He thinks you're a little nutso for not even considering anything except AR bad.WTF are you talking about?
He thinks you're a little nutso for not even considering anything except AR bad.WTF are you talking about?
This is where I am in the back and forth. Problem is, you talk about any of this and then it gets shoved back in your face that you aren't worried about the people doing this - DESPITE multiple posts saying it's a multi-pronged solution. IMO we need to:Fair. These are complex issues that are tough to summarize in short posts (and I have no desire to write Gordon Gekko length posts). Also as you are passionate about guns it's far more nuanced conversation for you. As your typical average Joe it's not for me. I'm likely painting with a broader brush, I understand that.
I can't boil my thoughts down to any more clear then this...... IMO - Weapons like the AR-15 make killing groups of people far easier to do for the average person, because that was/is the intended design of the gun. Much like say a grenade does (I understand a grenade is not a gun I'm just using that to define my ease of use angle). Yes people who intend to kill lots of others quickly can find other means to do it, and I'm not naïve to say "all violence will stop" if AR-15's are gone, but removing the ease to killing lots of people at once seems logical to me. I don't have all the answers, or even maybe some, but I'm open to discussion about what removing the "ease" out of the equation may look like. But unfortunately it never gets to that point, it gets bogged down into "whats a semi-auto" , "libs just want to take my guns", etc etc etc. Much like our conversation has and like it does EVERY SINGLE TIME with SC.
Certain weapons, including the AR-15, were designed for use by the military. The AR-15 got rave reviews because of how much damage it did, particularly to people that weren't killed, because that takes up enemy resources. This weapon was then converted to civilian use. It did more damage because the velocity of a .223 round is much higher and can penetrate flesh better than other rounds. I already posted an article on damage done to flesh because of cavitation, but you clearly didn't bother to read it, since you're still making this false claim that they're all the same.This is exactly what I was repeating ad-naseum yesterday and no one would answer my questions: What is an "Assault Rifle"? What does Semi-Automatic mean? Only @KarmaPolice replied because he wanted to get to the larger point. Everyone else was lambasting me with talking points.
You can literally kill the same amount of people with a semi-automatic handgun. The AR-15 only gives you the advantage of distance - LIKE ALL OTHER RIFLES! So any semi-automatic rifle could lay waste like an AR-15. Even a shotgun could take out quite a few people.
That's the point, though. Ban the AR-15 first and then go after the others. It's a smoke screen for confiscating all weapons, IMO.
There are many other rifles that user larger rounds AND the same round .223/5.56 as the AR-15. The AR-15 isn't anything special than any other semi-automatic rifle.Certain weapons, including the AR-15, were designed for use by the military. The AR-15 got rave reviews because of how much damage it did, particularly to people that weren't killed, because that takes up enemy resources. This weapon was then converted to civilian use. It did more damage because the velocity of a .223 round is much higher and can penetrate flesh better than other rounds. I already posted an article on damage done to flesh because of cavitation, but you clearly didn't bother to read it, since you're still making this false claim that they're all the same.
It and and weapons like it with military roots are subject to regulation for that exact reason--they weren't intended to be commonly used for home defense--they were designed for the military and then converted to civilian use. This is exactly what courts have relied on to differentiate whether a law is constitutional or not. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how gun control legislation works in this country. Arguing that legislators target these weapons because they're "scary looking" is an absolute falsehood that the NRA loves to repeat.
Since you're claiming they're coming for your guns, please name every piece of gun control legislation in the United States that involved confiscation of a gun from anyone other than convicted felons or people who were determined to be a danger to themselves or others. This should be easy for you.
Yes it was. It was designed in the 50s for infantrymen in the army. It was never ultimately picked up by the military. Its design was sold to colt, re-designed and re-designed and turned into a military weapon (M-16) and then re-designed again for civilian use and turned into what is now commonly referred to as the AR-15.The AR-15 was NOT designed for the military.
You are correct. I misspoke. It was not used for military purposes until it became the M16. I have edited my post to remove that statement.Yes it was. It was designed in the 50s for infantrymen in the army. It was never ultimately picked up by the military. It design was sold to colt, re-designed and re-designed and turned into a military weapon (M-16) and then re-designed again for civilian use and turned into what is now commonly referred to as the AR-15.
There is so much info going around and I lose track sometimes.Certain weapons, including the AR-15, were designed for use by the military. The AR-15 got rave reviews because of how much damage it did, particularly to people that weren't killed, because that takes up enemy resources. This weapon was then converted to civilian use. It did more damage because the velocity of a .223 round is much higher and can penetrate flesh better than other rounds. I already posted an article on damage done to flesh because of cavitation, but you clearly didn't bother to read it, since you're still making this false claim that they're all the same.
