• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52745921]massive drum magazines[/quote] The Aurora theater shooting ended early because the shooter's massive drum magazine jammed. As they tend to do. Those are range toys, not lethal weapons of war. You may notice that those massive drum magazines aren't even in military (or police) use, because they just plain suck. It wouldn't impact my ability to defend myself or to carry out a revolution or whatever if > 30rd magazines were banned- but I don't think it would have much useful effect either. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52745921]legal full auto modifications[/quote] Possibly surprising: In the wake of this attack, I'm actually not feeling like a huge fan of bump-fire stocks, trigger cranks, or other 'pseudo-full-auto' systems. I think it's pretty shitty that someone was able to use one to assist in a massacre, and I will readily admit that I was always under the assumption that they were sufficiently impractical to use that one would never be used for nefarious purposes. I fully expect someone to now introduce a bill to ban them, but as with the above, I don't think it's going to accomplish much. If you understand how those devices work, you know they're very easy to replicate even without any dedicated products. But I have to caveat that from a functional perspective re: 'civilians having more firepower than cops', those devices are universally janky pieces of shit that send rounds all over the place. They don't demonstrably, clearly increase the lethality of a firearm the way standard full-auto does. I am willing to admit that it is entirely possible that that lack of accuracy matters a lot less in a mass shooting situation, but I would also not be surprised if the result is more ammunition wasted with no effect. I would personally be open to seeing some research and functional testing done on that point, and if the result is that these devices are demonstrably more lethal in a mass-shooting situation, I [I]would not be opposed[/I] to some regulation on their sale and ownership. I just want to see that decision come from objective testing and facts, not 'this was used one time so it must be dangerous'.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52745981]BDA, gun control measures which target "assault weapons" (semi-automatic long guns) have no effect because virtually no one uses them to commit crime or murder. Stop ignoring the math, this has been beaten to death already.[/QUOTE] Still, there's no argument on how effective it was in the Las Vegas massacre. If he did not use those extended mags or bumpfire stocks the casualties wouldn't have been nearly as high. I also fail to see why these modifications are legal to sell to civilians in the first place. They only seem to be a good thing to have if you're trying to shoot as many bullets as possible in as short of a time span as possible with little care of accuracy, which is exactly what a terrorist would want. I don't see any drawback in making these modifications illegal. Who loses in this scenario?
The average person in the US has access to so many objects that can be weaponized and used in mass violence that banning guns will likely have no effect on incidents of mass violence. Imagine this dude driving a garbage truck or cement mixer through the crowd. Imagine him crashing his plane into the crowd. If anything the usage of guns was the least lethal means available to him. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] Shit the dude was already stockpiling ammonium nitrate. He could've pulled a goddamned Oklahoma city if he wanted to
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52745969]Having another developed nation backing us during the revolution wasn't exactly hurting us, either.[/QUOTE] Sure. Other nations tend to be more willing to put their skin in the game when you look like you have some ability to stand on your own feet. Not trying to imply we won the revolution with muskets alone, but they certainly contributed. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;52745969]You can get pistols that fire 5.56/.223 rounds. And it seems to me it penetrates dry-wall just fine. [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/09/22-vs-223-home-defense-drywall-penetration[/url][/QUOTE] Okay, first off, those 'pistols' are not really what you probably think of as pistols. The most common .223 pistols are basically just short AR-15s with no stock that meet the legal definition of 'pistol' while being otherwise rifles. And as far as public safety is concerned, those .223 pistols are virtually identical to .223 rifles. Second, they tested military FMJ, not frangible ammunition, and they tested at a right angle to the surface. .223 is a high-velocity cartridge, and that makes it extremely susceptible to deformation if it doesn't hit perfectly. Buckshot, on the other hand, is like little slow-moving cannonballs that just keep going until something hard intercepts them. And you can buy rifle ammo specifically suited to avoid penetrating walls which is still effective at its intended purpose. Pistol and shotgun ammunition tends to represent a trade-off between reliable lethality and risk of collateral. More importantly, in a defensive situation the controllability of a rifle means fewer rounds fired and more rounds on-target and not going through the walls to begin with. Rifles, especially intermediate-caliber ones like ARs, are much easier for people of weaker physical stature (women, the elderly) to manage under recoil than shotguns or handguns. If someone has to shoot to protect their family, I'd much rather it be with a weapon that they can use effectively and not one that represents an undue risk to neighbors or bystanders. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;52745969]Probably because handguns are the easiest/cheapest to get and/or are more commonly available?[/QUOTE] Actually, none of the above. Handguns are typically more expensive than sporting shotguns, there aren't as many, and they're more heavily restricted both on a federal level and in virtually all states. The reason handguns are preferred is due to their concealability and portability, both of which make them popular with criminals who are not apt to open carry illegally-possessed weapons. That's why [i]if anything[/i] I'd be more receptive to a ban on handguns than one on 'assault weapons'. Handguns are the weapon of choice of gang members and home invaders. Rifles like AR-15s are the weapon of choice of homeowners and sportsmen. It's just their representation in statistically minor but high-profile mass shooting events that skews the public perception considerably.
