Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dkp993 said:

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.

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:

1.  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] 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

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.

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.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, -fish- said:

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.   

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?    :shrug:

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

The AR-15 was NOT designed for the military.

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.  

Edited by dkp993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

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.  

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.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, -fish- said:

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.   

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

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?    :shrug:

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.    

 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KarmaPolice said:

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

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:

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.   

Note that the Connecticut and Maryland bans were upheld by federal circuit courts, and then the SC denied appeals.   The current SC has not taken up a significant 2A case, so they may go a different direction.  

Edited by -fish-
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, -fish- said:

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.    

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.  :shrug:

And accusing people of parroting NRA talking points is not a good look when you're simply parroting DNC talking points.

 

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, -fish- said:

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.   

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

I 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?

Small town WI

small family, middle class.  Dad was a service manager at local garage, mom mostly stayed home and did p/t jobs to supplement as I got older.  

no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

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?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, -fish- said:

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.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

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.

Does this philosophy apply universally for you?    I mean, weren't you one in the covid thread arguing with people with actual medical experience?

  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

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?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

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.

Thank you very much.  Out of all the people busting my balls, YOU are the one actually providing answers.  I appreciate it.  :thumbup:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Thank you very much.  Out of all the people busting my balls, YOU are the one actually providing answers.  I appreciate it.  :thumbup:

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.

I just looked at the Connecticut one after his post, I am not sure if Maryland's is the same though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

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?

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. 

The gun industry coined the term "Assault Weapon" to sell guns.  I don't know what they defined it as, but the term was a loose translation of the German name for the MP-43 and was used in all of the common gun enthusiast magazines for about 40-50 years.   They rebranded it and started using the much friendlier term "sporting rifle" around 2009 or so.   There's no clear definition of "sporting rifle" either, but when you see it in an ad I'm sure you know what they're talking about and don't feign the same ignorance as when you're parroting this nonsense.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

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.  :shrug:

And accusing people of parroting NRA talking points is not a good look when you're simply parroting DNC talking points.

 

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.   

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.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, the moops said:

People really have these? What does one do with an AK 47?

 

They are used to phase out the much troubled AK 46's, of course.

For example, Reality Kings produced a porn series called 8th Street Latinas. My first question upon release is what happened on 7th Street to cause this mass exodus?

*****

The AK47 is a tried and true battle tested "Main Battle Rifle"

It is rugged and reliable in extreme conditions, especially the cold. In extreme cold weather, all Russian classic weapons like the Mosin Nagant rifle ( WW2 Russian MBR), the SKS and the AK47 all perform very reliably. So, to answer your question, for American citizens in cold weather states or facing some kind of extreme conditions, it might be a more useful platform than the M4/M16 series. It is a heavier weapon and the ammunition is heavier. Russians have always had the advantage in manpower in armed conflict, thus their weapons designs reflect this reality plus the weather environments native to them.

Is there a tactical consideration with respect to 2A? I.E. maintaining a well regulated militia.

The M4/M16 platform and the AK47 platform both make very distinctive sounds when firing. If all of your enemy is around you, firing an AK47 if they all have AK47s can disguise this somewhat. Firing an entirely different platform can violate basic noise discipline. Also using the platform of your enemy given asymmetrical warfare tactics means you now have access to spare magazines, common ammo and spare replacement parts for your weapons. The AK47 is extremely common around the world, which means if the US was ever invaded by a foreign power, might be a good chance they are carrying that weapon.

Former Navy SEAL Commander Richard Marcinko was one of the first to discuss this in print. He had his men use the enemies weapons, eat the local food, wear local clothes, wear local footwear, speak the local language and give some aid to local villages.

When selecting a weapon, you have to consider how easy is it to find replacement parts. Accessories. Get it repaired if needed. Commonality of ammunition to consider cost control and access. A lot of business people did this when debating a PC or a Mac for work use. For a very long time, PC simply had much more support and hardware and logistics behind it.

There are tactical, practical and logistical reasons why the AK47 is a viable 2A weapons platform.

A better argument you could have made, but did not, is why the SKS platform ( sans bayonet, has a fixed magazine, much harder to conceal) is not an acceptable alternative to the AK47 for those who are Pro 2A.

I usually link through to references in situations like this, but this is your opportunity to do your own legwork for how AK47s do in extreme weather conditions, how effective asymmetrical warfare actually works, why commonality is a huge factor in gun ownership decisions and how the SKS compares to the AK47. It's important to meet you the middle but also put you in a position to show self agency in this kind of controversial topic.

I've given you the opportunity to be better informed. You can do so or you can just roll on the attack. If you choose to attack, all you'll do is convince those who are Pro 2A to take a dogmatic hardened stance against those who employ those tactics against them.

I am hopeful you will choose the former.

The other answer is I had moved to 8th Street years and years ago. And where Old Man Gekko goes, poon mired in low self esteem soon follows. Woe onto 7th Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, here's the worst definition of an assault rifle that I've seen.  It's from Washington:

Quote

 

"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.

 

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

 

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 

What did you expect?  Biden wants cops to shoot people in the legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, -fish- said:

 

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.   