It and and weapons like it with military roots are subject to regulation for that exact reason--they weren't intended to be commonly used for home defense--they were designed for the military and then converted to civilian use. This is exactly what courts have relied on to differentiate whether a law is constitutional or not. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how gun control legislation works in this country. Arguing that legislators target these weapons because they're "scary looking" is an absolute falsehood that the NRA loves to repeat.
Since you're claiming they're coming for your guns, please name every piece of gun control legislation in the United States that involved confiscation of a gun from anyone other than convicted felons or people who were determined to be a danger to themselves or others. This should be easy for you.
I have an actual knowledge of the relevant cases interpreting the second amendment, so I understand why it is that some guns can be more heavily regulated than others. I've also participated in the process of drafting gun control legislation.There are many other rifles that user larger rounds AND the same round .223/5.56 as the AR-15. The AR-15 isn't anything special than any other semi-automatic rifle.
I suggest you start doing a little more research on rifles and maybe firing different ones to become more knowledgeable on how they work. Start looking at sites other than the DNC for your knowledge of guns.
When you do start to get some actual hands-on experience with them you'll find out that the AR-15 isn't anymore or any less deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle.
So now that the "OMG! Military Looking!" is out of the way, what do you have left?
Yikes. Looks like it was an employee.Sorry if I'm late here, haven't been in this thread in a while but just saw on Twitter that there was a shooting at an office in Texas about a hour ago:
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1380279467776479235
There is so much info going around and I lose track sometimes.
With proposals to regulate AR-15, is it just that weapon, or is that a common gun that people talk about, but the legislations would effect similar guns? Not sure if I asked that right.
IE - is it "ban AR-15", or "ban weapons that have X, Y, Z" - which most common would be AR?
My best shot at a simplified summary of our Supreme Court cases in a nutshell is this:There is so much info going around and I lose track sometimes.
With proposals to regulate AR-15, is it just that weapon, or is that a common gun that people talk about, but the legislations would effect similar guns? Not sure if I asked that right.
IE - is it "ban AR-15", or "ban weapons that have X, Y, Z" - which most common would be AR?
I asked you:WTF are you talking about?
Have you fired any rifles? Handguns? AR-15s? Shotguns? Anything? And not just one visit with your grandad. I mean, real, actual experience with them?I have an actual knowledge of the relevant cases interpreting the second amendment, so I understand why it is that some guns can be more heavily regulated than others. I've also participated in the process of drafting gun control legislation.
You really shouldn't make assumptions about what people know or don't about guns. When you say things that are completely untrue like the AR-15 wasn't designed for the military, you show that one of us needs to do some research. Being provably wrong and trying to be condescending about it isn't a good look.
I've never advocated for any bans, by the way, but it's helpful for discussion to help people who actually want to have an informed discussion understand the constant lies that are being parroted in here.
I just looked over something about the Con. ban. Is it still unchanged from 2013? That list of weapons included means nothing to me, so what types of weapons are still legal to own in Connecticut?My best shot at a simplified summary of our Supreme Court cases in a nutshell is this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The stricken part is now interpreted an an essentially meaningless prefatory clause. The Court essentially eliminated half of the second amendment. That leaves the question of what are "Arms"? The Court's answer is to turn to Miller, a 1939 case, in which the Court said that firearms commonly used for home defense are Arms, and protected by the Second Amendment.
Assault weapons bans like those in Connecticut and Maryland have been upheld because assault weapons, including the AR-15, were recognized by the court as having been designed and intended for the military and converted to civilian use, so they don't fall into the category of "commonly used for home defense." So you can ban an AR-15, you can ban an AK-47, but you can't ban a Glock 9.
It has nothing to do whether they are "scary looking" or semi-automatic. Those are red herrings.
Small town WII asked you:
Where are you from?
What was your upbringing like?
Have you ever been punched in the mouth? If so, how did you respond?
Yeah, it's still the same. That ban was a reaction to the Sandy Hook school shooting, and then it was tested in court by the NRA. They banned assault weapons and high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds). All other guns remain legal.I just looked over something about the Con. ban. Is it still unchanged from 2013? That list of weapons included means nothing to me, so what types of weapons are still legal to own in Connecticut?
What is an "Assault Weapon"? Care to give me the details? Or is that one of those nebulous terms that's used to fit the Outrage-Du-Jour?Yeah, it's still the same. That ban was a reaction to the Sandy Hook school shooting, and then it was tested in court by the NRA. They banned assault weapons and high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds). All other guns remain legal.
Previously owned weapons on the banned list were grandfathered in, with some restrictions relating to registration and in-state sale and transfer.
Does this philosophy apply universally for you? I mean, weren't you one in the covid thread arguing with people with actual medical experience?Have you fired any rifles? Handguns? AR-15s? Shotguns? Anything? And not just one visit with your grandad. I mean, real, actual experience with them?
