand that we can't ban all guns, but I don't think talking about them is a distraction to the debate.  

 
KCitons said:
This is a taking the path of least resistance. (if that's possible with the gun culture in this country). As horrifying as a mass shooting event is, is it more horrifying than some of the other events that fill the other pages of the national newspapers? 

Man charged in murder of 7-year-old son whose body was found encased in concrete

Believe it or not, this isn't the first time a father tried to hide a child's body in concrete. 

Every day there are examples of people doing horrific things to other people. Many of them have no guns involved at all. The only common denominator is the perpetrators disregard for other people. (sometimes even their own flesh and blood).

This was the second post I made in this thread. I think it still addresses the fundamental problem.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is.  I am pretty sure I have never said that there would be 0 murders without guns or that deaths like that are not tragic.  

 
timschochet said:
I don’t think so, no. It seems to me that if Cho had an AR-15 instead he would have, in the same time span, shot and killed even more people. He also might have been harder to stop. 

As someone pointed out previously, there is a reason that we give our military AR-15s and not pistols. It’s a more effective weapon. Its not meant for civilian use and there is no reason for a civilian to own one. 
Click to expand...
This is debatable. I read an article about home defense the other day. It said that a handgun is better than a shotgun or a rifle because if it's ability to work around corners and in tight spaces. In the case of the Virginia Tech shooting, the shooter was moving through residence halls and admin building. Those are small rooms and narrow hallways. Navigating a rifle is much more difficult. Also the barrel of a rifle will come through a doorway before the shooter. This gives defenders a chance to grab the barrel from the side and subdue the shooter. 

The only argument you can attempt to make is that the 5.56 round of the AR15 is more effective caliber than 9mm handgun round. In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, the 9mm handgun would have done much less damage at that range. So, the AR15 was deadlier in that incident. In the case of office buildings where ranges are probably less than 10 yards, it wouldn't matter. Especially if the 9mm was equipped with a 30 round magazine. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
We might.  We can chase that regulatory white dragon.  We have for decades.  Or we can do what you always say is impossible, we can face the need to address the second amendment.  Your way we may make minimal headway until the courts inevitably roll any progress back.  We can ride the pendulum going no where but back and forth, or we can strike on on the daunting, but not impossible path.
Click to expand...
Beyond the difficulty, I don’t see any need to. I’m not opposed to the 2nd Amendment. I might oppose some interpretations of it. But I don’t see the need to take away any law abiding citizen’s  right to own a firearm away. I just want it “well-regulated”: which means certain guns deemed too dangerous should be outlawed, and certain people deemed too dangerous should be outlawed from owning guns. That’s all, and it’s well within the existing language. 

 
The main reason I would be OK with a ban on AR-15 (or analogous) weapons is that the wounds from those type of guns are so much more devastating than handgun wounds. I always think back to this excellent article in The Atlantic following the Parkland shooting last year. I'm sure it has been posted before, though.

 
KCitons said:
This is debatable. I read an article about home defense the other day. It said that a handgun is better than a shotgun or a rifle because if it's ability to work around corners and in tight spaces. In the case of the Virginia Tech shooting, the shooter was moving through residence halls and admin building. Those are small rooms and narrow hallways. Navigating a rifle is much more difficult. Also the barrel of a rifle will come through a doorway before the shooter. This gives defenders a chance to grab the barrel from the side and subdue the shooter. 

The only argument you can attempt to make is that the 5.56 round of the AR15 is more effective caliber than 9mm handgun round. In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, the 9mm handgun would have done much less damage at that range. So, the AR15 was deadlier in that incident. In the case of office buildings where ranges are probably less than 10 yards, it wouldn't matter. Especially if the 9mm was equipped with a 30 round magazine. 
Click to expand...
I have put this exact question to some police friends of mine. Here it is: “Let’s say there’s a mass shooter at a school. You arrive at the scene and have to stop him. Given the choice, would you prefer he was armed with an AR-15 or with a handgun?” What do you think they said KCitons? Do you think they said “it’s debatable”, or “it doesn’t matter”? I asked 2 guys and they both instantly said handgun. I’m betting if I asked 1000 police they would all say handgun. I mean come on. This isn’t debatable. 

 
mcintyre1 said:
The main reason I would be OK with a ban on AR-15 (or analogous) weapons is that the wounds from those type of guns are so much more devastating than handgun wounds. I always think back to this excellent article in The Atlantic following the Parkland shooting last year. I'm sure it has been posted before, though.
Click to expand...
This is another great point. It’s not my main argument but it certainly adds to it. 

