Assualt weapons

[_RockSlider]

Ah, the line-by-line retort. It's like pulling off rounds on an AR-15.

too funny, love it! pew pew pew

we need to distinguish between what's effective for solving for mass shootings and what's right in the bigger picture. I agree, for instance that wiping out access to guns in severe ways will solve the problem of mass shootings, defined loosely, but the cuts will need to be significant enough it raises questions about property rights, way of life, and so on, and so that's where I'm not quite ready to pull the trigger.

Spot on!

In terms of what's effective, it's nearly a tautology, no research required, to say that a mass shooting requires semi-auto/high capacity magazine. How else are you going to pump out enough bullets to make it a mass shooting?

I disagree with this, conditionally. As you note, what is the definition of a mass shooting? Terrorist seem to realize that a good home made bomb is likely the right weapon for one definition of mass killing. For indoors, close quarters mass shootings of say 20 people caught in the building ... nope, these people are hunted out, shot at close range one or two at at time, with Gramps 12 gauge duck gun being the weapon of choice.

Now, Grand Central Station, rush hour, thousands of people (and you don't choose a bomb?) sure, bring along those ar/ak's.

Now which of these types of mass killings do we have a history of in America?

[_maklelan]

K. I'll let you and faqs battle over claims without references as to what has been literally been proven for decades.

I provided several references.

Your next lines doen't seem to "hit the mark" as it were in responding to what you quoted from me. I think had you read my whole post first, and then responded, it would have made for a better discussion.

we need to distinguish between what's effective for solving for mass shootings and what's right in the bigger picture. I agree, for instance that wiping out access to guns in severe ways will solve the problem of mass shootings, defined loosely, but the cuts will need to be significant enough it raises questions about property rights, way of life, and so on, and so that's where I'm not quite ready to pull the trigger. You can't "ban gun culture", and so that means getting from point A to B here includes pissing off a lot of good people like Rockslider and basically mowing them over in a search and seizure scenario.

Nobody is suggesting anything even approximating that.

The question arises then, if the government can get away with that, then what's next on the list?

So quick to the slippery slope?

It would have been better had "gun culture" not happened and if we were like France in this regard, but we aren't, and you can't just say, OK, we're going to be like France now.

So we just throw our hands up and say, "Better get strapped"?

It's going to be a lot of pain to get there.

Yeah, many innocent people will die and many gun-rights advocates will get angry that those lives are consider more important than imaginary rights, but we'll get there, and we'll be better for it.

I know a lot of people with a LOT of guns, all are successful, contributing members to society, who really, really love their guns.

And that's a problem.

One guy has 400 guns. In fact, the guns I think have become a symbol as much as a real hobby, and they only increase in symbol status the more the left-right thing blows up.

So the left should capitulate to the right because otherwise the right is just going to get more irrational? That's basically saying "let us win or we'll hold rationality hostage." That's asinine.

Calling gun hobbyists idiots and morons -- good luck on solving the problem that way.

So where can I read your reprimand of the gun nuts who call the left idiots and morons?

The whole thing is self-reinforcing because the heated battle makes for great news, and the media has a vested interest in legislation angering the right, and the antics of gun owners angering the left, and both sides are doing what they can to vent, get it off their chest, and piss off the other.

In terms of what's effective, it's nearly a tautology, no research required, to say that a mass shooting requires semi-auto/high capacity magazine. How else are you going to pump out enough bullets to make it a mass shooting? The problem is, those who are pro-gun legislation are pulled in two direction. One incentive is to highlight the number of mass shootings, which means to lower the number of people killed as much as possible to get an impressive-looking figure, while another incentive is to underscore the problem of semi-auto weapons, and then point to gun owners as unreasonable, and that they can keep their hunting rifles. If killing 2 people is a mass shooting, then clearly, hunting rifles are on the table as a susbtitution good for a mass-shooting weapon. If there is a statistic that shows guns fully capable for being substitutes wouldn't be substitutes for whatever reason, I'm open, but need to be careful about how we compare to other societies. If the institution of mass shooting never developed in society A because society A only has hunting guns, that's different than society B where the institution developed, in part because of its assault weapons, and now we remove the assault weapons. Why would we believe hunting rifles wouldn't be a susbstitute?

I think this article is a helpful corrective to mass shooting measurements:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opini ... eally.html

There are reasonable ways to distinguish assault rifles from hunting rifles.

[_RockSlider]

Please elaborate on this system an how you see it shaving numbers off of that 0.00007 percent margin.

Could you elaborate what this 0.00007 percent margin is?

Mak follows this stuff closely (I haven't for years, not sure why I piped up now) tells us that France has 3 in 100k gun related deaths, where the US has 10 in 100k ... the difference/margin between the two is 0.00007.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yeah, and the point is that you're not making sense.