I can read a book on how to play in the NFL too. Does that mean I can play in the NFL? Or should I have, y'know, actual experience? You can sit in your castle on high and discuss all the high-falutin' ideas you want about guns, but at the end of the day you should have some experience with them.
LINKWhat is an "Assault Weapon"? Care to give me the details? Or is that one of those nebulous terms that's used to fit the Outrage-Du-Jour?
No I was not.Does this philosophy apply universally for you? I mean, weren't you one in the covid thread arguing with people with actual medical experience?
Thank you very much. Out of all the people busting my balls, YOU are the one actually providing answers. I appreciate it.LINK
Assault Weapon Defined
The law, as amended by PA 13-3, defines an “assault weapon” as:
1. any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the user's option;
2. any of a list of named semiautomatic firearms, pistols, or centerfire rifles or copies or duplicates with their capability in production on or before April 4, 2013 (see Appendix 1);
3. any IZHMASH Saiga 12 shotguns or copies or duplicates with their capability in production on or before April 4, 2013;
4. a semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;
5. a semiautomatic centerfire rifle shorter than 30 inches;
6. a semiautomatic shotgun that can accept a detachable magazine;
7. a semiautomatic shotgun that has both (a) a folding or telescoping stock and (b) a grip, including a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, or other stock that, when used, would allow a person to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand and trigger finger being directly below any part of the action of the weapon when firing; and
8. a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
The definition of an assault weapon includes any semiautomatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine (one that can be removed without disassembling the firearm action) and has at least one of the following features:
1. a folding or telescoping stock;
2. a grip, such as a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;
3. a forward pistol grip;
4. a flash suppressor; or
5. a grenade launcher or flare launcher.
The definition of an assault weapon also includes any semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following features:
1. the ability to accept a detachable ammunition magazine that attaches at some location outside of the pistol grip;
2. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward pistol grip, or silencer;
3. a shroud attached to, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to fire the firearm without being burned, except a slide that encloses the barrel; or
4. a second hand grip.
I just looked at the Connecticut one after his post, I am not sure if Maryland's is the same though.Thank you very much. Out of all the people busting my balls, YOU are the one actually providing answers. I appreciate it.
So any firearm that can hold more than 10 rounds is considered an "Assault Weapon". Wow. That's the first one that caught my eye.
Not necessarily against all of the the things on this list because, common sense, but some of these are absurd and go to the point on why we continue to resist this stuff.
When we're talking about legislation, words are defined. Connecticut defines them in one way, Maryland another, Washington another. The federal ban of 1994 defined them a different way (based on having 2 or more components listed in the ban). Depending on what legislative body you'd like to discuss, there are differences in how they are defined.What is an "Assault Weapon"? Care to give me the details? Or is that one of those nebulous terms that's used to fit the Outrage-Du-Jour?
Hunted on and off. Still target shoot a little bit. Had a good friend with a cattle ranch in Central California, and would help with trying to control some of the coyotes and feral dogs that would harass the calves. Never was a great shot.Have you fired any rifles? Handguns? AR-15s? Shotguns? Anything? And not just one visit with your grandad. I mean, real, actual experience with them?
I can read a book on how to play in the NFL too. Does that mean I can play in the NFL? Or should I have, y'know, actual experience? You can sit in your castle on high and discuss all the high-falutin' ideas you want about guns, but at the end of the day you should have some experience with them. I'm thinking it would be a net positive for you as you craft that legislation you're bragging about as you take away people's rights.
No one is lying here. I think you just don't want the truth.
And accusing people of parroting NRA talking points is not a good look when you're simply parroting DNC talking points.
I think it's stupid and reckless to have a gun in a house with a child.
Your attempt at being condescending is cute.
People really have these? What does one do with an AK 47?
They did it this way because they didn't want to allow loopholes based on certain components or modifications, so they just went all-in and included all semiautomatic rifles. I think that ultimately this is going to be a bad approach, but they didn't actually ban anything and the rest of this law applies to all guns: training within 5 years to purchase, safe storage requirements and enhanced background checks. Don't really understand why they decided to piss off so many people by focusing on this definition."Semiautomatic assault rifle" means any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.
"Semiautomatic assault rifle" does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.
What did you expect? Biden wants cops to shoot people in the legs.I watched Biden ...
Obama's EO's on guns did nothing to stop murders. Biden's EO on guns will do nothing to stop murders.
but they'll say "well, nobody is using bump stocks and arm braces to commit murders" ......... and they're right ..... they're using something else, and so it'll be more bans, more restrictions ... and it will never even because the core problem isn't being addressed
Biden didn't once mention cracking down on violent people - its almost like he doesn't care that violent people roam around. Almost like he's protecting them. its fascinating to watch the ignorance
I bet they grandfather of the two kids that were shot today wishes he had a gun in the house. Or rather he would have if he weren’t shot dead too.Haven't owned a gun since my daughter was born, since I think it's stupid and reckless to have a gun in a house with a child.
