Assualt weapons

[_MeDotOrg]

Can we all agree that:

• The United States has the most relaxed gun control laws of any western industrialized nation.
• The United States has more guns per capita than any other western nation.
• The United State has FAR greater homicide rate than any other industrialized western nation.

But of course if anyone actually makes the argument that guns might have something to do with the problem, we surely must realize that a million problems that must be solved first, like mental illness and terrorism.

Naturally the countries with lower gun homicide rates solved the problems of mental illness and terrorism before taking the irrational and hasty step of talking about gun control legislation.

But, as the NRA will tell you, this is comparing apples to oranges. All these nations are much different than the United States, they say. Fair point, perhaps the US has more in common with the the countries with higher gun murder rates than the western European countries. Here are the nations with a greater homicide gun rate than the US:

Honduras, El Salvador, Jamaica, Venezuela, Swaziland, Guatemala, Colombia, Brazil, South Africa, Panama, Mexico, Paraguay,
Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

So I'm sure the purveyors of 'American Exceptional-ism' can find a reason why our nation has more in common with these nations than England, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc...

...But the ONE Nation that is an apt historical comparison: Nazi Germany, of course. Because as we all know, every country that has restricted gun use has ended in a horrible tyrannical state.

Except all the ones that haven't...

[_RockSlider]

Did you read the link? I don't like the narrower parameters. Categorization as an assault rifle is a pretty reasonable distinction, it would seem to me.

Two kill three people? Dude my single bolt action 30.06 has a six round mag ... damn It rates a double mass killing rating without even reloading. My shotty holds 9 and one in the chamber ... tripple mass murder ratting machine without reloading.

And note your article confirms what I suggested earlier, these "mass shootings" are mostly indoors. That bolt action will be plenty fast enough to take down my helpless prey as I hunt them down one by one, take my time aim and shoot.

A mass shooting per that articles definition does not go down like there are 100 armed an angry people rushing you.



Mak's understanding of a Mass shooting

[_maklelan]

Two kill three people? Dude my single bolt action 30.06 has a six round mag ... damn It rates a double mass killing rating without even reloading. My shotty holds 9 and one in the chamber ... tripple mass murder ratting machine without reloading.

And note your article confirms what I suggested earlier, these "mass shootings" are mostly indoors. That bolt action will be plenty fast enough to take down my helpless prey as I hunt them down one by one, take my time aim and shoot.

A mass shooting per that articles definition does not go down like there are 100 armed an angry people rushing you.



Mak's understanding of a Mass shooting

I honestly don't have any idea what you're getting at. Your comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the concerns I expressed.

[_RockSlider]

True. It doesn't seem that shotguns are a weapon of choice, however. Would they make a good substitute weapon? Restricted to the discussion of "mass shootings" where some guy goes postal, there is a significant downside to a 12 gauge: the recoil. a small a caliber pistol or an assault rifle is great for folks who come unhinged and aren't experienced gun users. It takes a real man to shoot grandpa's 12 gauge, even with a recoil pad.

Agreed, the inexperienced, or ones really making a terrorist statement with the literal poster child of terrorist weapons are going to go this way.

And yea, even 3"mag duck loads are a soft kick compared to a solid slug or double ought.

[_Lemmie]

Thanks for that summary, Lemmie. I didn't want to spend time tackling that little mountain of quotes.

No problem, Jersey Girl. Notice he responded with a further sexist remark.

[_RockSlider]

Themis and Mak

Effective gun control would give us universal backgrounds checks for absolutely all sales that check against a federal registry to which all states are required to submit all their records. It would require a longer waiting period for a license and additional waiting periods for permits for each firearm purchased. That license would be revoked with conviction of certain crimes or certain mental health assessments. It would also legislate certain storage requirements and require reporting if stolen, with a criminal charge if a non-reported stolen gun were used in the commission of a crime. It would require taking safety and skills courses and passing a skills and knowledge test as well as a mental health check. Etc., etc. Most of these things are already in place in places like Canada, Switzerland, Australia, etc., and they work very effectively.

for what it's worth, I have no objections (at this time in my life) about what you have suggested here.

