Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[driveway]

Rifles of any kind are not the problem when it comes to gun violence, and any efforts targeting rifles, rifle accessories, or categories of rifle are a big fat waste of time and energy on the part of anti-gun advocates.

Handguns are the problem. The solution is obviously banning and confiscating them, but since the Founding Fathers were so clearly divinely inspired when they allowed the Holy Spirit to write the Constitution through them, that's a big fat pipe dream.

Some stats: 2011 handgun murders - 6,220, 2011 rifle murders - 323, 2011 murders with fists, hands, feet, etc. 728.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I think the notion that one side's fear mongering is any more unethical than the other side's fear mongering is laughable. How about we hold everyone to a higher standard.

Sheesh.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I think the notion that one side's fear mongering is any more unethical than the other side's fear mongering is laughable. How about we hold everyone to a higher standard.

Sheesh.

Sure, but the likely outcome of one sides fear mongering is more dead people and the likely outcome of the other sides fear mongering is less dead people.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Sure, but the likely outcome of one sides fear mongering is more dead people and the likely outcome of the other sides fear mongering is less dead people.

Oh! Well let's get as unethical as possible, as long as it will save lives.

This is part of the problem. There is no integrity on either side of these debates anymore (I'm not talking about us in this forum). Both sides will lie to try and get what they want. Just because you believe one side's lie is altruistic with its intent doesn't make it ok.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Oh! Well let's get as unethical as possible, as long as it will save lives.

This is part of the problem. There is no integrity on either side of these debates anymore (I'm not talking about us in this forum). Both sides will lie to try and get what they want. Just because you believe one side's lie is altruistic with its intent doesn't make it ok.

Well, my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

That said, I don't think there is an equivalency in the disenguniousness you're talking about. The pro-gun lobby often lies about statistics, panders to the lowest common denominator, buys off politicians and encourages a culture of fear. It's been shown that the result of their efforts not only results in more dead people but also the erosion of civiilization.

The pro-regulation side sometimes engages in exageration. All for the purpose of seeing less people killed.

Of course, there are extreme outliers on both sides. But there are more of them and they are generally more extreme on the pro-gun side.

[Displaced Flames fan]

You say your comment was tongue in cheek, yet you pretty much just said that as long as you agree with an argument a lack of integrity is ok.

I don't accept that in my world.

[Red Slinger]

Suggesting that both sides are fear mongering was tongue-in-cheek.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by driveway

Rifles of any kind are not the problem when it comes to gun violence, and any efforts targeting rifles, rifle accessories, or categories of rifle are a big fat waste of time and energy on the part of anti-gun advocates.

Handguns are the problem. The solution is obviously banning and confiscating them, but since the Founding Fathers were so clearly divinely inspired when they allowed the Holy Spirit to write the Constitution through them, that's a big fat pipe dream.

Some stats: 2011 handgun murders - 6,220, 2011 rifle murders - 323, 2011 murders with fists, hands, feet, etc. 728.

Honest & serious question:

If rifles are not problem (auto, semi-auto, assault, etc) then why are semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15 allowed (in most states), but a fully auto assault rifle like the M16 is completely banned (in all states)? Do you agree that the M16 should be banned, or is than an infringement on rights?

In my mind, a semi-auto AR-15 is just as dangerous to public safety as the M16, since only the rate of fire is different. Lo, some people would claim the AR-15 is MORE dangerous since there are claims that auto weapons with the "3 round burst" are harder to control/aim.

If banning an M16 is not an infringement on rights, why not ban the AR-15 as well?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Honest & serious question:

If rifles are not problem (auto, semi-auto, assault, etc) then why are semi-auto rifles such as the AR-15 allowed (in most states), but a fully auto assault rifle like the M16 is completely banned (in all states)? Do you agree that the M16 should be banned, or is than an infringement on rights?

In my mind, a semi-auto AR-15 is just as dangerous to public safety as the M16, since only the rate of fire is different. Lo, some people would claim the AR-15 is MORE dangerous since there are claims that auto weapons with the "3 round burst" are harder to control/aim.

If banning an M16 is not an infringement on rights, why not ban the AR-15 as well?

If I could re: the bold.

The single shot variant of the weapon is more dangerous because it is easier to control and target. I have shot the C-7/C-8 many times. It has either single shot or full auto as options to deliver metal to a target. There is not one situation I can think of where the full auto option is better than the single shot.

[indes]

The thing about rifles is you can't just walk around with an AR-15 on your back. I would guess this is why they aren't used in as many murders, much easier to conceal a pistol. It's not like its that much harder to get a pistol in Canada, which leads me to believe it's a deeply rooted cultural issue rather than a gun law issue. Americans love their guns and I don't believe modifying the laws will change much, if anything.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by indes

The thing about rifles is you can't just walk around with an AR-15 on your back. .

Sadly that is not true. Open carry of rifles is legal in most states. The only states restrictions on open carry of rifles are:

California
DC (not a state, technically)
Florida
Massachusetts
Illinois
Minnesota
New Jersey

Source: http://smartgunlaws.org/open-carrying-policy-summary/

[SportsJunky]

Lets just bring Minnesota up to Canada. They are more like Canadians than some Canadian provinces.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by indes

The thing about rifles is you can't just walk around with an AR-15 on your back. I would guess this is why they aren't used in as many murders, much easier to conceal a pistol. It's not like its that much harder to get a pistol in Canada, which leads me to believe it's a deeply rooted cultural issue rather than a gun law issue. Americans love their guns and I don't believe modifying the laws will change much, if anything.