 
And yes I know that Jackie Chan can kill more people with his hands, and that Bob Lee Swagger can kill 50 with a shotgun from 300 yards out, and that Jack Reacher can take a small pistol and murder 100 people if he wants to. These crazies don’t have that kind of skill. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
And yes I know that Jackie Chan can kill more people with his hands, and that Bob Lee Swagger can kill 50 with a shotgun from 300 yards out, and that Jack Reacher can take a small pistol and murder 100 people if he wants to. These crazies don’t have that kind of skill. 
Click to expand...
How 'bout the power to kill a yak from 200 yards away... with mind bullets! That's telekinesis, Kyle!

 
timschochet said:
The difference is that mass shootings is something that we might be able to affect by enacting certain laws and regulations which we do not have currently. 
Click to expand...
Mass shootings are a behavioral response to an underlying issue. Banning AR15s won't change that behavior. 

 
KCitons said:
This is debatable. I read an article about home defense the other day. It said that a handgun is better than a shotgun or a rifle because if it's ability to work around corners and in tight spaces. In the case of the Virginia Tech shooting, the shooter was moving through residence halls and admin building. Those are small rooms and narrow hallways. Navigating a rifle is much more difficult. Also the barrel of a rifle will come through a doorway before the shooter. This gives defenders a chance to grab the barrel from the side and subdue the shooter. 

The only argument you can attempt to make is that the 5.56 round of the AR15 is more effective caliber than 9mm handgun round. In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, the 9mm handgun would have done much less damage at that range. So, the AR15 was deadlier in that incident. In the case of office buildings where ranges are probably less than 10 yards, it wouldn't matter. Especially if the 9mm was equipped with a 30 round magazine. 
Click to expand...
At least according to the ER doc who treated Parkland students in that article I posted above, this is very much not true. Handgun bullets are much more survivable than higher powered rounds from a long rifle.

Anecdotally, I was also recently reading about the shooting in that country music bar in California awhile back. Tragically, the responding officer who died was hit 5 times by the gunman (who had a handgun), but the fatal blow was delivered by a shot from the long rifle of a fellow officer. According to the autopsy, the 5 hits from the gunman would likely have been survivable.

To go back to your VT example, it is obviously pure speculation but I would think that the 49 people shot with 17 surviving would have been much closer to 49 dead if the shooter had used a long rifle.

 
KCitons said:
I think these stats need more explanation. 

I did some searching and found that, in addition to different terms for mass shootings, there are some that do/don't make the list. (UNCC shooting didn't make Mother Jones list, but did make it onto the Wikipedia list)

This article from Mother Jones shows that there were only 4 mass shooting incidents in 2019. 

Wikipedia shows that there were a lot more. (probably 150, I didn't count them). From that site:

When you look at the Wikipedia list, it appears that a good portion of those shootings could be gang related. Are proposed gun regulations going to do anything to reduce those deaths? 
Click to expand...
Some of them would.  Not all of them would.  Requiring firearm registration and universal background checks would mean that the transfer of firearms into the hands of felons would become much more difficult.  Helping keep guns out of the hands of convicted drug dealers and gang members.  Which is why people want that to happen.

 
timschochet said:
I have put this exact question to some police friends of mine. Here it is: “Let’s say there’s a mass shooter at a school. You arrive at the scene and have to stop him. Given the choice, would you prefer he was armed with an AR-15 or with a handgun?” What do you think they said KCitons? Do you think they said “it’s debatable”, or “it doesn’t matter”? I asked 2 guys and they both instantly said handgun. I’m betting if I asked 1000 police they would all say handgun. I mean come on. This isn’t debatable. 
Click to expand...
Did they say why? 

My guess would be that the AR15 has the ability to pierce body armor. Which most LE officers wear. It's also the reason why LE now carries AR15s to respond to active shooters (many of which wear body armor). 

 
Henry Ford said:
Some of them would.  Not all of them would.  Requiring firearm registration and universal background checks would mean that the transfer of firearms into the hands of felons would become much more difficult.  Helping keep guns out of the hands of convicted drug dealers and gang members.  Which is why people want that to happen.
Click to expand...
How are they getting their guns? How many are stolen? 