The only reason I would have in my dooms daying past would be over new world order fears.

You've all heard it a hundred times ... I play by the rules, I'm legal, I register, it comes time to ban/take them anyway ... geese down the list we go ... my are gone, those who decide to not comply still have theirs hidden.

I think that's that only valid argument .. that slippy slope that Mak seemed to be poking fun at, and yet scares the hell out of me personally (i.e. see All Gore, VP of America at the time)

and mak, the op title ... assault weapon restrictions/bans. Much like the AP bullet thread the point is its an emotionally feared thing which simply must be stopped, its the obvious gun which availability to it the main cause/result of "mass shootings" (3 people or more).

anyway ... enough is enough ... back to work.

[_Themis]

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.

I'm not sure how this is a good argument for having less gun control. If better gun control reduced the number in half it would still be higher then France but how many lives would that save. If my math is right it would save maybe 15,000-20,000 people each year in the US. That's a seems more then worth it to have better rules even if a certain very deadly weapon we got entertainment value from can no longer be owned and used. I would love to go out somewhere and shoot off my truck mounted machine gun and grenades but maybe my entertainment needs are not a good justification for being allowed to do this. Why do you think you are banned from owning these types of weapons?

[_Gadianton]

Mak,

I read the NYT article, and I agree with it. In fact, the spirit of my posting on this thread precisely matches the mass-shooting definition and focus in the NYT article. In other words, whether or not most 7-11 holdups occur with a pistol isn't my concern. My belief, and I'm willing to change my belief, but as it is at this moment, my belief is that the odd phenomena of "mass shootings" will not disappear with a ban of assault weapons. I read the mother jones article showing mass-shooting statistics. The correlation to semi-auto deep magazines is a near tautology. I believe mass-shooters are open to substitutions, and that there are enough traditional semi-auto guns with deep enough magazines to do the job. I don't totally agree with Rockslider that a bolt-action is great substitute for a 4+ random mayhem objective due to the skill increase required for the shooter; however, a semi-auto .22 rife with hollow points and a 100-round clip for a couple hundred bucks would do just fine. Therefore, I'd 47% go along with a ban on assault weapons to achieve that objective, and I won't cry if the ban comes, however, if I had to put cold, hard cash on a bet of it fixing the problem, I'd bet against it.

[_maklelan]

Mak,

I read the NYT article, and I agree with it. In fact, the spirit of my posting on this thread precisely matches the mass-shooting definition and focus in the NYT article. In other words, whether or not most 7-11 holdups occur with a pistol isn't my concern. My belief, and I'm willing to change my belief, but as it is at this moment, my belief is that the odd phenomena of "mass shootings" will not disappear with a ban of assault weapons.

I don't think anyone here has insisted they will disappear. They will absolutely be significantly reduced, though, if our gun control is informed and effective.

I read the mother jones article showing mass-shooting statistics. The correlation to semi-auto deep magazines is a near tautology. I believe mass-shooters are open to substitutions, and that there are enough traditional semi-auto guns with deep enough magazines to do the job. I don't totally agree with Rockslider that a bolt-action is great substitute for a 4+ random mayhem objective due to the skill increase required for the shooter; however, a semi-auto .22 rife with hollow points and a 100-round clip for a couple hundred bucks would do just fine. Therefore, I'd 47% go along with a ban on assault weapons to achieve that objective, and I won't cry if the ban comes, however, if I had to put cold, hard cash on a bet of it fixing the problem, I'd bet against it.

I think it would be an improvement, but it would have to be a part of a much broader and comprehensive overhauling of our gun control legislation.

[_Gadianton]

I don't think anyone here has insisted they will disappear. They will absolutely be significantly reduced, though, if our gun control is informed and effective.

It would be a weak position on my part to expect disappearance. My position must be that "significantly reduced" would count as a victory and so I must bet against "significantly reduced". I'd love to be wrong, so if the ban happens and these mass-shootings are significantly reduced, I'd be happy; not going to put money on it.