HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Gun-control mistakes

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 03:53 PM

Gun-control mistakes

Mistake #1 is the name. The first part of the mistake is using the term "gun" in naming these type of laws. A name that suggests controlling guns are the aim of a law seems more acceptable to folks who own or plan to acquire guns. At least it sounds more acceptable than "gun owner restrictions". Naming guns also allows those reading that title to subconsciously affix some blame for gun crimes to the gun itself. The second part of the mistake is using the term "control". When have you heard of traffic laws referred to as "car control"? Outside of places like ADX Florence or maybe some concen... er ICE detention centers, the only real control in the US is "self-control".

Mistake #2 is the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that empowers government to form militias. Governments do not have rights. If you think that collectives haves rights, you should probably be okay with Citizens United v. FEC. Governments have powers which are derived from the consent of of governed. The Bill of Rights and the whole Constitution never use the term "rights" for a power or authority held by the government.

Mistake #3 is defending the right of gun ownership only in connection to militia service. In the US in the eighteenth century militia service was a duty. Government had (has) the power of conscription. Some restrictionist folks say that we no longer have a militia nor a militia duty and no longer have a right to own guns in consequence to that. Why would ending a duty cancel a right?

Mistake #4 is working to ban "assault weapons". The military defines "assault rifles" as being capable of both semi-auto and full-auto fire. Civilian semi-auto only rifles are not and should not be called "assault rifles". It's confusing. If your aim is to confuse, you have no credibility. The only meaningful distinction here should be rate of fire. Having a bayonet lug or pistol grip is irrelevant.

Mistake #5 is trying to repeal the PLCAA. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act essentially says that you cannot hold a manufacturer operating within the law responsible for the criminal actions of an owner.

95 replies, 5660 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun-control mistakes (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2019 OP
Eko Aug 2019 #1
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2019 #2
Eko Aug 2019 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2019 #4
krispos42 Aug 2019 #5
Eko Aug 2019 #6
gejohnston Aug 2019 #7
Eko Aug 2019 #8
gejohnston Aug 2019 #9
Eko Aug 2019 #10
gejohnston Aug 2019 #11
Eko Aug 2019 #12
gejohnston Aug 2019 #13
Eko Aug 2019 #14
gejohnston Aug 2019 #15
Eko Aug 2019 #16
gejohnston Aug 2019 #17
Eko Aug 2019 #18
gejohnston Aug 2019 #20
Eko Aug 2019 #22
gejohnston Aug 2019 #24
Eko Aug 2019 #26
gejohnston Aug 2019 #31
Eko Aug 2019 #33
gejohnston Aug 2019 #36
Eko Aug 2019 #27
gejohnston Aug 2019 #29
Eko Aug 2019 #32
gejohnston Aug 2019 #34
Eko Aug 2019 #35
gejohnston Aug 2019 #37
Eko Aug 2019 #38
gejohnston Aug 2019 #41
Eko Aug 2019 #39
gejohnston Aug 2019 #40
Eko Aug 2019 #19
gejohnston Aug 2019 #23
Eko Aug 2019 #25
gejohnston Aug 2019 #28
Eko Aug 2019 #30
Eko Aug 2019 #21
krispos42 Sep 2019 #48
Eko Sep 2019 #50
krispos42 Sep 2019 #59
Eko Sep 2019 #61
krispos42 Sep 2019 #63
Eko Sep 2019 #65
krispos42 Sep 2019 #67
Eko Sep 2019 #69
krispos42 Sep 2019 #72
Eko Sep 2019 #75
krispos42 Sep 2019 #79
Eko Sep 2019 #76
Eko Sep 2019 #51
Eko Sep 2019 #52
krispos42 Sep 2019 #53
Eko Sep 2019 #54
krispos42 Sep 2019 #57
Eko Sep 2019 #58
krispos42 Sep 2019 #60
Eko Sep 2019 #62
krispos42 Sep 2019 #66
Eko Sep 2019 #77
Eko Sep 2019 #64
krispos42 Sep 2019 #70
Eko Sep 2019 #71
krispos42 Sep 2019 #73
Eko Sep 2019 #74
yagotme Sep 2019 #55
yagotme Sep 2019 #56
lark Aug 2019 #42
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2019 #43
lark Aug 2019 #44
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2019 #45
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2019 #46
gejohnston Aug 2019 #47
Eko Sep 2019 #68
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #78
Eko Sep 2019 #80
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #81
Eko Sep 2019 #82
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #83
Eko Sep 2019 #84
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #85
Eko Sep 2019 #86
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #87
Eko Sep 2019 #88
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #89
Eko Sep 2019 #90
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #91
Eko Sep 2019 #93
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #94
krispos42 Sep 2019 #49
Alea Sep 2019 #92
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2019 #95

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 06:51 PM

1. I disagree with mistake #4.

The AR15 was made to be an assault rifle by Armalite. Taking away the full auto does not really change the gun enough to make it a civilian rifle. It was made to kill people period. Might as well say a M60 is ok to have as long as it doesn't have full auto. Its only a 7.62 semi auto rifle then right? If its rate of fire then a single action revolver should be banned before any semi auto pistol or rifle. How does that make sense? If your aim is to confuse, you have no credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 07:45 PM

2. sorry you disagree

I don't really see a revolver firing faster than a AR. The fact that the AR lacks the full or burst fire is the determining factor. On full auto an M16 empties a 30 round magazine in less than 3 seconds. Find me someone who can fire 30 rounds from a revolver in under 3 seconds. I've seen guys empty a revolver in less than 2 seconds accurately but I'd guess there may be 3 or 4 of those folks in country.

A self-defense firearm, when used for that purpose, may also kill people. Is self-defense wrong?
A Ruger mini-14 fires the same ammo at the same rate as an AR. Since it was designed as a ranch rifle, is it less lethal than an AR?

