|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 14 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:29 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? These people can make homemade explosives that could do just as much damage. Do we ban commonly used chemicals? I am certain if certian weapons were banned, people would use different methodologies to achieve the same goal. My understanding is that it is significantly harder to pull off a bombing when compared to a shooting. Perhaps that is wrong. It seems like the trouble associated with a bombing is much higher. Edit: As for where to draw the line with guns, I don't know. But what I do know is that a group of experts would be able to come together to isolate what constitutes excessive killing capability. I would guess that there are guns which are distinguished and that a group of experts could determine what makes these guns distinguished and then create a set of rules aimed at preventing distinguished guns from being sold to civilians. I think there is thought to be had and decisions to be made. We can collect more information and make decisions. Closing the door to investigation should not happen.
I'd say the first thing to do would be to repeal the rule that prevents the CDC from doing research on gun safety, so we can get better data to work with.
automatic fire does seem like a reasonably useful metric, it's far from completle, but it's somewhat informative. Automatic fire is generally not useful for self-defense or hunting. Magazine size, which influences how many shots a person can get out before having to reload, is another. While there's no limit to how many times a person can reload, the disruption of reloading (especially if the clips are hard to change) does sometimes give people an opportunity ti escape and/or rush the attacker.
I agree with your impression that bombings are hard to pull off. In part, it's that if you don't know what you're doing, it's quite possible to blow yourself up making a bomb; also pretty common that it's setpu wrong so it fails to detonate, or the explosive power largely fizzles out rather than doing anything. Guns are designed to be not hard to use; bombs simply aren't sold in easy to use forms. (i.e. a grenade is easy to use, but they just don't sell grenades period).
|
On June 14 2016 01:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:29 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:23 Mohdoo wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. I suppose my thought is: If there is a gun which allows someone to do what the Orlando shooter did, it should not be legal for civilians. It is not a matter of automatic or semi-auto or anything. If a gun was able to perform as well as the AR-15 did last night, it shouldn't be legal. Where do you draw the line? These people can make homemade explosives that could do just as much damage. Do we ban commonly used chemicals? I am certain if certian weapons were banned, people would use different methodologies to achieve the same goal. The main thing is that it creates a point of arrest. As I mentioned in my previous post there is really no point at which you can lawfully arrest the perpetrator, even if you suspect he is about to commit an attack because his gun is perfectly legal. While you can build a bomb out of household chemicals it is not legal to have such a bomb (and having large quantities of supplies to make one can be illegal or act as a showing on intent). If we assume this person is being watched there is a chance to catch him with something illegal. There is also the very real chance that making homemade bombs with house hold chemicals will result in the person blowing themselves up. Or at least getting the attention of law enforcement during the process.
|
On June 14 2016 01:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. It shouldn't be possible period to modify from semi-auto to full auto. And I'm not sure if a semi should be even allowed. Semi-automatic fire is already one shot one pull. You can't unallow that its just impossible. I made a quick google search on making your gun fully auto and it scared the shit out of me. maybe banning the ar-15 platform is a good thing. there will still be a ton out in the wild but attrition yadda yadda yadda.
Smaller magazines then. And what are the penalties for the full auto mods, sawed off shotgun, etc?
|
One other note on bombs: many useable bomb-making ingredients are monitored a bit, so if someone is buying unusual quantities, or buying something they wouldn't normally need so much of (or at all), they might get looked at. and of course actual explosives sold (i.e. for mining and demolition) are quite well monitored and accounted for.
|
It is morbid, but we should probably be somewhat happy attacks have come in the form of armed assailants rather than bombings. While it isn't 1995 anymore, the last thing we need is terror agents pulling a Timothy McVeigh: Oklahoma City is still the second-deadliest act of terrorism in American history, and that was just two guys, fertilizer, and some careful planning and specialized equipment.
|
On June 14 2016 02:15 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 14 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. It shouldn't be possible period to modify from semi-auto to full auto. And I'm not sure if a semi should be even allowed. Semi-automatic fire is already one shot one pull. You can't unallow that its just impossible. I made a quick google search on making your gun fully auto and it scared the shit out of me. maybe banning the ar-15 platform is a good thing. there will still be a ton out in the wild but attrition yadda yadda yadda. Smaller magazines then. And what are the penalties for the full auto mods, sawed off shotgun, etc?