Many of the gang shootings are carried out with a handgun. So proposed assault weapons bans would have minimal effect on gang violence. Bans on all handguns would fuel a black market for guns. The ban of drugs in this country didn't effect the drug problem, it just fueled the illegal flow of drugs into the country. 

 
timschochet said:
You’re a smart guy DW and I respect you. I know you are a responsible gun owner and I trust you with your weapons. Why are you fighting this so hard? Talking about bombs and gas and bringing up 9-11- This isn’t like your usual great ability to reason. 
Click to expand...
I am not fighting it at all.  I am simply disputing your stance that a shooter, having been very lethal with a handgun is proof that he would have been more lethal with an AR 15.  There are tools for applications and in the situation we just had the shooter chose a very efficient tool, maybe even the correct tool.  I view us as nibbling around the edges, distracted by definitions and folks advocating answers when they do not have the knowledge basis to be putting forward solutions.  this is particularly so when legislation demands exacting definitions.  We can devolve, yet again, to what is meant by an AR 15, or what you think is meant by one, but that is non-productive, in my mind, and I get to express that just as surely as you get to suggest that the absence of a thing proves that the presence of that thing, had it been present, proves your point.  When anybody argues that both "A" and 'Not A" proves their point I wonder what their point was.

 
mcintyre1 said:
At least according to the ER doc who treated Parkland students in that article I posted above, this is very much not true. Handgun bullets are much more survivable than higher powered rounds from a long rifle.

Anecdotally, I was also recently reading about the shooting in that country music bar in California awhile back. Tragically, the responding officer who died was hit 5 times by the gunman (who had a handgun), but the fatal blow was delivered by a shot from the long rifle of a fellow officer. According to the autopsy, the 5 hits from the gunman would likely have been survivable.

To go back to your VT example, it is obviously pure speculation but I would think that the 49 people shot with 17 surviving would have been much closer to 49 dead if the shooter had used a long rifle.
Click to expand...
There is an article with a study that states the opposite. I will have to see if I can find it. I posted it a few months back. 

 
timschochet said:
I have put this exact question to some police friends of mine. Here it is: “Let’s say there’s a mass shooter at a school. You arrive at the scene and have to stop him. Given the choice, would you prefer he was armed with an AR-15 or with a handgun?” What do you think they said KCitons? Do you think they said “it’s debatable”, or “it doesn’t matter”? I asked 2 guys and they both instantly said handgun. I’m betting if I asked 1000 police they would all say handgun. I mean come on. This isn’t debatable. 
Click to expand...
In a combat situation I very much agree, I would rather face a handgun than a rifle.  These mass shootings are not combat situations, they are shooting unwitting, scared, confused victims in confined spaces unable to return fire.  In such situations, say a crowded nightclub, I believe a shooter with two semiautomatic handguns with say 20 round mags in each and spare mags for reloading would be far more devastating that a shooter with a single AR 15 with 30 round mags.  Now if the shooter intends to get in a fire fight with law enforcement after the initial killing spree I would say he (Not she since it is almost never a she) would be better off with an AR.

What old west movie was I watching where they said "It is said that when a man with a handgun comes up against a man with a Winchester (meaning a rifle) the man with the handgun is dead.  There is some truth to that if the parties are at any real distance.

For the untrained, handguns are not accurate beyond a few feet.  But when a few feet is all one needs, they are extremely effective.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
How are they getting their guns? How many are stolen? 

Many of the gang shootings are carried out with a handgun. So proposed assault weapons bans would have minimal effect on gang violence. Bans on all handguns would fuel a black market for guns. The ban of drugs in this country didn't effect the drug problem, it just fueled the illegal flow of drugs into the country. 
Click to expand...
There are a few different ways, primarily by purchasing either from a no-background-check scenario (from a private seller) or having a straw purchaser without a criminal record purchase one for them.  Of course, there's no record of who actually bought it nor the transfer to the new owner, so the person selling to/buying for has no skin in the game.  Same with the "uber guns" that get shared among a gang, the community property firearms for the group.

If a criminal gets caught with a firearm and there's no transfer to the new owner nor report of it being stolen, the person who gave/sold it to them should be found to be liable for an illegal transfer.  And potentially for the crime that was perpetrated with it.  

Responsible gun owners report stolen guns.  And would report sales.

Edit: "fuel a black market for guns"? Are you not aware that there is already a huge black market for guns?

Also, guns are not like drugs.  Drugs are an inherent neurochemical reward commodity. Like alcohol or sex or message board likes.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
There are a few different ways, primarily by purchasing either from a no-background-check scenario (from a private seller) or having a straw purchaser without a criminal record purchase one for them.  Of course, there's no record of who actually bought it nor the transfer to the new owner, so the person selling to/buying for has no skin in the game.  Same with the "uber guns" that get shared among a gang, the community property firearms for the group.

