LDS Teenager Murdered at her High School in Parkland

[_Gadianton]

The assault rife is really no more lethal than many guns not on the list you provide above. Looking on your list a semi auto 45 is legal, and a semi auto Uzi banned? That makes no sense at all... and just shows one of two things, either the folks authoring the bill are ignorant, or that they are smart and just pandering to a ignorant constituent.

It's a complicated problem that involves more than base utility for killing, although that is the most important consideration. As I have said, there is enough means for substitution that outlawing certain body styles probably won't make a difference, and the increased utility of certain features like a forward grip don't seem to be taken advantage of. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the ease of converting to full auto doesn't seem to be taken advantage of either so far. That's why I concluded magazine capacity is a good start.

"I want to give you an example of my point that a friend pointed out to me the other day. There is a ban, and I am not sure if it is state wide or national, that one has to put a "thumb guard"..."

It's a good point. A lot of legislation is just whatever the legislator can get through to look like he's making a difference. This is a reality for anything. Engine limiters on high performance cars. Blade guards on table saws. But whether the law makes a material difference or not to public safety is one thing, whether the law is a step in the direction in a campaign to create crippling restrictions is another.

People have been killing others, indirectly or directly since time began, and will continue to do so...and as capabilities to do so it will still happen (by the way this statement will be blow out of context). We need certain gun controls,

So far your arguments are 1) many controls don't make a difference 2) many controls are intended to slowly get rid of all guns. Now you say we need some controls. Can you give me an example of a gun control that we need, that 1) makes a difference, 2) wasn't just made to serve a broader campaign of getting rid of all guns?

I get that, we also need to draw a line...and where that line is, is the real argument. So doesn't it make sense first, to make a clear line? Making a law about how many rounds a clip can hold is not the real issue, the issue should might be...semi auto, verses non semi auto?

We can make a relatively clear line by talking about the features that make mass killing practical. While there is not a single feature, however, I agree banning all semi-autos would make a bigger difference than restricting magazines. If you can sell that to your right-wing friends, then I think as a nation we'll all be willing to step forward together. My suggestion of magazine capacity was meant to be realistic.

The only other option, which the NRA might argue is the intent, is that it is just one more step to the banning of all guns...which is a reality of many folks...we can't as you say..." take that off the table."

.....

In your opinion, and please be honest with me here...what is the end goal of the vast majority of gun control advocates, in regards to the guns, people dying by gun violence is a given that nobody wants?

As you say, it's a given that nobody wants people to die by gun violence, therefore, it's pretty obvious the end goal for most people is to restrict guns such that people don't die by gun violence, starting with mass shootings. Let's unpack the question though, because I feel like you want me to say that gun control advocates really want to get rid of all guns, but if the reason why is to stop people from dying, then QED -- many control advocates would like to get rid of all guns so people stop dying by guns. Many Alcohol control advocates would like to see all alcohol removed from the shelves so that people stop dying by drunk drivers. The reality is that such advocates aren't going to get their way, nor is there any reason to believe that by compromise, we're on a slippery slope to eradicating all guns (or alcohol).

But I think I'm missing something still. If there is another reason besides wanting to stop folks from getting killed by gun violence, then what is that? I feel like you want me to say that what gun control advocates really want to do is disarm America so that liberals can take complete control over everyone's life and they can't fight back. If I'm right, then is that what Dr. W, Darth J, and Meadowchick really want -- they're not so worried about the deaths, that's a given for everyone, what they're really after is controlling society and taking away religious freedom and so on? I'm not totally meaning to be sarcastic here, the only motives I've ever heard are to either stop killers from killing to to weaken society for more government control.

I'm going to take a break, but I'll follow this up with a post about why, if I were a right-wing Christian, I'd go start with the magazine restrictions and see if this helps.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I just want it on record that I want to get rid of all guns outside of some heavily restricted cases for sportsmen and of course law enforcement.

I'm not shy about it. I'm not going to ever pussyfoot around the issue. I want 'em all gone.

- Doc

[_Markk]

I just want it on record that I want to get rid of all guns outside of some heavily restricted cases for sportsmen and of course law enforcement.

I'm not shy about it. I'm not going to ever pussyfoot around the issue. I want 'em all gone.

- Doc

I appreciate your honesty...