You can modify magazines easily to make them as large as you want. There isn't penalties for full auto mods apparently as you can buy them for $300. I saw a youtube were a guy used a paperclip to make his ar-15 fully automatic. sawed off shotguns are a state by state crime but most are just fines if anything. all you need to make one is a saw and a vice.
|
On June 14 2016 02:15 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 01:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 14 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. It shouldn't be possible period to modify from semi-auto to full auto. And I'm not sure if a semi should be even allowed. Semi-automatic fire is already one shot one pull. You can't unallow that its just impossible. I made a quick google search on making your gun fully auto and it scared the shit out of me. maybe banning the ar-15 platform is a good thing. there will still be a ton out in the wild but attrition yadda yadda yadda. Smaller magazines then. And what are the penalties for the full auto mods, sawed off shotgun, etc?
The penalties don't really matter because such a law would be unenforceable. Who is going to inspect peoples arms to determine if they're in compliance exactly?
|
Seems like a lot of gun talk here but silencers are often used for indoor range shooting but I can agree they are unnecessary, though outlawing them would stop ~0 crimes.
You can't ban guns that could do the Damage the AR did realistically unless you're going to get Joe on board with banning the shotguns he suggested people shoot in the air (take a look at 00 buck shot).
Automatic kits are legal, owning an AR-15 is legal, combining the two (or even just possessing the two in the same space) is usually the crime. Legal automatic weapons are ones that were made before they were "banned".
No one uses automatic weapons for crimes because they are generally expensive or require a decent amount of gun knowledge to create. On top of that automatic fire is primarily an intimidation technique it's not an effective way to place shots on target without tons of hours of practice.
One reason why reasonable gun owners have such a hard time getting on board with the left is that largely they have 0 clue what they are talking about regarding guns and talk about how they "feel" guns should be treated while not even being able to properly identify the guns they are talking about or why that one is more dangerous than another.
On June 14 2016 03:01 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 02:15 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 14 2016 01:37 Sermokala wrote:On June 14 2016 01:34 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 14 2016 01:18 SolaR- wrote:On June 14 2016 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 14 2016 01:01 SolaR- wrote:
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
What about banning war weapons which are totally unnecessary for self defense of any sort and comprehensive background check to be sure someone suspected of allegiance to ISIS or mentally disturbed cannot get such an arsenal? I completely disagree with the idea of giving teachers a gun but let's leave that aside. I agree with limiting certain individuals from acquiring weapons and that there should be stricter procedures in acquiring them overall. I think the allowable weapons that we have should stay. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy guns and don't harm anyone. Plus there are many restrictions on which weapons you can buy already. For example, you can't really buy a real fully automatic ar15. Only the semi auto. Modifying the weapon to shoot full auto is extremely illegal. It shouldn't be possible period to modify from semi-auto to full auto. And I'm not sure if a semi should be even allowed. Semi-automatic fire is already one shot one pull. You can't unallow that its just impossible. I made a quick google search on making your gun fully auto and it scared the shit out of me. maybe banning the ar-15 platform is a good thing. there will still be a ton out in the wild but attrition yadda yadda yadda. Smaller magazines then. And what are the penalties for the full auto mods, sawed off shotgun, etc? The penalties don't really matter because such a law would be unenforceable. Who is going to inspect peoples arms to determine if they're in compliance exactly?
Basically if you only shoot on private property there's not a hell of a lot they can do, theoretically they could record the rapid fire and get a warrant to search (obviously not effective for sawed-off's), but I've personally never heard of that happening. People who get caught typically get caught by rangers while shooting in public forests. There was a cop in 2015 who was busted for owning an illegally modded AR-15 because he was being arrested for an assault charge. Don't think anything stuck though because he went on to run for a local office (but lost).
|
Could the shooter been as effective with just pistols instead of an ar15? Obviously the magazines would be shorter and the bullets are a lower caliber. But couldn't you just carry several pistols with plenty of spare magazines. Pistols shoot in a semi auto fashion as well. So there wouldn't be much difference in that regard? I dont know.
|
Pistols are generally significantly less accurate than long guns.
|
On June 14 2016 03:26 farvacola wrote:
Pistols are generally significantly less accurate than long guns.