Your attempt at being condescending is cute.
.... And honestly I don’t think I have an answer for you. The questions you ask here touch on many different levels - gun control, capital punishment, expulsion of American citizenship, etc etc etc. These are all weighty topics that each deserve more thought, time and effort then I can give. .....
This gets us nowhere. For every case we could talk about maybe they wish they had one, we could also talk about accidents where people wished they didn't have one around the house.I bet they grandfather of the two kids that were shot today wishes he had a gun in the house. Or rather he would have if he weren’t shot dead too.
One of those stops mass shootings. HTHThis gets us nowhere. For every case we could talk about maybe they wish they had one, we could also talk about accidents where people wished they didn't have one around the house.
Good guy with a gun is a statistical myth.I bet they grandfather of the two kids that were shot today wishes he had a gun in the house. Or rather he would have if he weren’t shot dead too.
Please post every mass shooting that was stopped by a good guy with a gun. Then post the number of people killed in the same household. Add the number of guns stolen and used on crimes.One of those stops mass shootings. HTH
Just about every mass shooting was stopped by a good guy with a gun, unless the guy kills himself first. Key is more good guys with guns to stop them sooner.Please post every mass shooting that was stopped by a good guy with a gun. Then post the number of people killed in the same household. Add the number of guns stolen and used on crimes.
False narrative that isn’t supported by facts.Just about every mass shooting was stopped by a good guy with a gun, unless the guy kills himself first. Key is more good guys with guns to stop them sooner.
A) Reduce? Theoretically- yes. Practical application - less likely. Extreme totalitarian discipline like you lay out only work, imo, in a Society where it’s extreme and dictatorial. Like NK. It doesn’t line up with who we are so it’s hard to envision your example in a normally functioning US.Do you believe my suggestions, in a pro active and logistically sound format, would
A) Reduce gun crime/gun violence in America?
B) Give something for those Pro 2A to feel like they've held onto something that stayed true to the basic core of what the Second Amendment was trying to accomplish?
C) Offer a bi-partisan "Give/Get" and a practical "trade" that would end many of the non stop gun ownership arguments in current play?
Literally every single mass shooting, unless the guy pops himself first, is stopped by a good guy with a gun.False narrative that isn’t supported by facts.
No, I’m really not. I’ve done the research and you’re just flat out wrong. You’re repeating myths because it supports your narrative. Generally you’re a pretty intelligent poster, but this just makes you look foolish.Literally every single mass shooting, unless the guy pops himself first, is stopped by a good guy with a gun.
You're wishing you would have chosen your words more carefully.
He is using cops as the good guy with a gun here...despite it being clear what you meant.No, I’m really not. I’ve done the research and you’re just flat out wrong. You’re repeating myths because it supports your narrative. Generally you’re a pretty intelligent poster, but this just makes you look foolish.
A) Reduce? Theoretically- yes. Practical application - less likely. Extreme totalitarian discipline like you lay out only work, imo, in a Society where it’s extreme and dictatorial. Like NK. It doesn’t line up with who we are so it’s hard to envision your example in a normally functioning US.
C)A bi-partisan give/get trade yes. Your proposal, no.
the core problem is people wanting to kill other people isn't it ?So you are strenuously telling people to look at the core problem, but you don't know what the core problem is? That is a ton of ifs, for being very confident in telling us to look at the core problem.
As to the first two - like I said, most of what you posted seemed like reactive solutions - ie crack down after they have decided to do this act or hope that somebody is there with a gun and will actually do something.
You keep saying "mentally ill" without anything further. Is there commonalities in the shooters? If not, how is that going to help (instead of many suggestions of doing that in tandem with gun regulation).
this builds on my above post1. Do our best to focus on preventing people from getting to the point where they want to go out in public and kill a bunch of people. [here we have mental health, poverty, war on drugs, hell - social media?]
2. IF they get to the point where they decide to do that, make it as hard as humanly possible to do so. [ here we have gun regulation]
show me one military that uses a semi-auto AR15 - just oneCertain weapons, including the AR-15, were designed for use by the military.
this is false - 100% untrueIt did more damage because the velocity of a .223 round is much higher and can penetrate flesh better than other rounds.
I'll take thatplease name every piece of gun control legislation in the United States that involved confiscation of a gun
the bans do NOT target "AR15"With proposals to regulate AR-15, is it just that weapon, or is that a common gun that people talk about, but the legislations would effect similar guns? Not sure if I asked that right.
IE - is it "ban AR-15", or "ban weapons that have X, Y, Z" - which most common would be AR?