Jersey Girl, I'm pretty sure you understood what I was saying. You're not an idiot.

You cherry picked rock's response to my own statement

Cherry picked?? Those were the only two comments I thought deserved a response. I get sick of repeated NRA talking points as if we're just supposed to take them for granted whenever a gun fanatic repeats them.

because now you have a case of the ass for rock like you do Ceeboo and are going after anything he posts.

Don't give yourself that much credit Jersey Girl, I'm not going after your buddies. Rock is the one who inserted himself into the debate as the expert for the opposing view. My refutation of his nonsense has nothing to do with his relationship to you. Same goes for Ceeboo and anyone else you're planning to cheerlead.

You're turning into the liberal equivalent of ldsfaqs.

No one here could mimick ldsfuqs if they tried, and you're just trying to get a rise out of me by saying that; and reassert your support for Ceeboo since he said basically the same nonsense recently. Please explain how in the world anyone, let alone I, have been the Liberal equivalent of fuqs? All I did was refute Rock's claims with hard evidence - something faqs has never done - and all he did in response was demand that I give him a list of weapons that I would "take away from him," (knowing perfectly well I don't know crap about any of the guns he listed) proving he has totally missed the point of what I was saying.

How about deal with that?

What is there to "deal" with in what you just quoted from yourself? "Stiff background checks" and "mental illness" are already on the table but Republicans and the NRA constantly fight against them. Hell, just yesterday they shot down a bill that would have addressed both. Maybe instead of picking a fight with me over nothing, you should ask Rock and the other gun nuts why their side keeps doing this? Illegal immigration has nothing to do with reducing gun violence. That is just a silly talking point racist Republicans like to flaunt because it gives them another reason to hate on immigrants. The fact is illegal immigrants are less likely to engage in criminal activity than US citizens.

I guess this forum, for some, it is just a social exercise and a popularity contest. But I'm not really interested in the tag-teaming and back-rubbing exercises that you like to engage in.

[_Kevin Graham]

Right now you're arguing that other innocent people should be giving up their lives for your very naïve concept of freedom.

No Mak, I'm saying my grandfathers generation (WWI/II), my fathers generation (Korean), my generation (Vietnam) voluntarily (or were forced by our Government) to give up their lives, supposedly for my very naïve concept of freedom.

wow ...

So now you want us to believe, after all the crap you've been saying about personal gun rights and personal freedoms of every day citizens, that all along you've been referring to the military's right to use guns during wars?

Just who do you think is this stupid? You know this isn't what you were arguing.

[_Kevin Graham]

Ah, the line-by-line retort. It's like pulling off rounds on an AR-15.

In my experience with Maklelan, you should take it as a compliment. It means each of your lines are worthy of a response.

[_Kevin Graham]

A few years ago I was about to purchase a gun, despite protests from my wife. The one thing that changed my mind was Maklelan's numerous posts that provided plenty of scientific evidence showing that I would not actually be making my family safer. On the contrary, I would be increasing our risks.

I don't feel like I've made a bad decision.

Just saying.

OK, time for football ... for the next 48 hours.

[_RockSlider]

I think this article is a helpful corrective to mass shooting measurements:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opini ... eally.html
There are reasonable ways to distinguish assault rifles from hunting rifles.

Good heavens did you read your own link?

"For at least the past decade, the F.B.I. regarded a mass shooting as a single attack in which four or more victims were killed. (In 2013, a mandate from President Obama for further study of the problem lowered that threshold to three victims killed.) When we began compiling our database in 2012, we used that criteria of four or more killed in public attacks, but excluded mass murders that stemmed from robbery, gang violence or domestic abuse in private homes. Our goal with this relatively narrow set of parameters was to better understand the seemingly indiscriminate attacks that have increased in recent years, whether in movie theaters, elementary schools or office parks."

Please explain to me what would reasonably distinguish any of my given list of guns in this thread from being a weapon of chose to a mass shooter (given Obama's definition of mass) from simply a hunting rifle?

[_RockSlider]

So now you want us to believe, after all the crap you've been saying about personal gun rights and personal freedoms of every day citizens, that all along you've been referring to the military's right to use guns during wars?
Just who do you think is this stupid? You know this isn't what you were arguing.

Wow, I never before would have put you at faq's level ... but you are either clueless or trolling.

[_maklelan]

A few years ago I was about to purchase a gun, despite protests from my wife. The one thing that changed my mind was Maklelan's numerous posts that provided plenty of scientific evidence showing that I would not actually be making my family safer. On the contrary, I would be increasing our risks.

I don't feel like I've made a bad decision.

Just saying.

OK, time for football ... for the next 48 hours.

I wasn't aware of that, Kevin. Thank you for sharing it.

And I'm looking forward to watching Florida dismantle Alabama