[QUOTE=booster;52746024]Still, there's no argument on how effective it was in the Las Vegas massacre. If he did not use those extended mags or bumpfire stocks the casualties wouldn't have been nearly as high. I also fail to see why these modifications are legal to sell to civilians in the first place. They only seem to be a good thing to have if you're trying to shoot as many bullets as possible in as short of a time span as possible with little care of accuracy, which is exactly what a terrorist would want. I don't see any drawback in making these modifications illegal. Who loses in this scenario?[/QUOTE] Everyone who doesn't shoot people with these modifications, which is basically everyone besides this dude.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52745969]Having another developed nation backing us during the revolution wasn't exactly hurting us, either. [/QUOTE] I don't think it's far fetched to assume in the theoretical 2nd American Revolution that the Ruskies and Chinese would be dropping in some very effective toys for citizens to play with against tanks, aircraft, etc.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746042]Everyone who doesn't shoot people with these modifications, which is basically everyone besides this dude.[/QUOTE] So your answer to the question "why do civilians need access to modifications to increase lethality and firerate of semi-autos" is "because it's fun"?
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52741882]I'm all for stricter gun laws, but in this case. The guy was a model citizen was he not? he wasn't known to police and nobody suspected him, I don't think gun laws would have stopped him in this case, seems like maybe a major reform to the mental health network in America is probably needed (maybe in addition to gun laws)[/QUOTE] What do you (and others) mean when you talk about mental health reforms? The man was wealthy and probably could have gotten the help he needed had he sought it.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52746027]The average person in the US has access to so many objects that can be weaponized and used in mass violence that banning guns will likely have no effect on incidents of mass violence. Imagine this dude driving a garbage truck or cement mixer through the crowd. Imagine him crashing his plane into the crowd. If anything the usage of guns was the least lethal means available to him. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] Shit the dude was already stockpiling ammonium nitrate. He could've pulled a goddamned Oklahoma city if he wanted to[/QUOTE] Well then I suppose there are lots of dangerous things that should be regulated, huh?
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;52746041]it is bullshit pretending that a heap of 100 round magazines and bumpfire stocks weren't allowing him to do it in an easy way though. [/quote] Cement mixers are easier. [quote] you can't deny that. i'm a mostly progun gun owner but i still find it very obvious that the number of killed and injured is directly influenced by the amount of firepower he could put out with the equipment he had.[/quote] a cement mixer would've killed far more people (as evidenced by Nice) and since he already had the ammonium nitrate he couldve turned the cement mixer into far more "firepower" then the guns. [quote] and no, banning guns is not the solution - because there is no way american gun owners will give up their arms and magazines. there are so many million guns and magazines that are not registered or tied to their owners that it would be outright impossible.[/QUOTE] Banning guns accomplishes nothing regardless of feasibility
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;52746061]it's worth mentioning here that in Finland (where you are from if I am not completely mistaken?) you can legally own semi-auto only rifles such as these valmet and sako rifles: [t]http://maastossa.net/aku/kaupan/m92_myynti.jpg[/t] [IMG]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/f/f7/ValmetM76.jpg/450px-ValmetM76.jpg[/IMG] on just a hunters' permit. yet they are not used in gun crime - the two most recent school shootings in finland were carried out with rimfire .22 pistols with magazines that hold a maximum of 10 rounds.[/QUOTE] I have no problem with semi-automatic rifles at all and I don't think guns should be banned. I do have problems with the free access to modify them to increase killing potential.
