Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC - Polidicks

It is a potentially fair argument, if YT is going to even consider trying to be equal or non-bias the best thing to is eliminate all firearm discussion (pro or against) from the platform. But when you ban channels which are fairly educational or even pro-gun and allow anti-gun videos to say on YT (even the ones poorly misinformed and even misleading) it says quite a bit.

"The issue might not be specific to "assault weapons", but curbing proliferation (or "banning the evil guns" as you put it) most likely would be a step in the right direction." I said curbing proliferation would be a step in the right direction. Thought you referring to "banning the evil guns" meant you were against any form of gun ban, not AWB specifically. In this thread? Or in the political sphere? Because I've definitely seen people on here doing it and I've talked about the topic myself.

An AWB would reduce the ability for shooters to have access to weapons with enhanced ergonomics which facilitate recoil compensation and usability. That means the difference between 20 dead and 50 injured and 5 dead 35 injured. If a killer cannot effectively use their weapon for rapid fire, I'm sure inexperienced shooters and teenagers who get access to these weapons would be much less effective I'm killing people without huge amounts of training

Yeah I don't know how to explain this to you without being really condescending but.. I'm critiquing your example. There is no source, other than your example, because you literally are the source of that example. It's an example that you made up, because as far as I can see, there never was a 15mm round ban (and why there would be one, I don't know, because 15mm isn't exactly a common round), and it was a bad example for the reasons listed above. If you really don't understand why I can't provide a "source" for me criticizing something that you made up, lol Um, okay, except many of the students and especially the two figureheads of this movement are advocating specifically for an assault-weapons ban and a ban on AR15's.. So.. It kinda is? Florida High School Students Demand Assault Weapons Ban "We're not saying 'no guns.' We are saying we want to regulate semi-automatic weapons and the accessories that make them fully automatic because fully automatic weapons are banned," Emma Gonzalez said. "The accessories that make semi-automatic ones aren't." "So we want to stop those from getting into the hands of the public," Emma explained. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/27/parkland_students_emma_gonzalez_were_not_saying_no_guns_but_regulate_semi-automatic_weapons.html We need to digitize gun-sales records, mandate universal background checks, close gun-show loopholes and straw-man purchases, ban high-capacity magazines, and push for a comprehensive assault weapons ban with an extensive buyback system. It would also benefit us to redefine what assault weapons are so that when we call for a ban against them, it’s clear that we aren’t trying to ban all guns. No one needs to use an assault weapon to protect themselves while walking home at night. No one should be allowed to use an AR-15 to strategically hunt people, which, in case anyone forgot, is what made us speak out in the first place. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/emma-gonzalez-parkland-gun-control-cover?mbid=social_twitter

Even if I doubled the poverty rate of the cities in question, a good chunk of them would still be below the average UK poverty rate but still have higher murder rates than the UK average. I was under the impression that school funding depended on the wealthiness of the area in the US. If that's the case, that's not an explanation for higher death rates in those cities either. That's kind of a red herring regardless. You can have the shittiest education in the world (and come on, I know it's not top notch in the US, but it's at least in the same ballpark as the European average), that can't possibly lead to murder rates an order of magnitude higher than in a comparable country on its own, which is the case in those cities with lower poverty rates.

* Gun violence must end. * We need this carnage to stop. * Everyone I know is scared to go to school. * People I know were shot and killed because of gun violence. * Politicians aren't listening to us but they should take us seriously. * We won't support politicians who are supported by the NRA. * The gun violence must end. * We will be a great generation, we will get through this. * We need to ban AR-15s like the ones we were shot with * Plastic, see-through, backpacks and bump-stock bans aren't going to end this violence; heck, the backpacks are making people nervous by itself. * Why is it so easy to get guns? * Why is it so easy to get guns? * Why aren't politicians helping us? Are they bought and paid for by the NRA? * Why is it so easy to get guns? * The gun violence must end. * What are our lives worth to politicians who refuse to see this as a problem? * We must stand strong, and united, against gun violence. * Where's the solution to all this? * Talk to your politician about this. * No really talk to your politician. * They are home this week, they have an office, go talk to your politician about this. * Again, talk to your politician about this. Here's your list of demands with all the non-policy decisions crossed out. I'm tapping out, I'm not getting anything meaningful from you.