If a criminal gets caught with a firearm and there's no transfer to the new owner nor report of it being stolen, the person who gave/sold it to them should be found to be liable for an illegal transfer.  And potentially for the crime that was perpetrated with it.  

Responsible gun owners report stolen guns.  And would report sales.
Click to expand...
With rights come responsibilities, or that should be the case.  If I want to exercise my 2nd amendment right I should have the responsibility to make sure I know how to safely and competently use the weapon, how to store it safely so that it does not fall into the wrong hands, (either criminal, inexperienced, or unsupervised).  I should have the responsibility  to report when it is stolen, and under what circumstances so that it might be recovered, this includes the responsibility to fully cooperate with law enforcement investigations of the theft.  I ought to be required to be responsible to not transfer the weapon to the unqualified or the dangerous.  I have these responsibilities regardless of the weapon platform.

 
Henry Ford said:
There are a few different ways, primarily by purchasing either from a no-background-check scenario (from a private seller) or having a straw purchaser without a criminal record purchase one for them.  Of course, there's no record of who actually bought it nor the transfer to the new owner, so the person selling to/buying for has no skin in the game.  Same with the "uber guns" that get shared among a gang, the community property firearms for the group.

If a criminal gets caught with a firearm and there's no transfer to the new owner nor report of it being stolen, the person who gave/sold it to them should be found to be liable for an illegal transfer.  And potentially for the crime that was perpetrated with it.  

Responsible gun owners report stolen guns.  And would report sales.
Click to expand...
How does this prevent gang shootings? 

Do you think if every gun in this country was removed, that there would be no black market for guns? In places like Colorado, is there still an illegal market for marijuana? Just because the laws change (in favor or against) doesn't mean that criminals won't adapt.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
With rights come responsibilities, or that should be the case.  If I want to exercise my 2nd amendment right I should have the responsibility to make sure I know how to safely and competently use the weapon, how to store it safely so that it does not fall into the wrong hands, (either criminal, inexperienced, or unsupervised).  I should have the responsibility  to report when it is stolen, and under what circumstances so that it might be recovered, this includes the responsibility to fully cooperate with law enforcement investigations of the theft.  I ought to be required to be responsible to not transfer the weapon to the unqualified or the dangerous.  I have these responsibilities regardless of the weapon platform.
Click to expand...
I actually go further than this.  I believe that failure at some of these responsibilities should subject me, or any one else who fails, to civil liability in all instances and perhaps criminal culpability as well, almost certainly so.

 
KCitons said:
How does this prevent gang shootings? 

Do you think if every gun in this country was removed, that there would be no black market for guns? In places like Colorado, is there still an illegal market for marijuana? Just because the laws change (in favor or against) doesn't mean that criminals won't adapt.
Click to expand...
No one believes that it will solve all gun violence.  However, it's helpful to "look at the tape" on registration laws, if nothing else.

After Maryland passed its registration requirement, 40% of convicted felons reported it was harder to get a gun.  But more importantly to the idea of federal or "every state" regulations: Hawaii.  

The reason Hawaii's registration and background check requirements are so effective is because there isn't a neighboring state where people can just go get a gun.  That's a huge deal.  And they are very effective.  Hawaii has the lowest gun-death rate in the U.S. - last stats I saw were less than 3 per 100,000 per year, versus the U.S. number of over 11.  That's despite being a relatively small land mass with over 100 street gangs.

 
Henry Ford said:
No one believes that it will solve all gun violence.  However, it's helpful to "look at the tape" on registration laws, if nothing else.

After Maryland passed its registration requirement, 40% of convicted felons reported it was harder to get a gun.  But more importantly to the idea of federal or "every state" regulations: Hawaii.  

The reason Hawaii's registration and background check requirements are so effective is because there isn't a neighboring state where people can just go get a gun.  That's a huge deal.  And they are very effective.  Hawaii has the lowest gun-death rate in the U.S. - last stats I saw were less than 3 per 100,000 per year, versus the U.S. number of over 11.  That's despite being a relatively small land mass with over 100 street gangs.
Click to expand...
Hawaii is unique. It's not just protected from other states with lenient gun regulations, it doesn't share a border with another country, or have thousands of miles of coastline. The ability to bring in weapons (and the distance required if by boat) is prohibitive. 