Military also I assume? What about private security for those that can afford it?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I just want it on record that I want to get rid of all guns outside of some heavily restricted cases for sportsmen and of course law enforcement.

I'm not shy about it. I'm not going to ever pussyfoot around the issue. I want 'em all gone.

- Doc

I appreciate your honesty...

Military also I assume? What about private security for those that can afford it?

I mean, there are just going to be exceptions here and there. Most military have exactly zero need for a weapon outside of their duty weapon, and even then it's only used during the occasional training exercise. I'd have very few exceptions to having weapons floating around in society. I don't think private security should be armed, but again my level of empathy for people who want guns for whatever reason is pretty low.

#thoughtsandprayersforgunenthusiasts

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

https://agingmillennialengineer.com/201 ... ke-guns-2/

“Screw you, I like guns.”

America, can we talk? Let’s just cut the crap for once and actually talk about what’s going on without blustering and pretending we’re actually doing a good job at adulting as a country right now. We’re not. We’re really screwing this whole society thing up, and we have to do better. We don’t have a choice. People are dying. At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US. If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So let’s talk.

I’ll start. I’m an Army veteran. I like M-4’s, which are, for all practical purposes, an AR-15, just with a few extra features that people almost never use anyway. I’d say at least 70% of my formal weapons training is on that exact rifle, with the other 30% being split between various and sundry machineguns and grenade launchers. My experience is pretty representative of soldiers of my era. Most of us are really good with an M-4, and most of us like it at least reasonably well, because it is an objectively good rifle. I was good with an M-4, really good. I earned the Expert badge every time I went to the range, starting in Basic Training. This isn’t uncommon. I can name dozens of other soldiers/veterans I know personally who can say the exact same thing. This rifle is surprisingly easy to use, completely idiot-proof really, has next to no recoil, comes apart and cleans up like a dream, and is light to carry around. I’m probably more accurate with it than I would be with pretty much any other weapon in existence. I like this rifle a lot. I like marksmanship as a sport. When I was in the military, I enjoyed combining these two things as often as they’d let me.

With all that said, enough is enough. My knee jerk reaction is to consider weapons like the AR-15 no big deal because it is my default setting. It’s where my training lies. It is my normal, because I learned how to fire a rifle IN THE ARMY. You know, while I may only have shot plastic targets on the ranges of Texas, Georgia, and Missouri, that’s not what those weapons were designed for, and those targets weren’t shaped like deer. They were shaped like people. Sometimes we even put little hats on them. You learn to take a gut shot, “center mass”, because it’s a bigger target than the head, and also because if you maim the enemy soldier rather than killing him cleanly, more of his buddies will come out and get him, and you can shoot them, too. He’ll die of those injuries, but it’ll take him a while, giving you the chance to pick off as many of his compadres as you can. That’s how my Drill Sergeant explained it anyway. I’m sure there are many schools of thought on it. The fact is, though, when I went through my marksmanship training in the US Army, I was not learning how to be a competition shooter in the Olympics, or a good hunter. I was being taught how to kill people as efficiently as possible, and that was never a secret.

As an avowed pacifist now, it turns my stomach to even type the above words, but can you refute them? I can’t. Every weapon that a US Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings. That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same, and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target rifles. They are people killing rifles. Let’s stop pretending they’re not.

With this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime? And why wouldn’t they? High capacity magazine, ease of loading and unloading, almost no recoil, really accurate even without a scope, but numerous scopes available for high precision, great from a distance or up close, easy to carry, and readily available. You can buy one at Wal-Mart, or just about any sports store, and since they’re long guns, I don’t believe you have to be any more than 18 years old with a valid ID. This rifle was made for the modern mass shooter, especially the young one. If he could custom design a weapon to suit his sinister purposes, he couldn’t do a better job than Armalite did with this one already.