What exactly is enhanced ergonomics?

I also don't know how to explain this to you aside from stating: Reread my post. The figureheads are not the movement. Many of those same students have a wide-range of solutions and options that they proffer, even in the examples you demonstrate here in your own post. But you zero directly in to 'well they mention an AWB so obviously that's the only thing that would satisfy them and is the only thing they want'. Also, shocker: People who are shot by a particular weapon would like to not be shot by that particular weapon again. It's no surprise they want an AR15 out of reach for the next school shooter if they've already encountered one who was able to obtain and use one in their school.

This is what I'm talking about when I say the argument the right makes is essentially whataboutism. When faced with statistics saying that poverty doesn't seem to be a factor, they change the subject to education and race. Not only that, but they also neglect that the common denominator isn't education, poverty or race, that it's access to firearms, they disregard that entirely .The common factor is that guns are too easy to access and acquire because of the number of these weapons.

I think you're overestimating how much impact ergonomics has on lethality. You push an AWB, you're looking at, at most, going from 20 dead, 50 injured to maybe 18-19 dead, 52 injured. I understand the sentiment of "if it saves one life", but after a certain point, you're not getting a good return on investment. You'd get marginal effect at the expense of a considerable amount of political capital.

Nope. A semi automatic ar-15 is a mediocre weapon. It fires an intermediate cartridge that is a hybrid between a pistol and full power rifle cartridge. This lighter cartridge comes with reduced lethality and range, but allows for the weapon to remain some semblance of controllable on full auto/burst mode. The rifle is arguably bad at compensating for recoil in large part due to the fact that it is very light. These qualities are fine for soldiers. They can carry more ammunition (of which most is wasted on suppression, rather than actually killing people, so lethality is less important than volume of fire) and they can carry the much lighter rifle further for less encumbrance. This matters little to a mass shooter. An M-14 battle rifle would absolutely mop the floor with pretty much everyone. It is heavy, with no pistol grip, made of wood, and fires a full power cartridge. The weight would be a problem if you were marching, but for a mass shooter it is irrelevant. They don't need to worry about encumbrance, so they can load themselves pretty heavily without issue. Meanwhile that weight means you can put more full power cartridges down range with less felt recoil. Cover against 7.62 NATO is pretty much non existent in a building. It will go through brick walls and not only kill on the other side, but turn bits of brick into secondary projectiles. You could post up on a building and successfully out range every law enforcement officer that comes to counter you, with the only exception being police sharp shooters. Or, given that most of these happen inside, a pump action shotgun. Pump guns are usually too much of a specialty weapon for military use (though they do appear), but if you know your firefight is going to be happening inside of a building, then the pump shotgun is absolutely without equal. They require very little training to use effectively and are cheap as hell.

I've already gone over that in this thread. Pistol grills to mitigate recoil, extendable stocks make the weapons easier to conceal, high capacity magazines can make reloading a non-issue, heatshields to maintain fire rate, allow user to use weapon consistently without cool down, clearing rods to make it easier to clear a jam from the chamber in a firefight, rails and sight modifications, etc.

Heatshields to maintain fire... okay so if the handguard gets too hot i'll just slide my hand back and do a mag-well grip, high capacity magazines, i hope you dont mean 30 round magazines as those are actually standard capacity, clearing rods.. what.. are you going to ban brass rods too now? an extendable stock will maybe take 2-3 inches off the overall length

This is another thing I keep bringing up; let's say we pass an AWB. Then a school shooting happens with; a non-assault weapon semi-automatic rifle. Do we ban semi-automatic rifles now? Let's say we do. A school shooting happens with a shotgun. Do we ban shotguns? A school shooting happens with pistols. Do we..