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dkp993 said:

.... 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.  .....

 

Let's try to reduce the weight of the discussion here.

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?

I don't like purity tests, but I'm directly asking you to look at my "trade" with the lenses of a purity test at work to see if you can find functional flaws in the base reasoning. Giving up nearly all handguns is a massive concession.

 

*****

For those who are Pro 2A, I have nothing against dkp993, but the point I want to make in general is

1) If you are going to lose some guns, at least have some say in which guns are lost. This is the basis of why a trade, while unsavory, is realistic. It's not always about what we want, even if it's not fair, but what we can practically get and coexist in a larger society that will always be a majority of non gun owners.

2) Giving up nearly all handguns sounds insane, but look how it ends the argument. When the argument ends, the other side is going to listen. Some will say this is not fair, of course it's not always fair, but what works here? It's about what works.

3) Pro 2A would do better to talk to many non gun owners in a manner that is not geared toward talking to others who are Pro 2A and existing gun owners. Many non gun owners simply don't understand. It's not their path. It's understandable, esp those who are parents, to fear what they don't completely understand. We must live as examples in all things, be above reproach in all things and approach non gun owners in the communication style that will work, even if it's not always fair or desirable

Basic Covey - "First seek to understand, then be understood"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, tonydead said:

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. 

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.      

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas mass shooting the lead story on the nightly news. Used as a "high profile" shooting and calls for gun control, assault style rifle. 

They cover the mass murder shooting by the black football player in a second segment mention.  

:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

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.      

One of those stops mass shootings. HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tonydead said:

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. 

Good guy with a gun is a statistical myth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, tonydead said:

One of those stops mass shootings. HTH

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, -fish- said:

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.  

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, tonydead said:

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. 

False narrative that isn’t supported by facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GordonGekko said:

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?

 

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. 

B)My gut says no. Most of the gun crowd I know want nothing to due with giving up a gun.  While you’re taking a logical thought exercise approach to this, most won’t, especially if real loss of weapons were involved.  I also think the basic core what the founding fathers intended for 2A is not realistic today.  While the constitution is the single greatest political/governance document ever written and our founding fathers were geniuses, 245 yrs on it’s got some holes.  Our founding fathers could not possibly fathom the strength of where our military and government (and weaponry) would go. A well regulated militia vs the greatest military power the world has ever seen is just not possible or realistic at this point. 2A at this point, imo, is really about self protection against other individuals and an individuals right to own arms.  

C)A bi-partisan give/get trade yes.  Your proposal, no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, -fish- said:

False narrative that isn’t supported by facts. 

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.  :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC killing was extremely unfortunate. 

Mental Illness isn't the problem though.... carry on with the handwringing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tonydead said:

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.  :lmao:

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, -fish- said:

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.  

He is using cops as the good guy with a gun here...despite it being clear what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dkp993 said:

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. 

 

OK, if you believe a bi-partisan "Give/Get" trade for guns in America could work, and you aren't game with my proposal, then I ask you to put forward one of your own. This isn't a "Mr. Ishida's Bookstore Gotcha Special" here, I'm genuinely asking you what you consider would be a fair trade for existing Pro 2A/gunowners to give up in exchange for keeping their Main Battle Rifle type platforms and/or AR15s.

Imagine that I was chosen by all Pro 2A/gunowners in America to represent them today and could speak for them and vote for them as a whole, give me a workable proposal here. I previously offered up nearly all handguns in America, which is a massive concession.

 

PS Something as such is only extreme and dictatorial if I was not in charge. If I was in charge it would be pretty fun and, as my young godson would say, "pretty baller for a guy who dances"  Did I mention I'm a great dancer? I did it because I liked it and I have a natural show stopping gravitas but I can't deny it helped me pull serious quality in my prime. Those roasties were like wheat to be threshed.

So for example, let's say I took all convicted murderers, career criminals, pedophiles and rapists, who can cost up to 75K a year to feed, house and give them medical care, and stripped them of citizenship and sent them on a boat in international waters. Then I told them they were now "officially deported" and threw them off. And if they wanted citizenship again, they could show their contrition for their crimes against American society by swimming 500 miles to land. Anyone caught trying to climb back on board would be shot with flaming arrows. The YouTube video would have a headline - "It's like the Season 8 of Game Of Thrones you'd actually watch!"

And all that money America would save by not housing and feeding these prisoners, not to mention the total savings in terms of social order by not risk having them on the streets, means I can build your city a new library. A nice place you can bring your kids. With lots of educational and fun community programs. And save a music program at a high school. Build a martial arts studio for kids for the city. Spend for more training for police officers. Give teachers a raise and make the pay competitive enough to draw in talent to better educate your kids. Rebuild the local park. Maybe do something to help the homeless and/or the mentally ill.

What's a "normally functioning" United States look like? What it is right now? Everything is a resource management problem. Lots of things need to be done but these things cost money.