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one. We simply don’t need these things in society at large. I always find it interesting that when I was in the Army, and part of my job was to be incredibly proficient with this exact weapon, I never carried one at any point in garrison other than at the range. Our rifles lived in the arms room, cleaned and oiled, ready for the next range day or deployment. We didn’t carry them around just because we liked them. We didn’t bluster on about barracks defense and our second amendment rights. We tucked our rifles away in the arms room until the next time we needed them, just as it had been done since the Army’s inception. The military police protected us from threats in garrison. They had 9 mm Berettas to carry. They were the only soldiers who carry weapons in garrison. We trusted them to protect us, and they delivered. With notably rare exceptions, this system has worked well. There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in society in general, probably because soldiers are actively discouraged from walking around with rifles, despite being impeccably well trained with them. Perchance, we could have the largely untrained civilian population take a page from that book?

I understand that people want to be able to own guns. That’s ok. We just need to really think about how we’re managing this. Yes, we have to manage it, just as we manage car ownership. People have to get a license to operate a car, and if you operate a car without a license, you’re going to get in trouble for that. We manage all things in society that can pose a danger to other people by their misuse. In addition to cars, we manage drugs, alcohol, exotic animals (there are certain zip codes where you can’t own Serval cats, for example), and fireworks, among other things. We restrict what types of businesses can operate in which zones of the city or county. We have a whole system of permitting for just about any activity a person wants to conduct since those activities could affect others, and we realize, as a society, that we need to try to minimize the risk to other people that comes from the chosen activities of those around them in which they have no say. Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of dead people.

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like BS? It is BS, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “Screw you, I like guns”.

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse.

“But we’re supposed to protect against tyranny! I need the same weapons the military would come at me with!” Dude. You know where I can get an Apache helicopter and a Paladin?! Hook a girl up! Seriously, though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t. One grenade, and you’re toast. Don’t have these illusions of standing up to the government, and needing military style rifles for that purpose. You’re not going to stand up to the government with this thing. They’d take you out in about half a second.

Let’s be honest. You just want a cool toy, and for the vast majority of people, that’s all an AR-15 is. It’s something fun to take to the range and put some really wicked holes in a piece of paper. Good for you. I know how enjoyable that is. I’m sure for a certain percentage of people, they might not kill anyone driving a Formula One car down the freeway, or owning a Cheetah as a pet, or setting off professional grade fireworks without a permit. Some people are good with this stuff, and some people are lucky, but those cases don’t negate the overall rule. Military style rifles have been the choice du jour in the incidents that have made our country the mass shootings capitol of the world. Formula One cars aren’t good for commuting. Cheetahs are bitey. Professional grade fireworks will probably take your hand off. All but one of these are common sense to the average American. Let’s fix that. Be honest, you don’t need that AR-15. Nobody does. Society needs them gone, no matter how good you may be with yours. Kids are dying, and it’s time to stop damned around.

[_Starbuck]

The thing I don't understand is why this thread is still in the terrestrial forum.

Some of you need to get your terms correct. This isn't a firearms forum so it's understandable.

An assault rifle

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

An AR 15, while it makes some of pee your pants, is not an assault rifle.

An assault weapon, (notice the difference here, it's important) is a term made up by the media and politicians to make scary black rifles seem more scarier.

Clip vs magazine:



Statistically speaking, being a victim in a mass shooting of any kind is low and doesn't rise to the importance of my rights being given up.

As for gun control it's going to be hard to convince me to give up my right to keep and bear arms, including infrigments on scary black rifles. Until the 2nd amendment is repealed (highly unlikey) none of you get to decide what I chose to defend my family and home with, and if I decide to use a scary black rifle because I can, too bad.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thoughts and prayers @ Starbuck.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Until the 2nd amendment is repealed (highly unlikey) none of you get to decide what I chose to defend my family and home with, and if I decide to use a scary black rifle because I can, too bad.

The second amendment doesn't preclude restrictions on types of weaponry people may personally own. There currectly are restrictions on what you choose to defend you family and home with. The second amendment does not allow people to keep and carry any weapon for any purpose.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 36,252 people died and 84,997 people were injured in 2015 from firearms (the most recent year data is available), meaning over 100,000 are shot annually, whether by assault, accident, or suicide. The CDC estimates almost a million people were injured or killed from firearms between guns from 2006 to 2014, the years the study took place.

That's billions of dollars spent on treating something that's totally preventable instead of, say, building a national flood control and water distribution network as we head into global warming weather cycles.

*shrugs*

I dunno. Guess I'm just a 'big picture' kind of guy..

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

What if we start with a ban on bump stocks?

A previous attempt on a ban failed. What about now?