People keep pushing until the violence stops, yes, this has been thoroughly explained to you. They will keep pushing until people stop dying. What they do is as of yet undecided other than their united opinion that something substantial must be done.

Pistol grips do not mitigate recoil. Extendable stocks, especially on AR-15's, are for varying the gun's length to match the size of the shooter. They have little to no impact on concealability. Overall length restrictions are in place either way. High capacity magazines may halve the amount of time you spend reloading, though they do so at the cost of decreased reliability and a dramatic reduction in ergonomics. The last shooter used only low capacity magazines and he still managed to kill folks without issue. Reloading really isn't difficult and it is something you can do while walking. Heat shields allow you to...hold...the gun. They aren't for volume of fire. They are because ten rounds through a rifle barrel makes it too hot to hold. For massive volumes of fire, where cool down would be an issue, the BARREL is the limiting factor, not the heat shield. The barrel can also be replaced fairly easily in guns where that is a problem. Clearing rods? Seriously? That is how you safely clear a squib load. Like what the fuck. That is a basic component of firearms. Rails? Oh no. Not a standardized system so you can mount a scope without having to worry about compatibility. What ever will we do. Sight modifications? What the fuck even is that. No, you do not get to suggest gun legislation when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

To stop teenagers from being killed by guns. It's no longer exclusively about school shootings - it's about curbing gun violence in general.

Here's me, quoting you, 38 minutes ago: * We need to ban AR-15s like the ones we were shot with Here's me, quoting Emma Gonzalez, 26 minutes ago: We need to digitize gun-sales records, mandate universal background checks, close gun-show loopholes and straw-man purchases, ban high-capacity magazines, and push for a comprehensive assault weapons ban with an extensive buyback system.

Here's me not quoting 342,312 different opinions which are not 'we need to ban AR15s' from yesterday's march.

I just don't get why you are being so.. I don't know, dense? Silly? You just said they don't want to ban assault weapons. They do. They have other demands too, and the AWB is one of them. What is the disagreement here? lol

Allow me to explain to you through metaphor. One Christian says its ok to molest children. Now I assert every Christian wants to molest children, even when people prove that is not a majority-held opinion of Christians, and I am confused when people push back when I say 'but they do think it's OK to molest children, because this guy says they think it's OK'.

The fact that not every single student has personally proposed an AWB doesn't change the fact that the most prominent student voices (Gonzalez and the other guy), the supporters of this movement, the commentators, some legislators and many voters have been talking constantly about an AWB. Again, I don't understand why you're fighting this when it's a basic fact about the Stoneman-Douglas debate. Sure, not 100% of everybody talking about fixing this problem is in support of an AWB, nobody is claiming that. But an AWB is one of the most-supported, big ticket items that have been pushed during this debate.

Jesus fucking christ. People should just shut the fuck up when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

It was not the most-supported, big-ticket, item that was pushed during the March for our Lives protest. It was brought up a single time, iirc, in a sea of other statements and calls to action. You also keep repeating the exact same opinions and statements. You also seem to think that those two prominent voices are therefore the voices of the group -- but it is a loosely organized group at best which formed out of necessity rather than being organized from the start from some politician or expert group. I don't understand why you're fighting this when I keep pointing out that regardless of your statements that it simply isn't the thing that is most on their mind, at all, when they speak out. You are ignoring the rest of what they're saying and seizing on one possible action when we're talking with such a primordial group that it hasn't yet figured out what it wants yet.

No, there's give or take a million people in the protest all with unique motivations. The common denominator? Not an AWB, not banning bump stocks. But something being done.

.. and that something being an assault weapons ban according to the key speakers at the march lol

You're being ridiculous.

define assault weapon because usually "assault weapon" just means "guns that look scary but are otherwise normal guns"

He can't because they didn't because they still don't know exactly what they want either.

That's what I'm saying