AFAK an M60 is a machine gun. It doesn't fire semi-auto. IMNSHO rate of fire less than 100 rounds per minute should be completely legal for civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 23, 2019, 07:57 PM

3. Of course a single action revolver can fire faster than a semi auto AR.

Plenty of you tube videos out there showing it.
What is a self defense firearm?
What makes the Ruger mini 14 a ranch rifle? How is it different than a AR15? Or did someone just decide to market it as a ranch rifle?
SO what about the M60, if they made it semi auto would it then be ok to have? Its just a 7.62.
Edit to add: Why did you add this "On full auto an M16 empties a 30 round magazine in less than 3 seconds. Find me someone who can fire 30 rounds from a revolver in under 3 seconds." when I clearly said "If its rate of fire then a single action revolver should be banned before any semi auto pistol or rifle."? Why try to compare a full auto to a revolver when we are talking about semi auto? Almost like you moved the goalposts or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 24, 2019, 07:28 AM

4. Immense apologies

First, in #4 I was specifically discussing rifles. I know there are revolver rifles out there but they were not my topic. Sorry about that.

What is a self defense firearm?
That would be a firearm used in self-defense. And let's be specific here, I'm excluding war zone cases of an infantryman defending himself with a BAR.

What makes the Ruger mini 14 a ranch rifle?
You should asking the folks at Ruger that question. You seem to be getting more general about what qualifies as an AR or assault weapon which is part of the problem I was addressing.

SO what about the M60, if they made it semi auto would it then be ok to have? Its just a 7.62.
Aside from there being a bit of variety of 7.62, I'm not seeing the point of the question. Let me be as complete as possible here: I have no problem with civilian possession of rifles in calibers up to .50 which operate in semi-auto. The M60 uses 7.62x51 and that round would be just as deadly fired from any semi-auto rifle. I don't know if the belted ammo will feed correctly in semi-auto.

Why try to compare a full auto to a revolver...
You brought up revolvers in a thread on rifles because I stated my opinion on rate of fire. I mentioned the M16 rate of fire as an example of an assault rifle. IMNSHO rifles firing less than 100 rounds per minute are fine for civilians. Rifles that fire 500 or more rounds per minute can be called machine guns and we have laws already that address machine guns.

You asked, "What makes the Ruger mini 14 a ranch rifle? How is it different than a AR15?"

IMO it isn't very different. I read regular demands from restrictionists to ban the AR but they don't address rifles with traditional wood stocks like the Ruger. In 2016 AG Maura Healey expanded her state's AWB to include what she called copycat weapons. The time and money spent on that in a state where it had been over year since the last murder using any type of rifle at all is a monument to futility. There's a true waste.

In 2017 murders by handguns is 7,032. Rifle murders stand at 403. In 1986 exactly 1 state had unrestricted concealed carry. There are now 16 states with unrestricted concealed carry. All that time one of the favorite anti-gun topics I've found has been the campaign against semi-auto AR and AK styled rifles. IMO AWBs don't do much in the real world other than raise money for politicians on both sides. They do seem to work well at losing votes for state and local Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 25, 2019, 12:02 PM

5. If I asked you for specifics, do you think you could provide them?

I don't. I'm not being snarky, and I could be wrong. But usually "the military designed it" somehow equates automatically to "then civilians shouldn't be allowed to have it". And there's not really any good reasons attached.

It's a rifle. It shoots rifle ammunition. I can walk into a gun store and have a vast array of rifles that will shoot military-issue ammo. It's not like the ammo is nuclear-powered or laser-guided or something. It's copper-jacketed lead attached to a brass case filled with gunpowder.

As originally designed it had three ergonomic improvements over traditional rifle designs:

1. It was made mostly from aluminum and plastic, which made it lighter and more durable.
2. It had a pistol grip, which is more comfortable and natural to the design of the hand and wrist. The traditional inline stock grip, a feature of making the entire stock out of one piece of wood, tilts the wrist forward and makes it harder to absorb recoil.
3. The barrel was in-line with the shooter's shoulder, so that recoil would push straight back into the hollow of the shoulder. Other rifle designs had the rifle barrel somewhat higher than the shoulder; when the gun discharged, the recoil would act to pivot the rifle upwards. This pulls your sights off of the target and makes follow-up shots slower and less accurate.

So why is any of this bad? Why should these advancements be banned? Why do you think you can lock gun design to 1912 levels?


"It's made to kill people". Yes, a goodly number of them are purchased for that reason; it's called "self-defense". I own several 9mm pistols, and yes, I bought them "to kill people". Specifically, if my life or my family's life is threatened. I make no pretense about it. They have flashlights and lasers attached to them and are loaded with premium hollowpoint ammunition. If you break into my house I'll be doing my damnedest to confront you with a gun designed and equipped for self-defense in my hand.

I live in a small house with very little real estate around it; I don't want or need the length and bulk of a rifle to face down an intruder or an attacker, but I understand those that live in larger houses and/or have larger properties.

Trying to address the mass shooting phenomenon as a hardware problem has been a failure and will continue to be so. This is a social problem, not a hardware one. The piles of corpses left in our urban areas (and still are, in some places) are also a social problem: the crippling addiction to illegal drugs and the associated gang and criminal activity left bodies all over the place. That was not reduced by gun-control laws; it wasn't even really affected by them.

It was reduced because of social solutions a generation before, by making birth control widespread and easily available, by making abortions widespread and easily available, and by taking lead out of our air, water, and paint.

Thanks to the culture-war nature of gun-controllers, we have Republicans running things on the federal and state levels (including the judiciary) that are taking away birth control, taking away abortion options, and letting poisons back into our air, water, and food. The crime rate is going to go UP in the red states over the next couple of decades as unwanted, unplanned children with dysfunctional childhoods are going to reach adulthood and become the new criminal class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #5)

Sun Aug 25, 2019, 06:58 PM

6. Here are some specifics for you.

This is the 44 countries with the lowest murder rate. Next to the countries names are an abbreviated description of their gun rights. If it says yes then they have the right to have guns, may issue or may issue restricted means they have no right to have a gun and the government may issue them if they deem it and restricted means it is heavily regulated. Out of 44 only 1 has the right to have guns and it is more restrictive than our rights. Of course correlation does not imply causation but at least I gave specifics where you just state it is a social problem. Feel free to make that case. You can start with this list of 44 countries with the lowest murder rate and correlate with a social problem. I look forward to seeing the results.