How many parents are out there in America right now? How many parents are here at FBG in these forums? If I could give them new libraries, better cops, better teachers, new parks, more community services and empty the prisons and they could watch kiddie rapers get actual justice, do you think they would be all so hot and bothered by it? People are the mob. People love revenge if it looks like justice even if they don't speak it out loud. This isn't punishing someone's right to vote or work or buy a home or raise their kids, it's simply way to remove the social and financial cost of those who didn't respect or appreciate the opportunity of being an American citizen. And if there is a Michael Phelps type criminal out there, he can win his freedom back. And who is going to argue? This guy swam 500 miles and survived sharks and hypothermia to make it back to redeem himself. That's a great comeback story and the masses love a good come back story.

I don't care how people feel, I care if something logistically works. All identity politics is about making people feel OK about their compromises that have no actual traction and have no logistical pathway to success. It's a self inflicted low level virtue signal designed to be monetized and not meant to make America a better place for our kids.

And why is extreme bad? If China sees America shooting flaming arrows at pedophiles and rapists, do you think they are going to think twice about coming to start a war with us? I get the feeling they won't be so eager to take a piece of our apple pie then. 

What if I could give every teacher here, every educator who is also a member of FBG and these forums a 10K a year raise. Not in some structured 10 year slow release but in one single year?  What if the "cost" of that was purging our prison system? Would you really hear too many complaints?

What I've just described is how I'd solve the "gun crisis" in America. Instead of saying people need to say this or communicate like that, I look for a simple fix with a logistical set up primed for actual success. Trading handguns is an actual plan. It might be crazy and many might oppose it, but it's something you can put on the table. Some random talk about people needing to be more educated about guns isn't going to do it. Now if someone said you needed to take 20 hour long classes and have to requalify with your weapons bi annually to maintain your gun license, then that's an actual logistical pathway.

Solutions are not built around talking about feelings with no plan in place. Actual solutions happen when you force people into action based on a real plan with real structure, even if it's not desirable to many.

Am I extreme and dictatorial? I'd rather say I'm a man of action. I'm the Season 8 of Game Of Thrones that people would want to watch put in the work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in regards to the SC shooting, my buddy's wife is a doctor who worked with the victim. 

She said he refused to continue to fill the shooter's prescriptions for pain meds. So very sad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

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).

the core problem is people wanting to kill other people isn't it ?

studies have shown 3 reasons people kill other people ... IIRC its Lust, Financial gain and revenge although I think there is another or two as well. 

how do you stop those people? we do stop them - often - with people reporting, people self defending, police catching them before etc etc. but as with anything in a free society, you're not going to stop 100% of them. We have hundreds of common sense gun laws to stop them. We have security at many places to stop them. Stopping them BEFORE they act - well, we live in a free country, and that's hard to do with people having Rights and Liberties isn't it ? 

 

We know that with all the other examples of the ways people kill other people - its collateral damage, its acceptable to have tens of thousands of deaths in order to have freedoms

commonalities on shooters - what % of murderers are convicted felons? what % are on mind bending medications? what % are muslims where their religion plays a part in the murders? what % are illegal drug related?

there are a lot of things that go into murderers doing their evils .... then you have anomalies like Paddock and the NFL player ... those murderers are very hard to stop

 

 

Edited by Stealthycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

1.  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] 

this builds on my above post 

1. we do those things, and the Fed Govt sucks really bad at background checking and prosecuting anyone who lies on their forms as well ..... they're HORRIBLE

2. because of that pesky Constitution and us being a Free country, we have to balance common sense gun laws against people Rights too. 

I've said this many times - people have no problems giving away other people's Rights, me included. I'd be glad to see smoking banned - I don't smoke. Ban golf - I don't golf and ban race cars, I don't like NASCAR. none of that affects me. 

People who don't own guns - they are all for giving them up because they give nothing up themselves

 

So when I mention releasing mental records, juvenile records, going through scanners at hotels and schools .... people freak out because then THEY are affected directly and they don't want to give up anything !!!

What is one thing an anti-gun person would give up to help stop the murders in the USA? Anything? Any freedoms at all they'd willingly give up ? or do they just want gun owners to give?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, -fish- said:

Certain weapons, including the AR-15, were designed for use by the military. 

show me one military that uses a semi-auto AR15 - just one

an AR15 is a semi-auto rifle in a small caliber round just like dozens of other platforms that are housed and look differently but they all function the same 

 

14 hours ago, -fish- said:

It did more damage because the velocity of a .223 round is much higher and can penetrate flesh better than other rounds.

this is false - 100% untrue

a very fast, small caliber bullet does NOT have good penetration 

do you know why they use .338's on elk vs a .223 ? Because a .223 doesn't penetrate, a .338 does

I mean posts like this shows just how uneducated anti-gunners are :(

14 hours ago, -fish- said:

please name every piece of gun control legislation in the United States that involved confiscation of a gun

I'll take that 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law#:~:text=In the United States%2C a,danger to others or themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

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?

the bans do NOT target "AR15"

they are loosely worded and they take many many guns that people use for home defense and hunting

have you not read the links I posted to the Giffords gun ban definitions that ban my sons turkey hunting shotgun (in California) ?

 

they say "AR15" ... but the way the laws are written they impact far more. its about banning guns and many many kinds that have nothing to do with "AR15"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...