As I said, I'm all for universal background checks. Stating that 40% of Marylands felons found it harder to get a gun, doesn't mean it kept 40% of felons from getting a gun. If there is money to be made, someone will step in to fill the void. Which is why I wanted to look at the large subset of gang violence that contributed to the 150 mass shootings in 2019. If a gang member is willing to risk the penalty of shooting rival gang member, will the think twice about purchasing a black market gun? I don't believe they will. It's a small obstacle.

 
We can not prevent mass shootings. We can not stop gun violence either. We’re going to have both, unfortunately. Maybe, with regards to the first, we will eventually learn some things about mental illness which allows us to treat some of these people before they reach the state where they commit violence on others. That’s a slow process, but I’m all for spending money on research to speed it up. Whatever it takes. 

In the meantime what we can do is try and reduce casualties when mass shootings occur. The reason that I am in favor of a new ban on AR-15s is that I believe this MAY help in that regard. There is good reason for me to believe this, which I have already stated, but belief is all that it is. I can’t prove it, obviously. 

I am also for universal background checks but that is to hopefully reduce gun violence in general; I can’t see the logic wherein it would have any real effect on mass shootings. 

 
KCitons said:
Hawaii is unique. It's not just protected from other states with lenient gun regulations, it doesn't share a border with another country, or have thousands of miles of coastline. The ability to bring in weapons (and the distance required if by boat) is prohibitive. 

As I said, I'm all for universal background checks. Stating that 40% of Marylands felons found it harder to get a gun, doesn't mean it kept 40% of felons from getting a gun. If there is money to be made, someone will step in to fill the void. Which is why I wanted to look at the large subset of gang violence that contributed to the 150 mass shootings in 2019. If a gang member is willing to risk the penalty of shooting rival gang member, will the think twice about purchasing a black market gun? I don't believe they will. It's a small obstacle.
Click to expand...
Purchasing a black market gun isn't the target of these registration and background check laws.  It's selling a black market gun.  If that gun is traceable, it becomes much more likely that seller gets caught and takes some serious heat for doing so.  

 
Well my Ruger Mini 14 is safe, My AR-10 is safe, my DRD Tactical - KIVAARI 338 Lapua Semi-Automatic Rifle is safe, my semi auto handguns are safe as are my semi auto shotguns.  All my pump action and lever action things are safe.

Again, instead of AR 15 one might want a definition, say any semiauto rifle of any caliber larger than .22 and any loading system, regardless of method, with a capacity of  ___ rounds or more.

At $3.75 a round who but military or police shooters can really afford to bet competent with Lapua .338?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
We can not prevent mass shootings. We can not stop gun violence either. We’re going to have both, unfortunately. Maybe, with regards to the first, we will eventually learn some things about mental illness which allows us to treat some of these people before they reach the state where they commit violence on others. That’s a slow process, but I’m all for spending money on research to speed it up. Whatever it takes. 

In the meantime what we can do is try and reduce casualties when mass shootings occur. The reason that I am in favor of a new ban on AR-15s is that I believe this MAY help in that regard. There is good reason for me to believe this, which I have already stated, but belief is all that it is. I can’t prove it, obviously. 

I am also for universal background checks but that is to hopefully reduce gun violence in general; I can’t see the logic wherein it would have any real effect on mass shootings. 
Click to expand...
This is why we have over 300 pages in this thread. Everyone wants to reduce gun deaths, but everyone also seems to have a different idea on how we achieve it. Which is why it may feel like nothing is happening. 

We've had a long conversation about the overall number of gun deaths in this country (and how they compare to other countries). Did you know that 2/3rds of those gun deaths are related to suicides? Banning assault rifles will have near zero effect on suicide deaths and will not have an impact on overall gun deaths. Henry and I are currently having a conversation about the number of gang related deaths that contribute to the 150 mass shootings in 151 days. This is another unique problem that will have a minimal reduction with an AR15 ban. That leaves us with the terrible incidents of mass shootings. Which do have a mild connection to AR15s. But it's not the sole weapon used. 

When you look at the numbers, it appears that a very large portion of the gun deaths in this country are either suicide or gang violence. The group with the highest suicide rate is middle aged males. Like the Virginia Beach shooter, they are people that would probably have the ability to obtain a firearm legally, regardless of the red tape placed in front of them. By contrast we have a desperate group of youths that have little opportunity to achieve the American dream and take the path of gang life. They don't care about laws, they are breaking them every day. What's one more.