44 Algeria- may issue
43 Nauru- no
42 Cyprus - Shotguns only
41 Slovenia- may issue
40 Sweden- may issue restricted
39 Serbia - may issue restricted
38 Oman- may issue
37 Portugal- may issue
36 Denmark - may issue
35 Morocco- may issue
34 Tonga - may issue restricted
33 Malta - may issue restricted
32 Australia -may issue
31 Croatia - may issue restricted
30 The United Kingdom - may issue, shall issue for shotguns
29 New Zealand- may issue
28 Iceland - may issue
27 Slovakia- may issue restricted
26 Greece- may issue
25 Germany- may issue
24 Italy- yes may issue
23 The Czech Republic – may issue restricted
22 Burkina Faso- may issue restricted
21 Poland- yes may issue restricted
20 Luxembourg- may issue
19 Switzerland – yes well regulated
18 The United Arab Emirates- may issue restricted
17 China- may issue, restricted
16 Korea – no
15 Spain - may issue
14 The Netherlands- may issue
13 Norway- may issue restricted
12 Madagascar- may issue restricted
11 Ireland- may issue
10 Indonesia- may issue restricted
9 Bahrain- may issue restricted
8 Austria- may issue restricted
7 Brunei- may issue restricted
6 Japan- may issue restricted
5 Singapore- may issue restricted.
4 Liechtenstein- may issue restricted
3 San Marino- may issue restricted
2 Monaco- may issue restricted
1 Andorra- may issue restricted
43-1
My links for the data.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/murder-rate-by-country/
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to Eko (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 12:16 AM

9. So?

I take it you didn't read "with special permit".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 12:18 AM

10. Can you point out where it says that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 12:28 AM

11. right here.

In Mexico, the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited without an extraordinary permit160 161

and there is one legal gun store in the country.

They also limit the number and caliber.

None of this affects the cartels, nor standard criminals. While many of the weapons, usually automatic, is US origin, they are military weapons stolen or sold to the cartels from the military. There is also evidence that cartels and other criminal organizations make their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 12:31 AM

12. Still dont see "special permit"

Can you bold and underline it for me?
Eko

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 12:47 AM

13. distiction without a difference

It is clear you can't get passed your logical fallacies. Show evidence that these countries lower murder rates have anything to do with gun laws, and not the factors I mentioned before. You can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #13)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 12:51 AM

14. No, I go by details.

And your details suck.
Obviously I did say this "Of course correlation does not imply causation but at least I gave specifics where you just state it is a social problem. Feel free to make that case. "
You are making a straw man argument.
Try again. Eko.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:03 AM

16. Inequality can be a major factor without a doubt,

now correlate inequality with firearm laws and murder rates to make your case.
Thanks,
Eko.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:08 AM

17. why?

there is no evidence firearms laws have anything to do with it. What makes you think gun laws would be any more effective than drug laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:10 AM

18. Because you are making the claim.

It is upon you to show evidence.
Derp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #18)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:14 AM

20. I provided evidence for income inequality,

I made no claim about guns outside no evidence of any correlation, which I also showed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #20)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:17 AM

22. I showed evidence

of correlation as of the lowest 42 countries by murder rate have the most restrictive gun laws by a preponderance of margin. But there is no correlation, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:22 AM

24. Yet you ignored the highest that also have

restrictive gun laws. Cherry picking. On a world wide scale, there is no correlation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #24)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:22 AM

26. So do the top 50 to disprove me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:29 AM

31. nothing can disproven,

that is proving a negative. Can't be done. I showed reasonable doubt, I won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #31)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:30 AM

33. Ok then, show enough data points to make mine invalid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #33)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:35 AM

36. you haven't shown yours to be valid.

Also, it breaks down to even county level. What is true in one part of one state in the US is not always true three counties over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #24)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:25 AM

27. Show the data.

Do the work like I did. By all means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:28 AM

29. you didn't do shit

you found some links to confirm your bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #29)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:29 AM

32. It acutally took me about an hour to do this.

But you wouldn't know since you haven't even tried.
LOL.
Eko.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #32)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:30 AM

34. an hour to do a few links,

impressed. Not. Your hour was wasting my time on petty trolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:35 AM

35. Actually, there are two links I used

one was for murder rate and the other was gun laws by country. I had to look up each country's gun laws on that list of murder rates, 42 different times I had to look at each country's gun laws, of course you wouldn't know as you haven't done anything like that and wont to prove your point.
Eko

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #35)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:38 AM

37. OK,

If you picked the 42 worst, you probably would see the same gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #37)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:40 AM

38. So fucking do it!

Do some fucking work for the things you are claiming instead of sitting there sniping at mine!
I await your work.
Eko.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 07:25 AM

41. I did.

Your claims have no merit and I showed that. Get a life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:45 AM

39. So you admit you are just trolling.

Nice. Get a life buddy.
Eko.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 07:24 AM

40. no you are.

I have a life, and critical thinking skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:14 AM

19. I mean I have already done 2 out of the 3 data points for you.

Just build on that. Is this too difficult for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #19)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:20 AM

23. why should I?

You are the one going "oh shit" when your fallacious cherry picking was pointed out. I doubt anyone saw your small disclaimer. I simply pointed out the flaws in your reasoning.

I'm guessing you didn't read most of the links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:22 AM

25. Feel free to make your case with data points.

Something you have not even attempted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #25)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:27 AM

28. because you haven't provided a

valid argument for yours. To do it properly, it takes time and thought, not tribalism and emotion. The latter is characteristic of the far left as it is the far right, which is why I don't like either one.

Even if either of us did, so what? Their gun laws are about the same in strictness. It also ignores murder by other means. Just because over half of US murders are firearm related doesn't mean that is true anywhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #28)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:28 AM

30. So just make a claim without backing it up.

Whateves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Eko (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 08:35 PM

48. I was referring to defining "assault weapons"

I am fully aware of two facts: #1, we have a per-capita murder rate that is high compared to other first-world countries, and #2, our non-gun murder rate is as high or higher than other countries TOTAL murder rate.

