|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
you made a statement:
On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.
here was my reply correcting you:
On December 03 2015 23:25 ahswtini wrote:
those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)
unfortunately, people call any scary black rifle #blackriflesmatter these days an assault rifle, even though a proper assault rifle would be a machinegun, and those are very heavily regulated in america.
this is why when the clinton administration wanted to ban them, they had to adopt the term 'assault weapon'. and they defined an assault weapon as a rifle with a number of (generally) cosmetic features.
how was i in any way trying to "fiddle around" or act like a dick??
|
On December 04 2015 01:21 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 01:15 Djzapz wrote:On December 04 2015 01:00 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 00:15 Djzapz wrote:On December 04 2015 00:06 ahswtini wrote:On December 03 2015 23:50 Djzapz wrote:On December 03 2015 23:25 ahswtini wrote:On December 03 2015 22:45 Djzapz wrote:On December 03 2015 22:44 RouaF wrote:On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting. I don't know. I read they had assault rifles but I'm not exactly a gun expert. Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines. On December 03 2015 22:44 RouaF wrote:On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
The guns were not automatic as far as I know. And any asshole can buy a paramilitary uniform to go do a shooting. Yes obviously any asshole can do this but I doubt he would just get into an argument, go to the mall to buy weapons and an uniform for him and his wife and then come back and kill everyone. It was most likely premeditated. You'd be surprised to see that people can own those in their homes for years. There's a bunch of americans with militaria in their homes right now. They have these "consumer" body armors with steel plates that can stop rifle rounds and stuff. And there's a bunch of hicks with those in their home for no real reason. So many people have these "tacticool" things they don't need it's ridiculous. those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round) unfortunately, people call any scary black rifle #blackriflesmatter these days an assault rifle, even though a proper assault rifle would be a machinegun, and those are very heavily regulated in america. this is why when the clinton administration wanted to ban them, they had to adopt the term 'assault weapon'. and they defined an assault weapon as a rifle with a number of (generally) cosmetic features. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull. If you read on, it does also ban automatic firearms, but semi-auto firearms can be considered assault weapons depending on the other characteristics. But it definitely does not NEED to have other modes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_BanPlease do realize that the US doesn't give a fuck about other people's definitions. It makes its own. "Assault weapons" in the US does not mean "capable of automatic or burst fire" or whatever else. the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they had to invent an equally scary sounding name because assault rifles are already by definition banned there, and have been since 1968 or something like that u also clearly didnt read what i wrote Help me understand then You say: those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)Yet the US says semi-auto rifles are assault weapons. So I'm reading what you said, and reading it again, I don't see what I misunderstood. Yes I read what you said. Make yourself clear now. yes, i'm saying that assault weapons and assault rifles are DIFFERENT. assault rifles have an internationally agreed definition. the clinton administration, when they wanted to ban scary modern-looking semiauto rifles (like the AR15), realised they couldn't use the term assault rifle when referring to them, so they invented the term 'assault weapon'. which is similar to the term 'assault rifle' and just as scary. which is perfect because your average journalist or member of the public wont know the difference and will be assuming that the government wants to ban the evil fully automatic assault rifles used in war. YOU said: On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines. i am pointing out that you are wrong. and no, it's not pedantry or a technicality to point out the difference. Next time you feel the need to be a dick, instead of pointing out why someone is wrong, point how and why. Make yourself useful. I'm not the only one who was confused by the bullshit. Like I said, the idea that a rifle which is an assault weapon is not necessarily an assault rifle doesn't go without saying. It's political maneuvering and plays on words, which deserves some explaining. So don't just throw shit at me and speak your mind next time. Fucking weird to me that full grown adults feel the need to fiddle around like you did. what is your problem? how was i a dick in any way? i pointed out that your definition of assault rifle was wrong. i gave some background on how the term assault weapons came into play. i wasn't trying any political manoeuvring, in fact i was to explain that the whole assault rifle vs assault weapons itself was political manoeuvring. i was in no way unclear or trying to mislead you, i 100% spoke my mind. you just misunderstood and are now getting overly defensive about it.