We are then left with a very small number of gun deaths where a previously law abiding and previously of sound mind, decides to take the life of an innocent person. That's the group I would like to concentrate on. I don't believe we can effect the suicide gang violence rate through gun legislation. The cause is in the behavior, not the tool. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Purchasing a black market gun isn't the target of these registration and background check laws.  It's selling a black market gun.  If that gun is traceable, it becomes much more likely that seller gets caught and takes some serious heat for doing so.  
Click to expand...
Registration means nothing if the gun is manufactured in another country and brought here illegally. I could also see an increase in ghost gun manufacturing where the semi finished parts are brought in from other countries, finished here, and sold on the black market. 

California is seeing it already.

An Investigation by NBC Bay Area in partnership with NBC San Diego, NBC Los Angeles, and the non-profit journalists at The Trace found that law enforcement agencies across California are recovering record numbers of ghost guns. According to several ATF sources, 30 percent of all guns now recovered by agents in communities throughout California are homemade, un-serialized firearms, known on the street as “ghost guns.”
Click to expand...
The void will be filled. 

 
KCitons said:
Registration means nothing if the gun is manufactured in another country and brought here illegally. I could also see an increase in ghost gun manufacturing where the semi finished parts are brought in from other countries, finished here, and sold on the black market. 

California is seeing it already.

The void will be filled. 
Click to expand...
Those are certainly other scenarios that should be addressed by laws with actual consequences.  That doesn't mean that other issues shouldn't.

 
Hawkeye21 said:
Because it's one of the largest cities in the US, what do you expect.  It doesn't even have the highest murder rate, does it?  People like to use Chicago as an example all the time even though they are not the worst.
Click to expand...
The NRA loves to argue about Chicago, but the misrepresentations are that Chicago's handguns restrictions were removed by Heller and McDonald, and many of the guns have been proven to come from across state lines, particularly from Indiana, where the states have lax gun laws.   Once again, lax gun laws are directly related to increased gun violence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I don’t think so, no. It seems to me that if Cho had an AR-15 instead he would have, in the same time span, shot and killed even more people. He also might have been harder to stop. 

As someone pointed out previously, there is a reason that we give our military AR-15s and not pistols. It’s a more effective weapon. Its not meant for civilian use and there is no reason for a civilian to own one. 
Click to expand...
Can you support the bolded with some proof. 

 
Hawkeye21 said:
Because it's one of the largest cities in the US, what do you expect.  It doesn't even have the highest murder rate, does it?  People like to use Chicago as an example all the time even though they are not the worst.
Click to expand...


-fish- said:
The NRA loves to argue about Chicago, but the misrepresentations are that Chicago's handguns restrictions were removed by Heller and McDonald, and many of the guns have been proven to come from across state lines, particularly from Indiana, where the states have lax gun laws.   Once again, lax gun laws are directly related to increased gun violence.
Click to expand...
You guys must have missed this post:

KCitons said:
Registration means nothing if the gun is manufactured in another country and brought here illegally. I could also see an increase in ghost gun manufacturing where the semi finished parts are brought in from other countries, finished here, and sold on the black market. 

California is seeing it already.

An Investigation by NBC Bay Area in partnership with NBC San Diego, NBC Los Angeles, and the non-profit journalists at The Trace found that law enforcement agencies across California are recovering record numbers of ghost guns. According to several ATF sources, 30 percent of all guns now recovered by agents in communities throughout California are homemade, un-serialized firearms, known on the street as “ghost guns.”
Click to expand...
The void will be filled. 
Click to expand...

 
Politician Spock said:
Can you support the bolded with some proof. 
Click to expand...
“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”

...

ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt. In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War  https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

 
BigSteelThrill said:
“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”

...

ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt. In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War  https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15
Click to expand...
The M-16 can be set to semi-auto, burst, or fully automatic. Why would the US army choose the ar-15 over the M-16?

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Jim Sullivcan,  AR-15 desig team member at Colt... "designed to kill as many people as possible, in the shortest amount of time."  To combat the AK-47.

Its Military name was the M16.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0JJvpLcsAU
Click to expand...
Based on the opinions of some, all guns are designed to kill as many people as possible, in the shortest amount of time. 

What makes a bolt action any different from a musket? Speed? Repetitive firing? Rifled Barrel?

 
KCitons said:
Based on the opinions of some, all guns are designed to kill as many people as possible, in the shortest amount of time.
Click to expand...
That was a Colt designers agreement to that statement.  He also said it hit harder/deadlier than any gun ever made before.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T
GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
580
(HULK)
(HULK)
E
Taking Politics Out of Public Schools
Replies
37
Views
882
MAC_32
MAC_32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Top