We have fundamental social problems that drive this rate. We have crappy health care (physical and mental), we have crappy access to birth control (including abortion services), we have a crappy social-safety net, we let our water, food, and air be poisoned with brain-altering chemicals, we work too much for not enough money, most of us are never secure in our jobs, and when people turn to chemicals to deal with the stress all this causes, we toss them in for-profit prisons. They don't usually get reformed but they certainly learn how to become better, networked criminals.

Banning "assault weapons", whatever the definition du jour is, won't fix these fundamental truths about our current American lifestyle and society.

30 years ago the crime rate began to plunge. The murder rate was cut in half in less than a decade, and other crimes dropped by a third or more. And it had nothing to do with gun laws or "3-strikes-and-you're out" or the booming Clinton economy. It was because 50 years ago the ability of a woman to control her own pregnancy took a giant leap forwards, with the legalization of abortion and the widespread availability of the Pill and other contraceptives like the IUD. The number of unwanted or unplanned children went way down, and since these were the kids most likely to become violent, career criminals, when the kids born after about 1973 hit adulthood... far fewer of them joined the ranks of the career criminals. And since we cleaned up the air (particularly taking lead out of the air by removing it from gasoline), the kids that were born did not get brain-damaged by toxic airborne lead.

We fixed the problem at the source, not by waging war against hardware. And we can't do that if we're not running things! We can't clean up the environment, or raise the minimum wage, or provide universal healthcare, or control lobbying money, if Republicans are running!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #48)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 09:33 PM

50. I think the inventor of the AR 15 knew one when he saw one.

"At Ares, he also designed the Future Assault Rifle Concept (FARC)."
https://www.stonertactical.com/aboutus.sc

http://weaponsman.looserounds.com/?p=6709

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 06:31 PM

59. I see a .223 rifle.



The actual one Stone prototyped was presumably full-auto, which means it's legally a "machine gun" by US firearms law as applied to civilians. In military firearm terminology it's an "assault rifle", in that it is a shoulder-fired rifle capable of full-automatic fire, and fires a cartridge that is roughly between a bolt-action or semi-automatic "battle rifle" and a pistol-cartridge-firing submachine gun.

"Battle rifles" are generally in the .30 caliber/7.62mm range and fire a more powerful cartridge with one squeeze of a trigger. Examples included bolt-action military rifles like the M1903 Springfield (.30-06), the Mk III Lee-Enfield in .303 British, the K98 Mauser in 7.92x57mm, and the M1891 Mosin-Nagat in 7.62x54R. Semi-auto examples include the M-14, G-3, and FAL rifles in 7.62 NATO. The muzzle energy of these guns was very roughly in the 2,400 foot-pound region

"Submachine guns" are compact full-automatic rifles that shoot pistol ammunition. Popular 9mm examples are the Uzi, the Sten, the MP40, and the MP-5. The American Tommy gun and M-3 were in .45. The muzzle energy of these guns were roughly in the 425 foot-pound range.

In contrast, the .223 Rem (commercial version of 5.56 NATO) runs about 1,300 foot-pounds, and the Russian 7.62x39 runs about 1,500 foot-pounds.


Assuming a semi-automatic version ever went into production, what you would have is a semi-automatic .223 rifle feeding from a detachable magazine. Being a modern design made on modern machinery with modern materials, it would forgo the traditional "blued steel and polished wood" look with durable, low-glare plastics, extensive use of aluminum with a low-glare finish, and improved ergonomics by having a protruding pistol grip or grips. The use of plastic would allow the grips to be molded in an ergonomic fashion to fit the human hand better than a wooden stock, and textured to increase adhesion.

It might have a stock that is quickly adjustable without tools so it can be easily adapted to a person's size, clothing bulk, and shooting position, or one that folds for easy storage and transport. The stock may also have an adjustable cheek rest on it, so the user could line up their eye with the sights easily, quickly, and reliably.

It might be drilled and tapped for mounting a telescopic sight on it, so it could be used at longer ranges than iron sights.

It might have a device attached to the end of the barrel that helps hide the flash of the muzzle from the user during dim conditions, or a device that directs some of the propellant gasses upwards to reduce felt recoil and muzzle jump.

The barrel would probably be as close to being in-line with the shoulder as possible so that the gun would not be torqued up by recoil. The sights would have to be mounted higher above the barrel to compensate.

It might have attachment points on it for a sling, or a bipod, or both.

The magazine you reference is from 1986, so about 20 years later the design would have been updated with accessory rails so that tactical flashlights and laser sights could be attached near the muzzle, forward of the support hand. The drilled-and-tapped holes on the top for telescopic mounts would probably have been replaced with another accessory rail so that other sighting options, like red-dot sights, could be attached in lieu of iron sights or a scope.

The pistol grip would be updated with a storage compartment so that spare batteries for the flashlights, lasers, and red-dot scopes could be stored easily.

Pop quiz... which of these are "assault weapon" features?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #59)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 06:42 PM

61. Any of those are assault weapon features.

How many assault weapons out there cant have those features?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #61)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 06:51 PM

63. Exactly my point.

It's being defined by features that, individually, make perfect sense, yet when combined on a semi-automatic rifle, make it an "assault weapon".

Because, you know, it has "military" features.

Military-spec just means there is a military-issued specification for something. Often times a military spec simply refers to some government or industry spec, or modifies or limits it somehow. Could be for paint, could be for underwear dye color, could be for sealant, could be for lubricating oil, could be for shoeleather.

I work in a place that farms out a lot of work to specialist vendors to apply military-spec coatings. Yay, military-spec helicopter paint. Does that mean that if I paint my car with MIL-PRF-85582 primer and MIL-PRF-85285 paint, I have an "assault car"?

No, it just means I have a car with military-spec paint on it. Not as lustrous, but probably durable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #63)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 06:54 PM

65. LOL.

This

can have all the features this can.