There was also a deep rooted cultural issue of racism towards black people (there still is). Certain states barred them from attending certain schools, using the same water fountains, going to the same restaurants, etc..

Then people decided that wasn't OK and laws were passed that made it illegal. A lot of people didn't like it, even high-level government officials. There are STILL people who don't like it. But they still can't legally discriminate against someone based on race (or a variety of other factors).

Changing laws may not change the culture as fast as people would want, but it will eventually. And in the mean time, they get to make everyone else safer.

[indes]

I'm just not sure how they could change the law in an effective manner. I agree something should be done but have no idea what they could do short of banning non hunting specific rifles, which they wouldn't do because of the uproar it would cause. I'm just trying to point out that here in Canada I can go buy an AR-15 with my restricted license that is easily obtained. I can drive around with this in my truck;


I'm not sure changing the ease of getting these guns is going to stop the shootings. I think it will have to be done through education and awareness. Again just not sure how this is accomplished.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by indes

I'm just not sure how they could change the law in an effective manner. I agree something should be done but have no idea what they could do short of banning non hunting specific rifles, which they wouldn't do because of the uproar it would cause. I'm just trying to point out that here in Canada I can go buy an AR-15 with my restricted license that is easily obtained. I can drive around with this in my truck;


I'm not sure changing the ease of getting these guns is going to stop the shootings. I think it will have to be done through education and awareness. Again just not sure how this is accomplished.

This to me is the biggest problem. Not that there would be an uproar, but that the threat of an uproar is, for some reason, stopping the people that can do something from doing anything. No doubt there would be a significant backlash, but there also was when they tried to outlaw slavery, and when the civil rights movement came around. JFK sent the freaking national guard to make sure black kids could attend a white university in Alabama. This may be a divisive issue, but someone has to have the balls to stand up and actually try to change it, regardless of what the backlash will be.

Change can be messy and even violent. But sometimes it has to be forced on people.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by indes

I'm just not sure how they could change the law in an effective manner. I agree something should be done but have no idea what they could do short of banning non hunting specific rifles, which they wouldn't do because of the uproar it would cause. I'm just trying to point out that here in Canada I can go buy an AR-15 with my restricted license that is easily obtained. I can drive around with this in my truck;


I'm not sure changing the ease of getting these guns is going to stop the shootings. I think it will have to be done through education and awareness. Again just not sure how this is accomplished.

Pretty much. All the crimes that are committed with gun are already illegal. The money that is spent on trying to restrict access by law abiding citizens would be better spent on mental health awareness/treatment and stopping root causes of crimes. The fact that someone makes the decision to commit a crime is the issue, not the means by which it is committed.

Also, someone will call that an assault rifle soon.

[indes]

Originally Posted by MattyC

This to me is the biggest problem. Not that there would be an uproar, but that the threat of an uproar is, for some reason, stopping the people that can do something from doing anything. No doubt there would be a significant backlash, but there also was when they tried to outlaw slavery, and when the civil rights movement came around. JFK sent the freaking national guard to make sure black kids could attend a white university in Alabama. This may be a divisive issue, but someone has to have the balls to stand up and actually try to change it, regardless of what the backlash will be.

Change can be messy and even violent. But sometimes it has to be forced on people.

I don't really think the slavery analogy is correct, almost opposite imo. Freeing people is a lot different than taking away their freedoms. I'm just trying to point out that it is just as easy to get firearms in many other first world countries and they don't have the same issues.

I think a ban or partial ban or whatever they decide to do will be a bandaid but won't fix much.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by indes

I don't really think the slavery analogy is correct, almost opposite imo. Freeing people is a lot different than taking away their freedoms. I'm just trying to point out that it is just as easy to get firearms in many other first world countries and they don't have the same issues.

I think a ban or partial ban or whatever they decide to do will be a bandaid but won't fix much.

In doing so, they restricted the existing rights and freedoms of the slave owners.

[indes]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Pretty much. All the crimes that are committed with gun are already illegal. The money that is spent on trying to restrict access by law abiding citizens would be better spent on mental health awareness/treatment and stopping root causes of crimes. The fact that someone makes the decision to commit a crime is the issue, not the means by which it is committed.

Also, someone will call that an assault rifle soon.

Maybe, but the reality is you can buy many guns that function exactly like this one, it just looks different. There are also a bunch more like this that are also non-restricted. I really think people believe we have much stricter gun laws than the states, which isn't true, our laws are just a touch more strict. They do get more options of mag size, bullets and guns but the reality is after an 8 hour course an 18 year old can buy a gun here that will do the same thing.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by indes

Maybe, but the reality is you can buy many guns that function exactly like this one, it just looks different. There are also a bunch more like this that are also non-restricted. I really think people believe we have much stricter gun laws than the states, which isn't true, our laws are just a touch more strict. They do get more options of mag size, bullets and guns but the reality is after an 8 hour course an 18 year old can buy a gun here that will do the same thing.

I know, it was a tongue in cheek comment People also don't know there are US states and US laws that are more restrictive than Canada's as well.

I was kicking around the idea of getting one of the Thureon Defense rifles like you posted, but the price of .223 is almost the same as 9mm and much more fun to plink with.