[QUOTE=booster;52746046]So your answer to the question "why do civilians need access to modifications to increase lethality and firerate of semi-autos" is "because it's fun"?[/QUOTE] Pretty much. And now the conversation loops back to 'how dangerous does something have to be before recreation is not a valid reason for ownership?'. Are my fertilizer-drenched heirloom tomatoes worth another Oklahoma City? Is the bottle of homebrew in my cupboard worth the fact that my best friend in high school was killed by a drunk driver? As a society, we collectively decide that some purely recreational freedoms are worth having even despite the public harm they represent, until they cross some nebulous line where the bad outweighs the good. I won't tell you where that line ought to be, but the answer isn't as simple or black and white as 'lives outweigh hobbies, ban immediately'.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;52746065]What do you (and others) mean when you talk about mental health reforms? The man was wealthy and probably could have gotten the help he needed had he sought it.[/QUOTE] This country's mental health care problem goes well beyond the institutions. Mental health isn't just a binary "crazy/not crazy" switch and mental health issues don't all require professional help. Our society has a terrible problem about making seeking help look like a sign of weakness. This is a problem that particularly affects men and in certain ways disproportionately affects the wealthy, e.g. "you're rich, what do you have to be depressed about?" For some people it's easier to lapse into a bad state of mind than others and it's never as simple as "oh my cat died and I'm sad so I'm going to murder 50 people." There's always a long build up with a lot of obvious signs in retrospect. All of this is to say the reforms aren't needed on just a governmental/legal level, but societal too.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52746085]Pretty much. And now the conversation loops back to 'how dangerous does something have to be before recreation is not a valid reason for ownership?'. Are my fertilizer-drenched heirloom tomatoes worth another Oklahoma City? Is the bottle of homebrew in my cupboard worth the fact that my best friend in high school was killed by a drunk driver? As a society, we collectively decide that some purely recreational freedoms are worth having even despite the public harm they represent, until they cross some nebulous line where the bad outweighs the good. I won't tell you where that line ought to be, but the answer isn't as simple or black and white as 'lives outweigh hobbies, ban immediately'.[/QUOTE] Or you just need to get permits and/or have training or certification akin to a drivers license or educational cert to purchase along with an audit of your usage of the material.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746069]Well then I suppose there are lots of dangerous things that should be regulated, huh?[/QUOTE] Yeah lets start banning private planes, fast cars, diesel fuel, pressure cookers, ball bearings, etc, etc. Only once everything moderately dangerous is banned will we truly be safe. Everything is dangerous and lethal, we either ban everything or we go after the motivations rather then the means
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746069]Well then I suppose there are lots of dangerous things that should be regulated, huh?[/QUOTE] Good luck banning wood and piss. Yes, you can make explosives with those.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52746091]Yeah lets start banning private planes, fast cars, diesel fuel, pressure cookers, ball bearings, etc, etc. Only once everything moderately dangerous is banned will we truly be safe. Everything is dangerous and lethal, we either ban everything or we go after the motivations rather then the means[/QUOTE] Like i said, we don't have to ban anything, simply regulate.
[QUOTE=booster;52746075]I have no problem with semi-automatic rifles at all and I don't think guns should be banned. I do have problems with the free access to modify them to increase killing potential.[/QUOTE] What does that entail? Where do you draw the line here? Simply installing a more comfortable grip or scope "increases killing potential". Firing into a crowd from above might be the [I]only[/I] situation a bump fire stock could meaningfully augment a weapon's killing potential; in any other situation they're finicky, hard to control, and unreliable. They're a fun way to burn up lots of cheap ammo, nothing else.