So obviously they are the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #65)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 07:05 PM

67. Well, one is an armed truck, one isn't.

So I don't think your analogy is a good one here. But let's say there was also a machine-gun mount on the bottom one.

How would you feel if the top one was an "assault vehicle" and the bottom one wasn't, simply because the top one has a snorkel? Or running boards? How much sense would it make to say either running boards OR a snorkel are okay, but if you combine them on one vehicle it becomes an "assault vehicle"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #67)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 07:08 PM

69. But your paint analogy was a good one.

How about this, why does someone need a ar15 style rifle as opposed to a shotgun or a Remington model 700?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 07:44 PM

72. Depends on use, I guess.

I don't have one and don't plan on getting one; my place is small and my property is virtually nil. I have handguns instead.

If we assume some sort of self-defense gun, then an AR-15 would give you longer range and more accuracy than a shotgun (although the shotgun is much more powerful per shot), and faster shooting with more capacity than a Model 700 in the same caliber. The AR-15 is also more accessory-friendly. I like accessories; I have a combination flashlight/laser on my handguns. I can see where somebody with a larger property might prefer something with more reach than a handgun or a shotgun. Aside from the standard .223 round, a self-defense AR-15 could be in a variety of handgun cartridges like .45 auto, 10mm auto, .40 S&W, and 9mm Luger.

If we're assuming some sort of hunting gun, then the AR-15 in .223 would be very effective for taking care of varmints like gophers, racdoons, woodchucks, coyotes, etc. 500 yard shots is not out of the question for the .223 on critters. An AR-15 in something heavier, like .243 WSSM, 6.8 SPC or .300 Blackout, would be good for deer or wild boar at short to medium range, maybe 250 to 300 yards. They do go even bigger, with "heavy and slow" cartridges in .458 and .50 caliber that probably wouldn't be good past 150 or 200 yards.

I'm not saying that bolt-action or lever-action gun can't do what an AR-15 does, but the AR-15 offers better ergonomics, high accuracy, extensive accessory and customization options, detachable magazines for easy loading and unloading, and semi-automatic operation.

I could go brush-hunting for wild boar with a lever-action in .45-70, and I could go deer hunting with a Savage bolt-action in .243, and I could defend myself with a 9mm pistol. Doesn't mean they are more effective at the job, though.

Are you saying it's okay to own semi-auto rifles that feed from detachable magazines, as long as they aren't AR-15s?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 11:14 PM

75. So, what you are saying is

that despite the pros of a shotgun (better at close range) and the 700 (much better range) the AR15 is just better at killing things. I agree, that is the problem right there. The shotgun and 700 do a fine job and are more than what you would really need but the AR just does a better job of killing things. Things include people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #75)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 08:33 AM

79. I assumed a .223 Model 700 for equivalency

The 700, and indeed most bolt-action rifle lines, are available in a variety of calibers, a substantial amount of which are physically larger than an AR-15 can accommodate. The AR-15 is a very accurate gun and can shoot deer (or humans, if you prefer) at 500 yards or more, but obviously at any range a more powerful cartridge like the .30-06 or .300 Win. Mag will be several times as powerful at a .223.

And yeah, semi-automatics enable somewhat faster shooting, and detachable magazines enable faster reloading. That's inherent in the design. Nobody is arguing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #72)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 11:15 PM

76. Where did I imply this?

"Are you saying it's okay to own semi-auto rifles that feed from detachable magazines, as long as they aren't AR-15s?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #48)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 09:40 PM

51. This is interesting also.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51U5WqeekzL._SX374_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
"Deadly in double duty, Sporting rifles that take command of today's combat zones"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #48)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 09:42 PM

52. And we figured it out once before so we could do it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #52)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 10:46 PM

53. And it didn't do a damn thing to control either mass shootings or regular murders

Don't forget, the FEDERAL AWB expired in 2004. Many states, including big ones like California, New York, and New Jersey, kept their own bans on the books. Those three states alone are 69M people, or about 20% of the country. Add in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maryland, that's almost 17M more. I assume Illinois has one, and they're nearly 13M people. So those 7 states have in total 100M people, or about a third of the country, still living with an AWB. And more states may have them, I just don't know off the top of my head. Maybe Delaware and/or Rhode Island.

We didn't figure out shit. Gun makers removed "assault" features and kept on selling guns. Connecticut has had an AWB in place continuously since 1992 or so; those kids at Sandy Hook were slaughtered with a rifle that was not an "assault weapon". Does that make you feel any better, knowing that when Major Shitstain was mowing down gradeschoolers, that his rifle didn't have an adjustable stock? Or a flash supressor? Or a bayonet mounting lug? Or a second pistol grip?

And if you're going to link to an article, read the whole thing, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects

Rifles, of which a portion are "assault weapons", account for 4.64% of all gun-related homicides between 1985 and 2017.

Peak "rifle death" occurred in 1989, when there were 798 rifle-related homicides. There were 395 in 2017, and we have nearly a third more people now than in 1989.

I have data, but it's getting late. I've been working on a spreadsheet and making graphs from it. If I have some time tomorrow I'll post them. The numbers above are from my work tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 11:18 PM

54. People disagree with your opinion.

Louis Klarevas is a research professor at Columbia University Teachers College and the author of Rampage Nation, which examines American mass shootings and efforts to prevent the killings. His research looked at mass shootings resulting in six or more deaths, which he refers to as massacres, because they are “the most dangerous and threatening to American public safety.”

He found that deaths in such high-fatality mass shootings dropped by 25 percent under the ban. Massacre deaths involving assault weapons fell by 40 percent, fatalities involving both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines fell by 54 percent. After the ban lapsed, mass shootings and related deaths surged. “We know that during the federal assault weapon ban, we saw some significant reductions in high-fatality mass shootings compared to the decade before the ban and the decade after it expired,” he said. “What we don’t know exactly is the mechanism behind that change.”