That is true, but in a confined space such as a nightclub would it matter that much?I'm not a gun expert, by any means.
|
On June 14 2016 03:31 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 03:26 farvacola wrote:
Pistols are generally significantly less accurate than long guns. That is true, but in a confined space such as a nightclub would it matter that much?I'm not a gun expert, by any means.
It depends on the gun, but they are smaller with fewer bullets in general. They are harder to aim if you are not trained well. It might make a difference, it might not. But most police and military folks will agree that someone is way more lethal with a rifle than with a pistol.
|
I think there would of been a lot less deaths and injured if he had access to pistols only. Some of the victims were shot up to 12 times..
|
On June 14 2016 03:31 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 03:26 farvacola wrote:
Pistols are generally significantly less accurate than long guns. That is true, but in a confined space such as a nightclub would it matter that much?I'm not a gun expert, by any means.
Yes, it matters because the lower stopping power of a pistol, not to speak about clip/bullet size. So yeah, they are way less efficient for that (wicked) purpose.
Pistols also tend to jam more often than assault rifles in my experience.
|
On June 14 2016 03:26 farvacola wrote:
Pistols are generally significantly less accurate than long guns.
Of minimal importance in the setting of a nightclub with a moderately trained user. Mag capacity could be the same, you can find 100 rd magazine for a glock for example.
AR-15 are actually "designed to injure/maim" not kill per say *actually not designed that way on purpose but a byproduct of being portable, so depending on the ammo chosen it's possible pistols could have been more or less deadly. The catch for the AR-15 in such close range, is that it's rounds could pass through their target into another target still at a deadly velocity.
Personally I'm more concerned with prescription heroin manufactured by drug lords, peddled by drug dealers in white coats, killing more people than car accidents or gun violence (especially against others), and then leveraged against the poor to imprison them indefinitely.
|
With that being said, it seems there is minimal difference. Banning assault rifles wouldn't prevent the same massacre from happening. In this case, wouldn't you either be completely against guns or completely for them. Not much room for any grey area it seems.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
an honest look at u.s. society and trends would certainly place gun control and higher level of scrutiny of potentially dangerous stuff in a key position in a strategy of preventing massacres. the alternative is much higher level of internal monitoring, including social media content etc, and using profiling covers that may be against constitutional limits.
probably a combination of both to make things more secure but with the remote radicalization of people the ease of access to weapons will make such incidents more likely.
|
About the AR15 and 5.56 in general, that's a myth, one that it's perpetuated due to the ammo the military uses not being very effective at killing on one shot in real life scenarios. Which incidently makes your second point right more or less, depending on the ammo,
On June 14 2016 04:19 SolaR- wrote:
With that being said, it seems there is minimal difference. Banning assault rifles wouldn't prevent the same massacre from happening. In this case, wouldn't you either be completely against guns or completely for them. Not much room for any grey area it seems.
No, the difference is not minimal.
|
On June 14 2016 04:19 SolaR- wrote:
With that being said, it seems there is minimal difference. Banning assault rifles wouldn't prevent the same massacre from happening. In this case, wouldn't you either be completely against guns or completely for them. Not much room for any grey area it seems.
The harder you make it to commit a crime, the less crime there will be. Sure some determined people with access to resources will still do bad things, but implementing restrictions deters some and makes catching others easier.
|
On June 14 2016 04:35 Godwrath wrote:About the AR15 and 5.56 in general, that's a myth, one that it's perpetuated due to the ammo the military uses not being very effective at killing on one shot in real life scenarios. Which incidently makes your second point right more or less, depending on the ammo, Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 04:19 SolaR- wrote:
With that being said, it seems there is minimal difference. Banning assault rifles wouldn't prevent the same massacre from happening. In this case, wouldn't you either be completely against guns or completely for them. Not much room for any grey area it seems. No, the difference is not minimal.
Yeah I tried to clarify, but I realize it's hard to talk about this stuff with people who don't understand what we're talking about. You can carry a lot more 223 than 556 but it also has other ballistic impacts. The gun itself has little to do with what a 223 round does at under 50 yrds (when compared to most other guns that shoot the same ammo).
To me the simple answer is to ban self made rounds (require some sort of practically unobtainable license to legally make bullets, also they have no constitutional protection) and regulate the bullets. Though I probably shouldn't give the left any ideas to mangle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