Your post when I was clearly confused was "the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban" which was convoluted and then you said "u also clearly didnt read what i wrote". You could clearly tell that I was not seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapons. I guess it was so obvious to you that you didn't feel like you needed to bother writing the difference so it just flew above everybody's heads (those who didn't know) until we googled it.
Sorry if I mistook it for malice, I just think you should make yourself clear.
Edit: Reading your post above without the specific explanation that there's a distinction between assault rifle and assault weapons (which is confusing and weird) just reads like those terms are interchangeable. If you don't straight up explain the difference and act like a person is ignorant for not knowing and you explain what "assault rifles" are to a person who thinks "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" are the same, they just won't see it instantly.
|
On December 04 2015 01:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 01:16 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 01:09 Plansix wrote:If people want to get really upset, dig into the restrictions on the FBI, ATF and other agencies on conducting background research into gun purchasers and criminal back ground checks. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/16/why-the-nra-opposed-laws-to-prevent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/Like the fact that you get purchase a fire arm while on the terrorist watch list. And, as the GAO found, a number of them do: Between 2004 and 2014, suspected terrorists attempted to purchase guns from American dealers at least 2,233 times. And in 2,043 of those cases — 91 percent of the time — they succeeded. Remember, the NRA is about gun owners right, not profits for the people who make guns. is this a failure of the background check system? or are background checks not being carried out? Because of NRA lobbying efforts, being on a terror watchlist is not grounds for a denial of a license.
And the system is designed to fail in many states, since it is cumbersome and overly restrictive. Parts of the ATF are prohibited from requesting gun sales and background information electronically. Or states have rules in place that make the gun sale go through is the background check takes to long. The systems are not updated, restricted and currently underfunded because that is the way the gun lobby wants them. Because it allows the seller of the fire arms to blame the system if the sale goes to a terrorist or criminal and that gun control doesn't work.
Because the NRA and gun manufacturers want to sell you a gun to defend yourself from the gun they sold the suspected terrorist.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On December 04 2015 01:25 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 01:21 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 01:15 Djzapz wrote:On December 04 2015 01:00 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 00:15 Djzapz wrote:On December 04 2015 00:06 ahswtini wrote:On December 03 2015 23:50 Djzapz wrote:On December 03 2015 23:25 ahswtini wrote:On December 03 2015 22:45 Djzapz wrote:On December 03 2015 22:44 RouaF wrote:
[quote]
I don't know. I read they had assault rifles but I'm not exactly a gun expert. Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines. On December 03 2015 22:44 RouaF wrote:
[quote]
Yes obviously any asshole can do this but I doubt he would just get into an argument, go to the mall to buy weapons and an uniform for him and his wife and then come back and kill everyone. It was most likely premeditated. You'd be surprised to see that people can own those in their homes for years. There's a bunch of americans with militaria in their homes right now. They have these "consumer" body armors with steel plates that can stop rifle rounds and stuff. And there's a bunch of hicks with those in their home for no real reason. So many people have these "tacticool" things they don't need it's ridiculous. those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round) unfortunately, people call any scary black rifle #blackriflesmatter these days an assault rifle, even though a proper assault rifle would be a machinegun, and those are very heavily regulated in america. this is why when the clinton administration wanted to ban them, they had to adopt the term 'assault weapon'. and they defined an assault weapon as a rifle with a number of (generally) cosmetic features. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull. If you read on, it does also ban automatic firearms, but semi-auto firearms can be considered assault weapons depending on the other characteristics. But it definitely does not NEED to have other modes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_BanPlease do realize that the US doesn't give a fuck about other people's definitions. It makes its own. "Assault weapons" in the US does not mean "capable of automatic or burst fire" or whatever else. the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they had to invent an equally scary sounding name because assault rifles are already by definition banned there, and have been since 1968 or something like that u also clearly didnt read what i wrote Help me understand then You say: those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)Yet the US says semi-auto rifles are assault weapons. So I'm reading what you said, and reading it again, I don't see what I misunderstood. Yes I read what you said. Make yourself clear now. yes, i'm saying that assault weapons and assault rifles are DIFFERENT. assault rifles have an internationally agreed definition. the clinton administration, when they wanted to ban scary modern-looking semiauto rifles (like the AR15), realised they couldn't use the term assault rifle when referring to them, so they invented the term 'assault weapon'. which is similar to the term 'assault rifle' and just as scary. which is perfect because your average journalist or member of the public wont know the difference and will be assuming that the government wants to ban the evil fully automatic assault rifles used in war. YOU said: On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines. i am pointing out that you are wrong. and no, it's not pedantry or a technicality to point out the difference. Next time you feel the need to be a dick, instead of pointing out why someone is wrong, point how and why. Make yourself useful. I'm not the only one who was confused by the bullshit. Like I said, the idea that a rifle which is an assault weapon is not necessarily an assault rifle doesn't go without saying. It's political maneuvering and plays on words, which deserves some explaining. So don't just throw shit at me and speak your mind next time. Fucking weird to me that full grown adults feel the need to fiddle around like you did. what is your problem? how was i a dick in any way? i pointed out that your definition of assault rifle was wrong. i gave some background on how the term assault weapons came into play. i wasn't trying any political manoeuvring, in fact i was to explain that the whole assault rifle vs assault weapons itself was political manoeuvring. i was in no way unclear or trying to mislead you, i 100% spoke my mind. you just misunderstood and are now getting overly defensive about it. Your post when I was clearly confused was "the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban" which was convoluted and then you said "u also clearly didnt read what i wrote". You could clearly tell that I was not seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapons. I guess it was so obvious to you that you didn't feel like you needed to bother writing the difference so it just flew above everybody's heads (those who didn't know) until we googled it. Sorry if I mistook it for malice, I just think you should make yourself clear.
that was because you argued that the USA doesnt care about other people's definitions, it makes its own. to which i countered that if the clinton administration at the time really believed this, they would just have straight up called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they knew that the guns they wanted to ban were not by definition assault rifles (and real assault rifles have already been banned for decades), so they went for an equally scary name that they could define the terms of.
i could tell that you weren't seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapon, but i thought my post made it clear that the two were different
|
On December 04 2015 01:28 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 01:25 Djzapz wrote:On December 04 2015 01:21 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 01:15 Djzapz wrote:On December 04 2015 01:00 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 00:15 Djzapz wrote:On December 04 2015 00:06 ahswtini wrote:On December 03 2015 23:50 Djzapz wrote:On December 03 2015 23:25 ahswtini wrote:On December 03 2015 22:45 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines.
[quote]
You'd be surprised to see that people can own those in their homes for years. There's a bunch of americans with militaria in their homes right now. They have these "consumer" body armors with steel plates that can stop rifle rounds and stuff. And there's a bunch of hicks with those in their home for no real reason.