A 2019 study looking at the impact of the federal law on mass shooting deaths arrived at a similar conclusion: While new assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were outlawed, mass shooting fatalities were 70 percent less likely than during the decades before and since.
https://www.thetrace.org/2019/08/what-the-data-says-asssault-weapons-bans/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #54)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 05:22 PM

57. Okay, here's the promised data

The first graph is a simple one. It's simply the homicide rate from guns, the homicide rate from not-guns, the total homicide rate, and the ratio of gun to non-gun, which I thought was a bit interesting. Anyway, it's from 1985 to 2017, sources are on the graph. I had to copy-and-paste the data into a spreadsheet year-by-year, which was irritating and time-consuming, but, hey, you're worth it.

The second graph is a bit busier. It's the homicide rate by gun type (as stated by the Federal government; they have 5 classifications) versus the non-gun homicide rate.

I've also added some slightly older graphs I made showing gun sales per capita. The first one is total sales, the second one is broken down by type (handgun, rifle, & shotgun only; I didn't include "other" ), and the third is the percentage relative to 1986. In other words, 1986 is "zero" on the graph, and the vertical axis is in percent above or below 1986 levels. As you can see, despite a surge in sales of handguns and rifles, the homicide rate went DOWN sharply and has remained fairly low.

Looking at the second graph, you can see the purple line. That's rifles, all rifles, including the subset of rifles that is considered "assault weapons" by any definition you care to use. Remember, an "assault weapon" can be either a rifle, a pistol, or a shotgun, but is usually a rifle. What you and other people like you are worrying about and trying to "do" something about is far, far lower than non-gun homicides.

Between 1985 and 2017, 507,388 people were murdered in this country. 15,545 of them were murdered with rifles, or 3.1%.

The highest per-capita rate in my spreadsheet for rifles is .323 per 100,000, which means that one person out of 309,297 in America was killed with a rifle; this was in 1989. The lowest was in 2015, when 1 in 1,495,701 Americans were killed with a rifle.

The worst year for mean time between homicides was in 1993, when there was an average of 23.7 minutes between murders. The best was 2014, with a mean time of 45.3 minutes. Note that the US population had increased by 23% in that time period!

These spree shootings are media-intensive and tragic, but you are talking about spending an enormous effort politically to address the hardware aspect of a social problem! A social problem caused, in large part, by liberals and progressives NOT being in charge to fix the social problems! Or being too centrist to address the root social problems.

More people are deciding to commit spree shootings. More in absolute numbers, and more per capita. It's called "stochastic terrorism". Searches for this term skyrocketed after the recent shooting in El Paso.

Trying to take away hardware is not going to stop them because they don't have logical or reasonable goals. "I was going to shoot up a Cosco, but since I didn't have an AR-15 I decided to stay home and troll the libtards on the internet" is NOT going to be the outcome of an AWB. These stupid bastards will do it anyway. Perhaps with an AR-15 modified to NOT be an "assault weapon". Did you know you can buy pump-action AR-15s now? Or with several handguns; you can buy 4 or five decent-quality handguns for the price of an AR-15, and simply keep drawing a new one each time you shoot one empty rather than reload.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #57)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 05:53 PM

58. In your second graph

You can clearly see homicides by rifles going down from 1994 where prior to that it was remaining level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #58)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 06:41 PM

60. And everything else as well.



The driver of the US homicide rate is first and foremost handguns, then non-firearm weapons like knives, clubs, hand/foot strikes, drowning, strangulation, etc.

Note that handgun and rifle homicides went down even as sales of them when up during the same time period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #60)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 06:47 PM

62. What percentage of mass murders used handgans and non firearm weapons vs semi auto rifles?

Its painfully obvious that it is easier to kill more people with a AR style rifle than with a handgun or non firearm weapons. Because some people in this country love their guns,,,,it is almost impossible to get rid of things like handguns or hunting rifles,,, what we want is to get rid of the ones that can cause the most killing in a single incident. But that is too much for those that "love their guns".
Eko

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #62)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 07:01 PM

66. A decent amount have

Check out the list at the top of the Group; it has the 25 most deadly in it from a Mother Jones list, and also links to the MoJo list directly which goes back about 50 years.

Virginia Tech was done with two pistols, Columbine was done with two shotguns, a pistol-caliber rifle, and an "assault weapon" pistol. I believe most of the deaths from the Aurora movie-theater shooting was done with a shotgun and pistol.

There's more in the list.

Here's the thing about your reply, though... you seem to be waiting for some mass conversion by people that own AR-15-type rifles, some enlightenment that will cause them saw their guns in half and set them on fire. It's not going to happen.

From the "The Trace" article you linked:

Some states that have imposed their own assault weapon bans have also experienced widespread noncompliance. Only approximately 45,000 of an estimated 1 million weapons were registered in New York during the first 18 months its law was in effect. In California, 18 months after legislators expanded its criteria for assault weapons registration in 2016, only about 160,000 of an estimated 1.5 million weapons in the state covered by the law were registered. The state bans have been further undermined by gunmakers who make weapons that comply with the letter of the law, but are functionally similar to the restricted weapons.


People who own something don't like being blamed and punished for stuff they didn't do. And note in that quote that California expanded its definition of assault weapon. Because it's an arbitrary and emotional definition, it can and is being stretched very broadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #66)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 11:31 PM

77. All definitions are arbitrary and can be changed.

I am not waiting for people that own AR's to convert at all. I think we can have bolt action rifles, shotguns and pistols all with small magazines, clips or chambers and cut down on the mass shootings and the numbers of killed at a shooting quite a bit and still keep the "right to bear arms" for protection and hunting. The possibility of using arms to oppose the government if it becomes tyrannical is ludicrous at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #60)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 06:51 PM

64. And that is not true per your graphs.

Firearm sales fell from 1994 to 2004 when the AWB was ended and then it rose again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #64)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 07:14 PM

70. You're right. I stand corrected

Sales peaked in '93, declined for a couple of years, then were flat from about '96 to about '04/'05. Then the began to ramp up, especially when pro-AWB Obama took office, and soared after the Sandy Hook massacre and more gun-controls laws loomed on the horizon.