Fuck even flour is an explosive substance if used right.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746097]Like i said, we don't have to ban anything, simply regulate.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "regulate"? A goodly portion of dangerous goodies are "regulated"
[QUOTE=Amber902;52746101]Fuck even flour is an explosive substance if used right.[/QUOTE] Which is all quite a bit harder to set-up than buying a gun and some ammo
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746105]Which is all quite a bit harder to set-up than buying a gun and some ammo[/QUOTE] Both of which are harder to do than renting a moving truck. Your point?
[QUOTE=booster;52746046]So your answer to the question "why do civilians need access to modifications to increase lethality and firerate of semi-autos" is "because it's fun"?[/QUOTE] Fire rate doesn't increase the lethality. The lethality is based on the caliber and cartridge, not the gun or any accessories.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52746104]What do you mean by "regulate"? A goodly portion of dangerous goodies are "regulated"[/QUOTE] For obviously dangerous things like guns you should need to spend a couple hours training with an instructor, like a drivers license. Materials that are vital in explosive usage should require a business license/permit and auditing of their usage.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52746116]So the only thing between a mass murderer and his weapon of choice is a few hours of training?[/QUOTE] Well uh, what do you want...? I'm actually proposing solutions while you guys are playing the tired old "well a spork can be an effective killing weapon if you modify it!"
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746105]Which is all quite a bit harder to set-up than buying a gun and some ammo[/QUOTE] In my state, I am required to have a specific license to purchase a firearm and ammo. I wait 24 hours for a long gun, or 72 for a handgun. I must be 18+ and have no prior criminal or mental health issues. Or I could easily just drive to a store, with a stock standard license that is handed out like candy, and fill my car with a mixture of fertilizer and diesel fuel for a tenth of the cost of buying a gun. People who want to kill, will kill. They will find a way
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746112]For obviously dangerous things like guns you should need to spend a couple hours training with an instructor, like a drivers license. Materials that are vital in explosive usage should require a business license/permit and auditing of their usage.[/QUOTE] How would that have impacted this incident at all? You don't think this, by all accounts, very wealthy and stable person could have cruised through such a course and acquired a license? There was apparently nothing wrong with him until recently and he already owned the guns. I can't figure what kind of regulation may have helped here. [QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746120]Well uh, what do you want...? I'm actually proposing solutions while you guys are playing the tired old "well a spork can be an effective killing weapon if you modify it!"[/QUOTE] You're proposing ways to punish other gun owners, not solutions to this problem.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52746125]In my state, I am required to have a specific license to purchase a firearm and ammo. I wait 24 hours for a long gun, or 72 for a handgun. I must be 18+ and have no prior criminal or mental health issues. Or I could easily just drive to a store, with a stock standard license that is handed out like candy, and fill my car with a mixture of fertilizer and diesel fuel for a tenth of the cost of buying a gun. People who want to kill, will kill. They will find a way[/QUOTE] Okay, so let's not give up because it's easy for them to blow shit up, let's work against it all?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52746110]Fire rate doesn't increase the lethality. The lethality is based on the caliber and cartridge, not the gun or any accessories.[/QUOTE] I am obviously talking about the overall lethality when the aim is to cause as much damage as possible as fast as possible. In such a scenario, an accessory that increases the firerate would increase the lethality. More people would die as your gun can fire much faster.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52746112]For obviously dangerous things like guns you should need to spend a couple hours training with an instructor, like a drivers license.[/quote] I fail to see how this curtails violence as you suggest [quote] Materials that are vital in explosive usage should require a business license and auditing of their usage.[/QUOTE] So diesel fuel, hydrogen peroxide, charcoal, et cetera? I dont think you understand how many things are explosive or precursors to explosives. Even nitroglycerin isnt too difficult to synthesize
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.