So many people have these "tacticool" things they don't need it's ridiculous. those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round) unfortunately, people call any scary black rifle #blackriflesmatter these days an assault rifle, even though a proper assault rifle would be a machinegun, and those are very heavily regulated in america. this is why when the clinton administration wanted to ban them, they had to adopt the term 'assault weapon'. and they defined an assault weapon as a rifle with a number of (generally) cosmetic features. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull. If you read on, it does also ban automatic firearms, but semi-auto firearms can be considered assault weapons depending on the other characteristics. But it definitely does not NEED to have other modes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_BanPlease do realize that the US doesn't give a fuck about other people's definitions. It makes its own. "Assault weapons" in the US does not mean "capable of automatic or burst fire" or whatever else. the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they had to invent an equally scary sounding name because assault rifles are already by definition banned there, and have been since 1968 or something like that u also clearly didnt read what i wrote Help me understand then You say: those are not assault rifles. assault rifles have a clear definition - they must be capable of select fire (ie. capable of automatic or burst fire), they must have a removable magazine, and they must fire an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a handgun round, but less than a "full power" rifle round)Yet the US says semi-auto rifles are assault weapons. So I'm reading what you said, and reading it again, I don't see what I misunderstood. Yes I read what you said. Make yourself clear now. yes, i'm saying that assault weapons and assault rifles are DIFFERENT. assault rifles have an internationally agreed definition. the clinton administration, when they wanted to ban scary modern-looking semiauto rifles (like the AR15), realised they couldn't use the term assault rifle when referring to them, so they invented the term 'assault weapon'. which is similar to the term 'assault rifle' and just as scary. which is perfect because your average journalist or member of the public wont know the difference and will be assuming that the government wants to ban the evil fully automatic assault rifles used in war. YOU said: On December 03 2015 22:42 Djzapz wrote:
Assault rifles are basically semi-automatic rifles with a certain appearance and large magazines or something like that. From my understanding, the definition is convoluted but yeah they were most likely semi-automatics with large magazines. i am pointing out that you are wrong. and no, it's not pedantry or a technicality to point out the difference. Next time you feel the need to be a dick, instead of pointing out why someone is wrong, point how and why. Make yourself useful. I'm not the only one who was confused by the bullshit. Like I said, the idea that a rifle which is an assault weapon is not necessarily an assault rifle doesn't go without saying. It's political maneuvering and plays on words, which deserves some explaining. So don't just throw shit at me and speak your mind next time. Fucking weird to me that full grown adults feel the need to fiddle around like you did. what is your problem? how was i a dick in any way? i pointed out that your definition of assault rifle was wrong. i gave some background on how the term assault weapons came into play. i wasn't trying any political manoeuvring, in fact i was to explain that the whole assault rifle vs assault weapons itself was political manoeuvring. i was in no way unclear or trying to mislead you, i 100% spoke my mind. you just misunderstood and are now getting overly defensive about it. Your post when I was clearly confused was "the US obviously did give a fuck, otherwise they would have called it the Assault Rifles Ban" which was convoluted and then you said "u also clearly didnt read what i wrote". You could clearly tell that I was not seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapons. I guess it was so obvious to you that you didn't feel like you needed to bother writing the difference so it just flew above everybody's heads (those who didn't know) until we googled it. Sorry if I mistook it for malice, I just think you should make yourself clear. that was because you argued that the USA doesnt care about other people's definitions, it makes its own. to which i countered that if the clinton administration at the time really believed this, they would just have straight up called it the Assault Rifles Ban. instead they knew that the guns they wanted to ban were not by definition assault rifles (and real assault rifles have already been banned for decades), so they went for an equally scary name that they could define the terms of. i could tell that you weren't seeing the difference between assault rifle and assault weapon, but i thought my post made it clear that the two were different
Alright well I'm sorry, maybe I lashed out. Having a bad time.
Cheers.
|
Can someone explain to me what the difference is between:
- A killer with a gun
- A good guy with a gun
- A good guy with a gun having a very bad day
because I can't really see much difference
|
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person.
|
On December 04 2015 02:31 DickMcFanny wrote:
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person.
I guess my question is directed more specifically to the "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" argument. How do we separate the good guys from the bad guys who both own guns, if the only difference between them is having a bad day or having a good day (at least that's how it feels like living in the US currently).
|
|
|
On December 04 2015 03:02 Days wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 02:31 DickMcFanny wrote:
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person. I guess my question is directed more specifically to the "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" argument. How do we separate the good guys from the bad guys who both own guns, if the only difference between them is having a bad day or having a good day (at least that's how it feels like living in the US currently).