So if your goal was to decrease sales of new guns, you didn't do so hot.

But, for that same time period, sales per capita were running about 25% above 1986 levels.

Also, during the Obama era, when sales soared as high at 225% above 1986 levels, the murder rate continued to decrease. I think that was what I meant to say originally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #70)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 07:19 PM

71. Gun sales decreased when it was a law then increased when it was ended.

So did homicides by firearms rifles included. It did what it was supposed to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #71)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 07:51 PM

73. That's not quite a logical conclusion, though.

Background checks remained in force; there was no sunset provision on them. They are still in effect now, actually. And banning "assault weapons" didn't mean people couldn't buy stuff rifles, shotguns, or pistols.

Handguns, which were largely unaffected by the ban except for a couple of movie staples like the TEC-9, also followed the general trend. And deaths from handguns also went down.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The homicide rate doesn't drop by thousands per year because rifle deaths went from 700 to 400.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #73)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 11:10 PM

74. Correlation does not mean causation.

But you have yet to make the case that the AWB did not work. All of your work ( and it was awesome work, I have done things exactly like that and I thank you for doing it) did not show that the AWB did not work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #53)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 11:15 AM

55. FYI, IL does not have AWB statewide. Yet. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 7, 2019, 11:23 AM

56. BATFE definition:

Full auto: Fires more than one round per single pull of trigger. Heavily regulated.

Semi auto: One round per single pull of trigger. Regulation: AR=bolt gun. Semi auto's are merely self loading. A double action revolver could be technically considered a semi auto, as one merely pulls the trigger to operate it.

And, to really get your goat, there are many types of full auto weapons that are made in semi auto only, for the collector market. Like the M60. And the 1919. And the Thompson. Etc., et al.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 09:02 AM

42. So what do you recommend to stop the massive killing spree?

Thoughts and prayers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #42)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 01:39 PM

43. Thoughts and some logical reasoning followed with action for sure

I realize this is a political website but not every problem discussed have a completely legislative answer. People do suffer from decision fatigue in that the effort to triage, prioritize, investigate, analyze and formulate answers for problems often leads folks to the 'just make a law and do something' plan. There is a tendency when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Fix holes in the NICS (background check system).
Allow private sellers to access the NICS via law enforcement.
End the war on drugs.
Expand programs like earned income credit to stop folks from turning to illegal activity just trying to feed their families.
Revamp the mental health care.
End most of private health insurance and have a government run and paid system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 03:38 PM

44. I truly like those plans but they wouldn't stop the mass murderers.

Fix holes in NICS is very generic and if universal background checks aren't required and given sufficient time to run, it wouldn't do much. The devil is in the details. drumpf has already said they do background checks, but it's a joke and this could be the same.

Reducing legal magazine capacity, eliminating the ability of civilians to obtain weapons modeled on those they use and almost identical in some cases, limit the ability to purchase multiple guns and tons of ammo within a year (no more than 2 within 24 months?).

Also needed & not mentioned above-
Red flag laws
No person with an active protection order against them can get a gun for at least 1 year after order expires
People on no fly list can't get guns


Other countries also have the issues you listed and they don't have 200+ massacres a year - it's the guns that are the difference and the danger. Again all of the things you mentioned would be very helpful in improving the health both physically and mentally of our country - but we also have to stop the mass murderers in waiting from having such an easy time accumulating an arsenal to kill lots of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 06:14 PM

45. My thoughts are practical and immediate

Trying to pass UBCs will be an uphill battle all the way. Right now a few states have them. Allowing general and free access through the local police or sheriff is something that could happen faster. Give each department some federal dollars to setup the system and an allowance for staffing. UBCs may be workable but at the state level. I believe giving the actual good guys with guns a chance to do something good will do a great deal to give both sides some common ground.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that there were billions of 20+ round mags for various semi-auto rifles in the US. The genie is truly out of the bottle.

eliminating the ability of civilians to obtain weapons modeled on those they use
If you're referring to the guns used by mass shooters, I think just about every type of gun has been used.
limit the ability to purchase multiple guns and tons of ammo within a year
Without have a government run registry, this won't happen. There are maybe 80,000,000 gun owners, more people than those who voted for 45 in 2016. My guess is at least half of those 80,000,000 won't have anything to do with registration. I believe the ACLU is also anti-registration.

Red flag laws have pluses and minuses but I'd consider listening as long as court due process and appeal was part of the package.
The no fly list is problematic because the government won't tell who's on it. It took Ted Kennedy a bit effort, phone calls and flexing to get off of it.

Politicians won't like it but all of these measures should stand alone in their own legislation and not be wrapped in a huge package with other measures related or not.

Other countries are a mixed bag and mostly dissimilar to the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 06:21 PM

46. BTW in the other countries direction

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/homemade-sub-machine-guns-australia-video/
That video is 6 years old. Technology is marching on.

In the US more people are murdered with hands and feet than with rifles:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 26, 2019, 08:16 PM

47. for mass murders,

background checks make no difference. If they passed NICS, it doesn't matter where they get it. It is simply theater.

Competitive shooters buy tons of ammo, especially for Olympics and World Cup. Mass murderers do not.

We don't have that many massacres, and you have to factor in population. How some partisan archive defines "mass shooting" is different than what the FBI calls it. Most of those claimed shootings are gang violence in a few cities. Most countries have the population of some of our cities and do not have our gang problems.

As for "no fly, no buy" and red flag laws. Violates the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments. Simply off the table and should not be considered. None of these even addresses mass murder by other means, which never comes national news even when there are higher body counts.

https://thecrimereport.org/2019/07/24/fox-without-gun-involvement-americans-shrug-at-mass-killing/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #43)

Sun Sep 8, 2019, 07:05 PM

68. So how would that have stopper the Las Vegas shooter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #68)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 06:15 AM

78. So what would have stopped Jeffrey Dahmer?

So what would have stopped Josef Mengele?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #78)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 03:35 PM

80. Ah there it is.

If gun control wouldn't have stopped everything then it is useless. Way too funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #80)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 04:54 PM

81. Sorry, I inferred from that you thought an AWB would have stopped the Vegas shooting

My bad.