In this incredibly reductive argument, the good guy is the one who had a bad day and doesn't' shoot anyone. And saying that all the mass shootings are committed by "good people having bad days" is reductive to the point of being disingenuous.
|
On December 04 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 03:02 Days wrote:On December 04 2015 02:31 DickMcFanny wrote:
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person. I guess my question is directed more specifically to the "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" argument. How do we separate the good guys from the bad guys who both own guns, if the only difference between them is having a bad day or having a good day (at least that's how it feels like living in the US currently). In this incredibly reductive argument, the good guy is the one who had a bad day and doesn't' shoot anyone. And saying that all the mass shootings are committed by "good people having bad days" is reductive to the point of being disingenuous.
I'm not saying that all mass shootings are committed by the same type of people, obviously they are going to have different motives. This argument is purely directed to the crisis that the US faces currently, and that is gun control. My question is, if we are going to keep allowing people to freely own guns, how do we differentiate the good guys from the bad guys? Pro-gun activists like to always point out the massive amount of people that owns gun and DONT partake in mass shootings. So how do we separate a "good" gun owner from a "bad" gun owner?
My initial question was posted deliberately in a naive and reductive form, because I believe in simplifying arguments not making them more complex.
|
On December 04 2015 03:19 Days wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote:On December 04 2015 03:02 Days wrote:On December 04 2015 02:31 DickMcFanny wrote:
I know the definition is muddled in Obamerica, which assassinates people on the basis of a suspicion that at some point they might do something harmful to the US, but a killer isn't a killer before they have killed a person. I guess my question is directed more specifically to the "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" argument. How do we separate the good guys from the bad guys who both own guns, if the only difference between them is having a bad day or having a good day (at least that's how it feels like living in the US currently). In this incredibly reductive argument, the good guy is the one who had a bad day and doesn't' shoot anyone. And saying that all the mass shootings are committed by "good people having bad days" is reductive to the point of being disingenuous. I'm not saying that all mass shootings are committed by the same type of people, obviously they are going to have different motives. This argument is purely directed to the crisis that the US faces currently, and that is gun control. My question is, if we are going to keep allowing people to freely own guns, how do we differentiate the good guys from the bad guys? Pro-gun activists like to always point out the massive amount of people that owns gun and DONT partake in mass shootings. So how do we separate a "good" gun owner from a "bad" gun owner? My initial question was posted deliberately in a naive and reductive form, because I believe in simplifying arguments not making them more complex.
Well I recommend you use simple arguments to address simple topics then. You do them a disservice by attempting to address difficult topics in such a reductive manner. Gun ownership and control is complex, nuanced and multifaceted issue that is far beyond the simplicity you have attempted to reduce it to. You use vague terms with no conses on their meanings or how they relate to the subject at hand, so it makes nearly impossible for anyone to respond.
The overwhelming majority of guns owned in America will never be used in any violent criminal act. Gun control and preventing guns from getting into the hands of potential criminals is difficult, but not impossible if laws are enforced.
|
|
|
There is literally no way to prevent all shootings. No sane and honest person would say there is or that that should be the expectation. There will always be situations that slip through the cracks. But the number of shootings can be dialed down a peg to two, THAT is possible.
|
On December 04 2015 12:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
There is literally no way to prevent all shootings. No sane and honest person would say there is or that that should be the expectation. There will always be situations that slip through the cracks. But the number of shootings can be dialed down a peg to two, THAT is possible.
Nope, like seat belts, airbags, choking hazard warnings, and the like, until they would stop all the deaths they are intended to reduce they are pointless and ineffectual.
|
On December 04 2015 12:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
There is literally no way to prevent all shootings. No sane and honest person would say there is or that that should be the expectation. There will always be situations that slip through the cracks. But the number of shootings can be dialed down a peg to two, THAT is possible.
Australia has words for you. It is 100% possible to reduce mass shootings to (essentially) 0.
The entire pro-gun position is that the deaths are a necessary sacrifice to preserve the integrity of the constitution and give means for uprising against oppressive governments.
|
The thing is that violent crime is decreasing, and there might be ways to accelerate that drop, but it's also possible to reverse it if you do the wrong things as a reaction to hysteria. The US is indeed a huge place, and different things work better in different parts of it.
On December 04 2015 13:11 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 12:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:
There is literally no way to prevent all shootings. No sane and honest person would say there is or that that should be the expectation. There will always be situations that slip through the cracks. But the number of shootings can be dialed down a peg to two, THAT is possible. Australia has words for you. It is 100% possible to reduce mass shootings to (essentially) 0. The entire pro-gun position is that the deaths are a necessary sacrifice to preserve the integrity of the constitution and give means for uprising against oppressive governments.
People who are pro-gun, against increased gun control, however you want to frame it, are not pro-death. Most people, you'll find if you ask them in a way that isn't divisive, aren't in favor of people being murdered.
|
On December 04 2015 01:25 Djzapz wrote:
Edit: Reading your post above without the specific explanation that there's a distinction between assault rifle and assault weapons (which is confusing and weird) just reads like those terms are interchangeable. If you don't straight up explain the difference and act like a person is ignorant for not knowing and you explain what "assault rifles" are to a person who thinks "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" are the same, they just won't see it instantly.
welcome to gun ownership in the united states. good luck working out the nuances in of each states' individual laws too (california being one of the notoriously difficult).
a big part of the issue is that many people who propose gun legislation have no idea what it means to responsibly own a firearm. the distinction between assault weapon and hunting rifle being one of them.
for example, i own multiple firearms lawfully. i practice safety diligently. however, if i want to purchase a new firearm i must, by law, wait 10 days (after paying in full, in most cases) before i can legally own / handle the firearm. this is supposed to prevent crimes of passion or what not, but that makes no sense when i already own firearms.
on the other hand, literally anyone without a criminal background can walk into a store and in 10 days walk out with a long arm, with zero verification that they can competently handle one, provided you are 18+.
look up loaded chamber indicators or microstamping some time. you'll see how ridiculously ineffectual those ideas are and yet these are the laws we are spending time pursuing.
if you want to prevent all the NDs (negligent discharges) you tragically hear about, you need to invest heavily in firearm education and provide certification programs (that require reasonable renewal) to demonstrate you will be a safe and diligent owner. a certain portion of gun owners will argue this is another way for a tyrannical government to keep firearms out of the hands of citizens. i won't.
no one will argue the concept of right to self preservation, but it seems like many people are totally fine with taking away the most effect tool with which you can accomplish that.
i hate to draw such an analogy but it's probably the easiest way to explain it. knee-jerk gun legislation is akin to DRM vs piracy. all you're doing is punishing the people who legally abide the law, those who don't won't feel any impact.
as for mass shootings, i have no solution to that. an effective weapon makes it far to easy against an unarmed populous, but i won't pretend the solution is to have everyone open carry. i like living in a world where i can walk around without worrying about being shot.
|
What people also seem to grossly overlook is that even though you might be able to stop a killer going on a rampage eventually with everyone packing, he will still take alot of people with him before he goes down. People who are unaware of the situation, people who are too slow to react, people who get caught in the crossfire. I think most mass murderers have a pretty good clue that they're not going to survive what they're doing, so they're just trying to take as many people as possible with them. Armed or unarmed, the casualties will be high.
For instance, the lovely argument some people of the pro gun movement make is that the attack at Bataclan could've been 'prevented' or 'kept at a minium cost' if gun control wasn't so strict in France. However, who the fuck is going to pay attention to a few men coming from the side randomly opening fire? They're in a dark place, rocking out to the band they came to see. Sure, there might've been retaliation after the initial firing, but everything scenario that comes after that other than what happened is pure speculation and not based on truth whatsoever.
I don't understand this comment. Statistics have already shown that per 100k people shooting happen alot more in the US than anywhere else.
|
If America wants to look at stopping crazy bastards from shooting up places, they may want to start with the "crazy" part. A gun is just a tool. Yes, it's a tool that's made to kill things, but the bigger concern is that people actually want to go on these rampages, not that they're able to because of guns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