I further infer that you think prohibitory laws will prevent crimes.
I argue that empowering the common people to prevent crime will have a greater reward.

As an example I ask you which had a greater effect on reducing drunk driving deaths:
Fines and punishments that have been around for decades or...
The social campaign that emphasized designated drivers and other measures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #81)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 05:04 PM

82. What does Jeffrey Dahmer and Josef Mengele have to do with the AWB?

"I further infer that you think prohibitory laws will prevent crimes. "
Yes, they do that. When you make something illegal that thing goes down. Are you saying the laws dont have an effect? If we got rid of speed limits would people not speed? If we got rid of laws prohibiting just anyone to have a machine gun would less people have machine guns?
"I argue that empowering the common people to prevent crime will have a greater reward."
That's a nice argument, but it is just your opinion. I think doing both will have the greater reward.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #80)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 05:04 PM

83. BTW, I never said nor do I believe...

"If gun control wouldn't have stopped everything then it is useless."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #83)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 05:06 PM

84. Then why bring up Jeffrey Dahmer and Josef Mengele?

What was the purpose in that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #84)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 08:21 PM

85. Please reread the OP

Laws do not prevent crime. If they did, people wouldn't be murdered.

Bad things that are worthy of punishment are made illegal. The purpose of the law is to serve as criteria for conviction. Secondarily it serves as a guide for behavior. Of those who kill, I suggest that most do what they can to not be caught; some have a suicide endgame planned. I admit there is a really small percentage who may think to themselves, 'I really want to kill my rat bastard mother-in-law but, since it's illegal, I won't.'

I believe most of us are normal folks who wouldn't just go into a rage and head for tower with a sniper rifle. We would make good allies. OTOH, if just want to brand folks who are okay with owning an AR as enemies, not to be trusted... Why should we help you?

I brought up Dahmer and Mengele as illustrations of the pointless pursuit of trying to find ways to prevent crime rather than just empowering honest folks with knowledge and the ability to just do the right thing today.

Bans make enemies. As Machiavelli said, "When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #85)

Mon Sep 9, 2019, 08:36 PM

86. Of course laws prevent crimes.

Look at the states that have decriminalized marijuana, its use has gone up since then. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/mar/25/john-hickenlooper/did-spike-marijuana-use-colorado-after-legal/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #86)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 11:06 AM

87. And this goes to further prove my point...

...the only real control is self-control.

Comparing murder with smoking weed is kind of like comparing rape with cutting the lawn after curfew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #87)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 05:56 PM

88. Nope,

This is what you said. "Laws do not prevent crime. " You did not say murder laws do not prevent crime, you said laws. If you want to move the goalposts that's fine, just be honest about doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #88)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 08:29 PM

89. Big fat hairy deal

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! GOALPOST IN MOTION ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

Laws defining evil acts as illegal do not prevent the evil acts/crimes.

[Side note: We weren't talking about smoking pot, jaywalking or other victimless crimes. People don't use a gun in the act of smoking weed.]
As you were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #89)

Tue Sep 10, 2019, 11:10 PM

90. LOL, way too funny buddy.

You just keep moving those goalposts to convince yourself that your argument has merit and then when called out on it act like a toddler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #90)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:33 AM

91. Just accept what you apparently think and own it

You're part of the group that for the last 25+ years has worked to make owning the most popular type of rifle in the country illegal. This is the kind of work that builds brick wall around our party to keep out folks that are primarily RKBA voters or single issue voters. The thinking folks out there who've been voting Republican just over guns have had a few years to see the results of having the orange menace stamp his feet, prevent progress, spread poverty, create orphans and convince the world that the US is somewhere between a laughing stock and a sworn enemy. Some could vote BLUE next year.

I work as a consulting engineer. I've worked in the South, the Midwest, the Los Angeles area and a variety of places on the East Coast. Over half of the people I've worked with disfavor an AWB. These folks are not rednecks with an unfortunate ratio of teeth to tattoos. These are college educated professionals who design and certify everything from medical equipment to commercial aircraft. Some of these folks have concealed carry permits including a woman I work with now in the Philly area.
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #91)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 06:33 PM

93. Just accept that you cant help but Strawman me.

I'm sure a consulting engineer knows what that is so I wont explain it. If you want to know what I think you can ask for it instead of assuming buddy. Ive worked in the north east, north west, south east, and south west, Lived in 14 states and moved over 40 times in my life, so what? Your ad populum argument means nothing. You can cloak you beliefs, your need to have a gun with patriotic sayings all you want and it dont mean squat other than you have no real argument and resort to logical fallacies to make your case.
“The world dread nothing so much as being convinced of their errors.”
― William Hazlitt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #93)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:20 PM

94. Well, I don't own a gun

Sorry I don't measure up to your esteemed standards. I don't really care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 08:48 PM

49. I fear we will not be able to.

This is now a social phenomena. There is no organization to infiltrate and dismantle, no leaders to arrest and try. There is no headquarters to occupy, no chain of command to disrupt. Yeah, there are various influences from the media and internet, but it's indirect.

There are, quite simply, more people per capita who are deciding that a great way to die is a lone-wolf blaze of "glory" against some "enemy", fighting for some fictional "noble cause".

Treating the root causes of this means a sustained progressive advance on multiple fronts, on the order of a generation.

I don't see how focusing on banning specific hardware is going to stop the phenomenon, but I can easily see how it it would prevent progressive advance. How much did Dubya win Florida by? How much did Cheetolini lose the popular vote by, but still "won"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 05:09 PM

92. Mistake #6

Causing gun owning Democrats to stay home on election days, or driving them out of the Party altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alea (Reply #92)

Wed Sep 11, 2019, 07:24 PM

95. I'm sure if I search...

...the whine cellar (https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262) I'd turn up something that claims:
A- those aren't real Democrats or
B- that never happens



How's life on campus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread