Total posts: 3,383
-->
@Greyparrot
it's a slow day at work :)
it should be obvious that none of the designs of the prototypes are being used afaik but none of the conservative outlets seem to care, nor are there protests, angry letters etc because of that fact. The crazy leftist try to point that out and make jokes etc with little to no reaction. There's a good reason as to why, because SOMETHING is being done which is far better than the usual nothing that gets done on this issue.
though impractical, I still love the idea of a canal from sea to shining sea, huge boost to the economy, jobs and pay.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
There is a crisis at a location where there is already a barrier.The problem is not the lack of a wall, as no one is crossing the wall.
if they can easily go around, under or over it then yes lack of a wall is a problem and therefore there's no need to cross it in some locations.
so it's really 1 of 2 things, either the current barrier isn't as adequate as it should be or barriers are inadequate. If a better barrier is put in place then it would function better than what is already there, yes? Or no matter the barrier they don't work at all.
it is my opinion that the people who actually do order patrol work know how effective barriers are currently and how effective a new design could be. The ones actually doing the job probably know best imo.
"Claim that the wall wasn’t intended to solve all problems"
nothing can do that, it's not an all or nothing kind of thing imo, all anyone can hope to do is mitigate the problem
problem: people are crossing the border illegally, what can be done to deter or reduce their chances of success? physical barrier, patrols, technology etc.
consider wealth people like Pelosi who have walled estates, do they stop everyone who wants to get over them or into the property? Nope, neither do fences, but they can slow someone down enough to alert security or authorities. Just like the guy who jumped the white house fence.
personally I would do wide and high rolls of concertina wire, it's cheap, quick and easy to replace and pretty effective in slowing people down. obviously this does not remove the need for patrols and other methods of surveillance, some of which I have posted already like removing the incentives for people to come here illegally, but I digress.
Because of the political climate we are at a point on border security where it's all or nothing. IMO Trump selected the expensive designs as a bargaining tool and would have settled for something cheaper, he said metal slats were fine if you remember. But none of that happened so here we are.
picture also
and more here in a video
now let's not get all pedantic about what is a wall vs a fence because that really doesn't matter, people want border security that is better than what is currently there, and that seems to be happening in some places.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
they have become extremist
btw
you were right and I only have myself to blame LOL
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
the words in the video was their own, if that lead you to believe I said that it is a crisis, just to be clear none of those people in the videos were me
people don't need to cross the wall when they can walk through the water as you stated in some locations, so yes it's not adequate.
You, and Trump are irrationally focused on one part of the solution, without paying any attention to the complexity of the actual problem, the causes and responses involved -
go back and reread you'll find that statement as funny as I do, if you bothered to read my last sentence you even quoted, do you no understand what it means?
here I'll post it again just in case
I don't think anyone believes a wall is the end all be all to the problem, it's an onion for sure.
you see an onion has many layers, you peel them and there's still many more layers, this is an analogy used to describe complex things since you must go through many layers to get to the center, sometimes call heart of the issue,problem, whatever. Anything else I can help you out with?
talk about dishonest idiot LOL
I'm not giving up as you put it, i'm just not interested in your childish behavior which you are unable to control it seems.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
you obviously take this and this site far more serious than I do, your attempts to belittle and insult in the manner that you do fall on deaf ears, have a nice life.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Conservatives don't take Trump literally, but they do take him seriously.Wingnut Leftists don't take Trump seriously, but they sure as hell take him literally.
that is 100% true couldn't have said it better myself, simple, plain, true explanation.
Remember during an interview he said he would call it slats, whatever the Democrats wanted so long as they approved the funding?
what is going on and what the obstructionist are doing (unwittingly) is forcing his hand to shut down the border and or severely tighten immigration in all forms until things can be managed, which if enough pressure is taken off of I.C.E. they can then focus on the illegals in the country and start deporting them. If states and cities won't turn over the violent illegals they will just have to enforce the law on which ever illegals they find. Any ability for I.C.E. to prioritize violent criminals etc is taken away by states and cities that won't cooperate with them
Created:
-->
@sadolite
exactly, I don't believe the b.s. that they are a net benefit to the economy and have seen plenty of examples where that is not true, including having translators for schools, tax payer funded entitlements, medical care etc. The wall is but one of many things needed, I say wall (as does Trump) but it's a generic term for an effective barrier.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
it is your claim that it's not being built, still waiting for the evidence.
fence he’s building clearly isn’t solving the problem he claimed it would.
show me a link where he ever said a wall/fence was all that was needed
Your response is that Democrats approved building the fence that got built and you now claim isn’t even working.
no, my response was what is in place they found inadequate, until now.
This is your problem, you support someone with an overly simplistic solution to solve your problems: but neither of you grasp the details or the complexity of the problem your trying to solve.
go back and reread you'll find that statement as funny as I do, if you bothered to read my last sentence you even quoted, do you no understand what it means?
here I'll post it again just in case
I don't think anyone believes a wall is the end all be all to the problem, it's an onion for sure.
you see an onion has many layers, you peel them and there's still many more layers, this is an analogy used to describe complex things since you must go through many layers to get to the center, sometimes call heart of the issue,problem, whatever. Anything else I can help you out with?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
there's plenty of examples how they are organized, forming groups knowing the patrols can't catch everyone, or turning themselves in knowing how the system is bogged down, ineffective etc and they will be released into the heart of the country to disappear if they wish. This is no longer random people fleeing persecution etc, this is an organized money making scheme. These people willfully put themselves in a position to be used, taken advantage of etc as they know, if done correctly in the end they will be set. Look at like an investment, 4k to a smuggler for free shelter,food, education, work under the table, support family in the home country etc, it's a scam on the tax payers.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Huge reforms have been long, long overdue, mandatory nationwide e-verify, not here legally, no tax money programs, prosecute employers etc, save a ton of money on border security then, no incentive to come in illegally if you can't scam the system and get tax payer money to send back home.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
The first is that Trump doesn’t seem to interested in building anything much better than the fence
He said some of it has been built and no one has disagreed.......so I'm not sure that is true.
Trump is building a fence so that people like you can feel like he fixed the problem.
there are already existing fences etc, someone(s) thought it would help minimize the problem to a certain extent, I mean Crazy Diane and Cryin Chuck thought physical barriers were needed not so long ago.
You know he’s not going to build the wall, I know he it, he knows it
he has said some of it has been built, do you have evidence that isn't true?
Immigrants can wade over the rio grande
sure if there's no physical barrier to hinder them they can do that, but why would they unless that area doesn't have a barrier and it's easier to do so.
Ever go to the movies, or a busy bank? they have those velvet rope things, they aren't meant to stop you, but corral you or steer you where they want you to go. Walls and fences can work like that as well, not so much about stopping, but crowd control.
I don't think anyone believes a wall is the end all be all to the problem, it's an onion for sure.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
why else would they do a 180 on the border security issue? The videos can be seen and heard with their own words, until Trump was elected and they saw an untapped voter base.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
little bo-peep is looking for him :(
the flood gates will be opened in 2020, too many drink from the democratic kool-aide believing in all the free stuff they will get. Look how people flock to give-a-ways, trample each other on black friday. that's what gets the turn out, empty promises that can't be fulfilled. It's been working for a very long time.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
if it was the same wall yeah that would be pretty silly, if it was a superior wall and the existing one isn't adequate then it would make sense, are you listening to that fake news again? LOL when did anyone, anyone at all ever say that a wall is all that was needed? I think the herdsman is missing you, better get back to the flock.
here you go https://duckduckgo.com/?q=el+paso+border+wall&atb=v152-2__&ia=images&iax=images looks more like a fence you'd see at a high school baseball field.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
more democrat voters for the roles.
Created:
CBP Press Conference - Current Border Crisis
Created:
-->
@dustryder
the variance from year to year and time spans doesn't make for any real comparison along with the rarity of it happening and all the mitigating things I have already mentions that affect those numbers.
And the opportunity to fire x many bullets reflects this.. You're drifting off-topic even in the same conversation line.
not at all, because now you acknowledge that a main factor are the bullets (x many) which shows the firearm is less important.
I'm asking you if your objections to those numbers have valid statistical reasoning behind them instead of "I don't think this is right, therefore it isn't right"
it's impossible to say the numbers in the study show what they claim for the reasons I've already given, the things that can't be accounted for, lack of dimensional and time travel.
Well one example is that rifles are heavier than handguns. Which means there is less recoil. Less recoil means less time to re-position the gun to fire the next shot. Another example is that rifles have longer barrels, which increases accuracy and bullet velocity.
this is partially true, recoil, well that would take pages to discuss, but it totally depends on the individual, however handguns for me at least are much easier to control than an ak-47, but that's a big can of worms to get into, many things affect recoil which is actually muzzle flip. As far as accuracy and range, except for the Las Vegas shooting, the mass shooting have all been at close range which made that a non factor. You can acquire a target much faster with a handgun in close range than a long gun. Virginia tech, that monster used a .22 cal pistol, the smallest, least powerful one that I know, that can still be called a firearm. That particular caliber has been used in a few other mass shootings. (little to no recoil fyi, same caliber used to shoot Ronald Reagan)
ok just wanted to confirm we were on the same page about pistol grips, barrel shrouds etc
Was this not also the case with handguns?
I included all assault weapons regardless if they had other weapons as well.
did not have a legitimate use case.
ok I'll ignore that since it's not relevant.
They typically fire at a greater rate than other gun mechanisms such as lever action or bolt action.
I would call that a political answer lol, but I'll try to be more clear So how do assault weapons kill at a "faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons?" like other semi auto weapons which were not and are not classified as assault weapons because they lack the cosmetic features. Or is it your position that all semi auto rifles should be considered assault weapons?
Why don't you compile all my replies on what I think should be banned and then answer your own question. And then come back with what still remains.
I've asked you and we talked about this being a semi auto ban rather than an assault weapon ban, you said it was just an assault weapon ban if I remember correctly. so then we have to specifically define what an assault weapon is to you, what sets it apart from other semi auto guns.
Now if you want to say yes you would ban all semi auto rifles then that would be that. But as of yet you have not said that and indicated all semi auto rifles would not be affected by the ban. If it's not a total semi auto ban I want to see where the lines are drawn. I don't really expect straight answer and I recognized the political speak when I see it, giving a non committal or vague answers. You selectively ignore the questions I pose to you that require a specific and or detailed answer, even ones that just require a yes or no.
I gave you a picture of an ar-15 and the ruger mini-14 ranch hand, one has been banned by the assault weapons ban, the other was not. Would your version ban the ruger mini-14 ranch hand, why or why not.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Great, now add in the rest of the data and decide whether the value for the 1994-2004 is statistically significant.
I tallied up the deaths, years, incidents for the assault weapons, nothing more to add, that's what your study was about.
The number of wounded and killed reflect this variable.
the number of wounded and killed is a direct result of how many bullets were fired, not the gun firing them.
Is there some sort of statistical theory that you can reference to support these views?
the numbers are right there in black and white, not much else to say.
while the mechanism that fires bullets in semi-autos is likely to be the same, and hence a similar rate of fire all around, the features that surround this mechanism can vary quite widely.
ok such as? I've suggested perhaps accused you of a semi-auto ban and not simply an assault weapons ban, but you don't know, won't find out or in any way articulate what makes an assault weapon more deadly, lethal whatever than it's featureless counterpart. So you want to ban something that you really can't define, don't really know what it is or why it's different than things that function in the exact same manner.
show me some evidence that a pistol grip, barrel shroud etc makes a gun more deadly, lethal etc
even with the stats I gave they had other guns besides the assault weapon and most of these cases it's not clear or specific how many people were killed with which gun because in at least of some these, more than one weapon was used. So the numbers I gave were skewed in your favor.
#45
Mass shootings are rare, but rarer still are uses cases of AR-15s/AK-47s over other types of firearms.
sounds like outlier events, since they are <0.5% of gun murders
so why ban ak-47s? they might have been used twice? ever? Is a featureless Ak-47 still an assault weapon or just a semi auto one?
#50
The overall point is that AR-15's, not AK-47's, in conventional applications can be replaced by other firearms.
all semi auto function is the same, so this never made any sense, care to elaborate?
#54
I do not care about outlier events. I care about the norm.
the norm for "mass shootings" are handguns.
#86
Tell me how you or anyone could possibly know the number of mass shootings with an "assault rifle" wouldn't have gone down anyway w/o any ban at all? The numbers fluctuate greatly when comparing certain years.
No you're right. There isn't a lot of data. However the best way to move forwards is to take these preliminary results and apply them to further laws and see what pops up and then study those results further.
sounds like faith to me.
#93
you arguing that assault weapons cannot kill people at a faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons? Ultimately that's what I'm interested in and not the aesthetics.
yes, show me proof that I'm wrong. Guns don't actually kill unless you club someone with it, but it really is the bullet isn't it. So how do assault weapons kill at a "faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons?"
let's take some steps back and have you define what makes an assault weapon an assault weapon, what features or functions that are unique to them.
then explain how these features unique to them or deserving of assault weapon classification makes them more deadly, lethal etc than those guns with out those features and or cosmetics.
I'm looking for some real specifics here so I know exactly what you are referring to because it seems easily to add in all semi autos.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
If you admit this, then why are you twittering on about general gun deaths?
you are the one changing to topic to fit your agenda which is banning assault weapons, since hand guns are used far more often in mass murders. You selectively choose your stats to fit that narrative, by trying to focus on the number of people killed per incident.
there isn't enough data to make any real statistical inference, even you admitted how the data is lacking. Your faith in the study doesn't allow you to see the obvious and their bias.
"Forty-four of these incidents met the strictest criteria for mass shootings (4 or more killed)" that's from 1981-2017 37 year span. 1.19 of these mass shootings per year over that time span.
37*365= 13505 days
repeat
date range 1982-2019 37 years
according to the ultra liberal Mother Jones, once you take out the shootings of 3 or less that left 94, you can d/l their excl from the website.
26 instances had semi auto rifles if you include the ones not specified it would be higher (doesn't matter if they were assault or not to me), most had handguns or other weapons in addition to the semi auto rifle, of those 26 instances 24 were classified as "assault rifles" there was at least 2 they didn't classify as such but I knew they should be so I included them in my numbers. Based on their figures 5 of these instances the only weapon listed with an "assault rifle"
so about 25% of the mass shootings in the 37 years are with "assault rifles" (24) less than 1 per year.
from 1984 to the most recent I'm aware of, I liberally included the mention of assault rifle or assault weapon and the ones I knew should be included but were not, from the mother jones list, keeping only 4 or more deaths.
In that time frame 348 deaths 27 incidents
from 1984-1993 3 shootings 37 dead 12.3 average
from 1994-2004 4 shootings 30 dead 7.5 average
from 2005-2015 13 shootings 116 dead 8.9 average
from 2016-present 7 shootings 195 27.9 average 56 shootings if you take out Vegas and Orlando as anomalies 8.3 average
though the stats pre 84 aren't good what I did find for the previous 10 year span 83-73 was 3 shootings 33 dead 11 average
10 year spans since the ban was 10 years in case you were wondering.
the average has been consistent
I'm not aware that any of these murderers stopped after killing x number of people, but instead were stopped, often killed, so the numbers are a direct result of them being stopped within a given time period. This is why no real conclusions can be made by what weapon was used. If not stopped and given enough time these numbers could be dwarfed by a person with a knife or hammer.
so to say that study took into account these variables is patently false because it's not possible.
some years there were no mass murders that met the study or your criteria so to try and glean some kind of statistical data from such rare events is a joke.
to try and draw a statistical conclusion based on 'what if' is fortune telling at best or perfect scenario which isn't realistic.
the who,what,where and why to mass shootings no one really knows just like the factors that mitigate or fail to mitigate the outcomes, which no study can account for. To try and claim the assault weapon ban did anything with certainty is plain wrong, it's inconclusive at best.
the only way to reduce the number of people killed at one time is to stop the murderer as soon as possible, pretty simple, pretty basic.
And since all semi autos function the same way, have the same rate of fire an arbitrary assault weapon ban is meaningless. Unless you'd like to try and show how the cosmetics that categorize them as assault weapons make such a big difference compared to their non cosmetic or featureless counter parts.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
On the contrary I think I could certainly make a case for more generalized gun control. However, if you notice, the title of this thread is labelled mass shootings.
yes that's right, but you turned it into an assault weapons ban and only mass murders committed by them
Again, this does nothing to address the study that I provided, that indicated average death rate per mass shooting had decreased. Your source further notes that
that is beyond absurd, these mass shootings are already anomalies, so how could anyone possibly predict how many people would have been killed if they didn't have an assault weapon, I mean are you serious? they can time travel, travel different dimensions and say how many people would or would not be killed based on the weapon the shooter had? wow talk about faith.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-10-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-us-history-2017-10-02
3. Blacksburg, Va.: April 16, 2007. committed with hand guns but you want to brush that off an anomaly
6. Killeen, Texas: Oct. 16, 1991. again hand guns, another anomaly?
7. San Ysidro, Calif.: July 19, 1984. hand guns again
8. Austin, Texas: Aug. 1, 1966. non assault rifles
9. Edmond, Okla.: Aug. 20, 1986. hand guns again
so that's 5-5, hand guns are used in 75% of mass murders, assault rifles are used <0.5% in total murders
you act as if your 9 page study is gospel and yet the studies I have provided doesn't say what your's does.
I reposted those for my benefit
from your "study"
"CONCLUSION: Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to2004"
how do you predict were and when a mass shooting will occur and how many would be killed exactly? Because that's some next level insight I want to know about.
reading the discussion should make the bias crystal clear
so many flaws, the number killed is a direct result of how long it took to stop the shooter, how many mass murders were stopped prematurely by law enforcement intervention or someone else with a gun? no way to know. Far too many variables and bias in that study to make much of anything about their "findings"
again tell me how they know how many less would have died with or without a ban, it's not possible.
when you have people grouped up in an enclosed place it doesn't matter what kind of semi auto you have, like the Orlando bar, when people are trapped it should be obvious that it doesn't matter, assault rifle or not, makes no difference, just like it didn't matter at Virginia Tech or the others in the top 10
now tell me how anyone could possibly know that if murderer x didn't have access to an assault rifle the end result still wouldn't have been similar, that might have changed their location or plan, but no one can say the results wouldn't still have been similar.
All this prognosticating in the study can't possibly account for the numerous variables, many of which are critical. This biased study is a guess and you have to take it on faith.
how do you come up with an average death rate when all of these were unique and a lot of circumstances affected that rate, if the shooter is killed or stopped sooner than later, well can't make too much of those numbers can you.
How are the number killed a fault of the gun and not of law enforcement to stop them sooner? that's how this game is played right? If an armed guard encountered any of the murderers then the numbers probably wouldn't have been what they were which includes the ones committed by handguns. This study is just fortune telling.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
you cherry picked mass murders otherwise you couldn't make an argument for bans or more gun control.
post #68 , #80 using a liberal biased source as well as 114 page study which was far more specific in analyzing the data then the 9 page one you tried to present.
The study you cling to is b.s. for all the reasons and sources I've already given.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the registration "Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition." it also added ammunition and accouterments. Like anyone in the military if you show up without these things you are in big trouble.
But let's say we believe this slick lie in the link, when did registration stop and why? hmmmm
I've had plenty of discussions about the 2nd, if you are really interested in reading I can try to find them for you, but I'm not interested in going over it all again. Your arguments are nothing new and have been addressed by far more knowledgeable and smarter people than myself.
if any of that was true the Anti-gun Democrats would use those as reasons for bans, restrictions etc etc, and yet they don't because even they know it's b.s.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
that amount would have gone a long way in prosecuting or investigating violent criminals. Obviously it had nothing to do with justice or law.
Created:
Posted in:
newweek "it would stand to reason the cost of the probe might come to between $31 million and $35 million."
politifact "If you add this to the previous total, it reaches $25.7 million. Factoring in the two additional months that have passed —-- October and November 2018 —-- could plausibly get the costs up to $27 million or so."
with that kind of money and resources spent, if you can't find collusion it's because it doesn't exist.
(more money than what would have been needed for the wall)
was that amount worth the few indictments given? not imo.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I see no benefit to delving into too many tangents, which admittedly I do. Those where the highlights addressing why i think your proposal wouldn't work, is illogical if it's truly about saving lives etc
your "expert" study has been picked apart rather easily, but you want to try it again, aka take it on faith. When many people are killed at one time, it is a very emotional event, regardless of how rare or small a % of the over all problem it is in reality. But again it's emotional. The numbers don't lie <0.5%.
the flaws in the biased study you present have been shown, other studies either show no causation or at best are inconclusive. I'm not expert by any means, even I pointed out the many flaws with your study. Thinking something has 'potential' is taking it on faith that will MIGHT work. Like Obama care you have to pass it to know what's in it, or you have to try it to see if it will work. I'm not interested in experimenting with my rights. once you give something up, it's rarely, if ever that you get it back. hearing protection act is a pretty good example.
post #50
"There are multiple ways to solve problems certainly. However it's ignorant to avoid the fact that without guns in the first place, mass shootings cannot take place. Easy access to guns is exactly the reason why America is a world leader among first world countries in mass shootings."
While that is true logically, that is why I think you are describing a ban, or a path to a ban of more than just "assault" weapons, which states have defined in their own way and differ between states.
#54
"Having no guns at all prevents gun deaths. Reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of gun deaths which is almost equally as admirable.""I do not care about outlier events. I care about the norm."
the norm is handguns not "assault weapons" the percentages and stats show that.
"I have complete faith that regulations will catch up to such an eventuality. In civilised countries anyway"
yes you have faith, that has been clear.
#73
"You further refine and develop your strategy. The first step of this, is to acknowledge that there is no place for AR-15s in the hands of civilians. ""You can only build up effective policies brick by brick. Preventing mass gun murders is a brick in an overall scheme to reduce murders."
first step, yep to banning other guns.
#84
" I mean really, at the very least would a gun license and a gun registration be too much to ask for?"
without those you can't confiscate guns which is why a registration is unconstitutional.
#86
"No you're right. There isn't a lot of data. However the best way to move forwards is to take these preliminary results and apply them to further laws and see what pops up and then study those results further. "
aka take it on faith.
then all the words and phrases used "lethality, potential for killing more" things you can't really explain when asked about, defining what an "assault weapon" is, how mere cosmetics make it more "lethal" or dangerous etc.
You want to ban something you don't really know, understand and can't define, the answer to why can only lead to an emotional fear or a subtle way to expand a specific ban to include more semi auto guns, slippery slope.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
your whole point is murders of over x number of people is > total murders per year, then you have to ask why when they are < 0.5% of the total, you think it's the path of least resistance, I think, though I think it's the path to a much larger ban aka slippery slope, obviously there is a lot of resistance and over 10 million AR-15s which isn't the total of what one would include in an "assault weapons ban" since there isn't any real definition but an arbitrary one, which is why states have made up their own, but you want us to take it on faith that "experts" can make it work. those are the points really, that's the crux of it.
again you defer to experts, you've tried to make an argument based on emotion. Not having a completed solution is one thing, but not even having the answers to basic fundamental questions is just emotion which can't be debated.
the study you claim shows the Clinton ban had an impact didn't show what you thought it would, plenty of contra studies or at the very least inconclusive.
you toss in terms like "lethality" and others you can't define or give context for, no specifics, which again is meant to provoke an emotional response.
buzz words to draw out emotion
then you admit the flaws of the Clinton ban, but weren't those done by "experts"? The ban was also an emotional reaction and not based on any study or facts, they studied the ban after it was implemented, by the cdc, it was inconclusive thus it expired and wasn't renewed. At no time did any of the proponents for the ban get together on the media claiming the cdc was wrong, the knew they couldn't prove anything. If they had proof we'd still be hearing about it because any kind of ban is what they want with a passion.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I have a right and we've gone over those rights. You haven't proven the method and how invasive the breech of my rights would be but defer to experts whom I believe would be bias given the precedence of the previous ban and bills proposed to constantly restrict and erode the 2a. You have religious faith in the government to do what is right which I don't share because of history. Whatever points you tried to make were vague and when i asked for specifics you said the experts would figure it out. yet again you are asking for faith that this can be done and be done in such a way that it won't ban most if not all semi auto guns., you just don't know how or any real specifics
This ban if it worked 100% wouldn't effect 25% of gun murders per year which shows you have some kind of emotional revulsion if many people are killed in one instance even though it's less than half a percent. That and you want to start off small, ban what you think people will readily accept because of the emotion involved rather than the statistical evidence, then expand the ban from there, with no clear stopping point if one at all.
the stats speak for themselves when you look at the totality of the problem instead of just selecting the most emotional ones. You haven't made any arguments but emotional appeals to infringe on the 2A. The vagueness and lack of knowledge on the subject and your 'proposal' clearly demonstrate your position of emotion, which you are entitled to but don't try to make it a logical argument because it's not. Addressing the murder problem is one thing, but trying to argue that murders when certain number of people are killed, a number which you can't specify, those take prescience and priority even though they are less than half of a percent of the total murders, that's emotional.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I mean, experts in guns would typically come out in favour of gun would they not?
same could be said for the anti gun experts.
it seems this has reached it's end, your proposal could only work in theory but not reality, there's no way to remove 10million+ "assault" weapons from the general public without military and law enforcement intervention, threat of force, violence etc, going house to house, basically creating a military state, if you wished to see any effect if your life time, otherwise it's pretty pointless.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
And yet, obviously the first ban had little to nothing to do with experts, hence the cosmetics ban but we are to have faith this time will be different, just have faith. You haven't come up with a ban but some theory that you have faith in experts to come up with. Yet experts haven't and aren't even trying to come up with a ban like you try to describe The politicians on the other hand are the only ones who talk about bans. Now of course the exprts you talk about would be only the ones you agree with.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
So you have no idea what or how this ban would be, but as I said before you want me to take it on faith of the experts, whom ever they are. Are the experts the ones who banned the cosmetics or are ignorant of guns and how they function? You can't define what would and wouldn't be banned but as I said you want people to take it on faith that these experts can. Who would be a better expert than those who know guns? There's a lot of experts in the NRA.
Created:
But it has nothing to do with my proposed ban
I'm afraid your proposed ban still isn't clear
You can argue that parts of the original ban were illogical, but you cannot extend this to the entire ban itself. The actual ban itself was based n the understanding of less possession of assault weapons, less likelihood of assault weapons to be used in mass shootings and this is perfectly logical.
except that those parts identified what could be banned, otherwise it would have included all semi auto rifles if not all semi auto weapons
this looks just like the scary guns but shoots the 9mm pistol round, the most common pistol round and what law enforcement uses https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.sportsmansguide.com%2Fadimgs%2Fl%2F7%2F702210i2_ts.jpg&f=1
so again explain how this isn't a semi auto ban if you aren't banning cosmetics
please define "assault rifle" "assault weapon" and their differences to each other and to non "assault rifles and weapons"
Created:
The Border Patrol released 250 migrants here on Tuesday and Wednesday and expects to free hundreds more in coming days because there is no room to hold them.
Border Patrol officials said two groups rushed the border simultaneously from different ends of Border Field State Park.
huh, imagine that.
Created:
-->
@mustardness
Good idea, and lot of other guns. Replace them with smart guns.
while it is a good theory, the technology won't be developed to any useful level in our lifetimes. That would also greatly increase the cost making firearms unobtainable by a even larger portion of the poor and less well off. Essentially restricting gun access from the poor. Those who could afford a $300 gun but not much more would now be faced with at least double that amount for a smart gun, essentially disarming the poor.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
my guess is you didn't take out the 3 or less killed they considered mass murders.
From my perspective nothing has to be done outside of what has been examined in the significant mass shooting events involving semi-automatic handguns.
so no semi-automatic bans ever, except for assault weapons then, is that what you are saying?
Explain to me how 1/3 of mass shootings involving semi-automatic weapons is statistically insignificant in regards to mass shootings
it's insignificant in regards to all murders.
On the other-hand, going after the lions share of mass murders is not the objective of this ban. And you know this, because I've already told you this from the start, and it's what I've constantly reinforced from the start.
that was an observation, not attributed to you.
Your see your logic doesn't make sense to me.
I believe you agreed and or understand cosmetics like a barrel shroud, pistol grip, thumb hole stock etc does not make the gun any more or less lethal, if you think otherwise please explain.
this is a "ruger mini 14 ranch hand rifle" https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.vc8JYnIumh2fOF6Uh6V6DAEsB1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=465&h=183
if the link doesn't work you can search up those words
You already know what an ar-15 looks like
One would(was in 94) be banned the other would(wasn't in 94) not, now imo you're pretty smart even though we may disagree, so I'm sure you can see where this is going in that they both fire the exact same round .223 and both have the ability to use whatever size magazine someone can buy,make,modify etc.
If we agree that cosmetics make little to no difference and I hope we do, then the ban was never logical to begin with and was based on an emotional fear because of how something looks.
There's plenty of videos of law makers talking about guns who haven't the slightest clue about guns and reality.
these are fools you are asking us to trust and the people who believe him and people like him, but I digress
let's try to settle the cosmetic features since that seems to be the linchpin of classification.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Let's assume they didn't. In which case we should separate the outlier cases in which more than the average number of people were shot and examine case by case the circumstances and gun features that allowed this to happen
if you bothered to look at the spread sheet, the outlier was Virginia Tech, the other 69 were all pretty consistent.
so there we have it, as I previously stated via the liberal link, those 70 were semi auto handguns, nothing that classified them has assault weapons, regular ordinary handguns, so now you'd have to expand that ban to include semi auto hand guns and the ban I talked about way back. I mean I get it, you start out small, then expand it a little, then a little more until finally the ban. Once you can rationalize banning something that's statically insignificant it would be easy to go after the significant ones. To go after the lion's share of mass murders would require banning semi auto hand guns. This ban you propose is a means to an end. There's no other way this slippery slope ends up.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Think of most tame semi-automatic handgun you can think of. Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal. Imagine those extensions are banned. The resulting gun, despite being a semi-automatic gun will not be banned.
the 70 mass murders didn't have any "extensions" that made them more lethal, so then what?
And the answer would be probably why the hell are you asking me? I was only ever in charge of preventing mass shooting related deaths due to assault weapons.
I don't understand the logic of why stop at 24 when there's 70 more, don't their lives matter and their grieving families?
What's your point? Strong objection is not mutually exclusive with also having the least objection possible
once that objection is gone there's always another right?
it's the whole slippery slope all over again.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
The only decision now is whether to address the 70 mass shooting events that didn't involve assault weapons.
so then it would or would not be addressed? and how would it be addressed now that the assault weapons aren't an issue anymore? is there anyway to deal with the 70 without banning yet more guns?
Gun ban would imply all guns.
assuming you aren't being pedantic, when people refer to that they are talking about banning semi automatic weapons since they make up a majority of firearms. Yes if one gun existed then in the strictest sense it wouldn't be a total ban, but I have never said or even eluded to, that it would be a complete ban.
Well there's nothing left right? The objective has been achieved within the set parameters.
hmm ok well let's say instead of all 24, there was oh I dunno 22 less, and just 2 assault weapons mass murders in 37 years, would it be ok to stop banning stuff at that point?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
he's been painted into a corner, just hasn't realized it yet
Created:
-->
@dustryder
you continue dancing around it, but all roads lead to a gun ban, that's the whole point, you start small, then add, then add as you said, then until for all practical purposes it's a gun ban. Your focus on less than half a percent, yet seemingly ignoring 99.7% of the deaths isn't logical to me, thus you are in an emotion position. To have any noticeable, appreciable difference on something that small isn't possible statically. This plan has nothing to do with saving lives obviously, the figures prove that well enough, otherwise the focus would be on the 75% part of the problem.
Let's say through the perfect scenario that those 24 mass shootings from assault rifles disappears, you'd be satisfied and the rest, 70, are acceptable? If not how do you plan to address the 70 left over?
So I believe any approach to guns should be made carefully and incrementally so as to raise the least objection possible.
there's been a strong objection to the ban since it was first ever talked about LOL
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Really? What if I were to rank gun features by their contribution to the lethality of a gun, rank guns in respect to those features and scale by their contribution?
go for it
we must settle for a figure that's lower than what it currently is.
which is?
Any improvement is better than no improvement at all
then why not ban the weapon used to kill the most people per year? Are people only killed in numbers of 4 or more only worthy of protection and consideration for intervention?
"The NRA estimates that between 8.5 million and 15 million assault rifles are in circulation based on manufacturer data, said Baker, the group’s public affairs director."
I'd bet it's more.
date range 1982-2019 37 years
according to the ultra liberal Mother Jones, once you take out the shootings of 3 or less that left 94, you can d/l their excl from the website.
26 instances had semi auto rifles if you include the ones not specified it would be higher (doesn't matter if they were assault or not to me), most had handguns or other weapons in addition to the semi auto rifle, of those 26 instances 24 were classified as "assault rifles" there was at least 2 they didn't classify as such but I knew they should be so I included them in my numbers. Based on their figures 5 of these instances the only weapon listed with an "assault rifle"
so about 25% of the mass shootings in the 37 years are with "assault rifles" (24) less than 1 per year.
cdc says there were 14,415 gun homicides just in 2016 about 5,000 non gun homicides
for context in 2016, 65 people died from mass murders, this includes the 49 from the Pulse nightclub for that year mass murders claimed 0.45% of the total fire arm homicides or 0.33% of the total number of homicides for that year.
in 2016 of the 4 mass murders 2 where committed by an "assault rifle" one by a non assault rifle, one by handgun, making 54 people killed by assault rifles in a mass murder
or 0.37% kill by assault rifles in mass murders compared to all gun homicides.
0.28% kill by assault rifles in mass murders compared to all homicides.
my math might be a little off but really doesn't change the context
Any improvement is better than no improvement at all
do you see why I don't think this ban is actually based in reality?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
it should be 5 so these crazies that kill their family isn't included in the stats, most families consist of 4ish
Created:
-->
@dustryder
that's not possible, what I think could be a defining factor is something you mentioned before, capacity, since all guns can kill, one of the links I posted I think or I read somewhere talked about how many rounds people were actually shot with, I seem to recall the average was 1. It's not like the majority of victims are shot 3 or more times generally.theoretical lethality to the theoretical lethality of other guns.
I did. Feel free to change my mind.
well it's a right, you have to change minds to enforce your subjective legitimate use. Though you could define what you think is legitimate.
Just because a problem is small, doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.
sure, ok, what's the number of mass shootings that tolerable? How about murders per year while we are at it, what's the number that's acceptable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
pretty much, then they shout so they can't speak anyway, at least they aren't willing to kill babies outside the womb...oh wait......look at the conservative speakers banned, threatened and protested, doesn't seem to happen nearly as often as liberal speakers, perhaps they don't give speeches, yeah right
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Why don't you believe it's possible? Do you think it's impossible to definitively come up with a list of gun features that allows for fully-automatic rifles to shoot people more effectively than a fully-automatic handgun?
yes, how many mass murders per year is an acceptable number to stop adding guns to the list? Let's say mass murders go down but the murder rate goes up, add more guns to the list? pretty difficult to draw lines isn't it.
Describing whether something *can* cause death or not is binary.
fine we'll play your game, which guns can't cause death? I think what you are actually talking about is some unprovable percentage if you are shot by x you have a y chance of surviving. If you compare ballistics as a criteria you'll want to ban most hand guns.
there good argument to be made that handguns have a legitimate use while there's no argument to be made that so called assault weapons have legitimate use.
rather subjective don't you think? who decides what a legitimate use is?
there is no constitutional right to a box.
"There have been a total of 816 deaths in mass killings… since 1982."
"In the gun control mecca, Chicago, they had 943 murders in 1992 alone! In one year!"
"The average has been about 8.5 deaths per year from mass killing. That’s the truth of mass shooting statistics that you won’t hear from the progressive propaganda machine."
Obama lowered the number to 3 as the definition of mass murders btw.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
He also doesn't get if they had been mowed down with guns it would be all over the place.
correct, selective moral outrage at it's finest/worst whatever Don't forget they were probably black too because no one cares about their murders much, just another weekend in Chicago.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Prevention of murders
so now you are back to banning all guns, roger
And why does that prevent gun experts on making a decision on exact thresholds?
I have yet to hear of an example, so until then I believe this isn't possible as I've stated before. Unless you just want me to take it on faith?
"Lethality is how capable something is of causing death."So no, not a binary position.
ok so i'll ask again, which guns aren't capable of causing death? seems rather binary to me, either they can or can't, which ones can't?
A set is a unique collection of objects defined under some grouping.
but you don't really know what that group would be other than the ones that look scary since there's no other real logical reason to ban something that is rarely used compared to same functioning guns. Of the few mass murders caused why your definition of an "assault weapon" which of those could have had the same results has a handgun been used, Pulse Night Club comes to mind. People trapped in a building are easy and close targets, the weapon doesn't really matter even to someone not trained, like Virginia Tech.
Or you know, time, like my policy uses.
yes you want time to see if it works, I know, take it on faith is just another way of saying it. No thanks.
there's no harm done with a bumpstock ban.
that's why I called it a farce and something to placate the liberals, you're catching on.
You're making an excellent case for banning semi-automatic handguns
I said way back your argument isn't logical, but a ban on all semi-auto would be, now you've finally figured it out. The selective banning of things rarely used is rather stupid isn't it.
measuring and comparing are the amount of shooting deaths
selective measuring yes it sure is, but it fails when don't as a yearly comparison or raw numbers over that time period. The attempt to draw some kind of conclusion that assault weapons kill more people per mass murder isn't really possible. the 2 mass murders mentioned about for example. There's no way to know if the assault weapon was replaced with something else, like even a handgun what the results would be. I believe you said Las Vegas was an anomaly which it was.
Banning something rarely used makes no sense, still.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
rigging up a rubber band is too sophisticated? Ok if you say so LOL guess you didn't watch the videos, btw there's other things you can use which are equally available and easy to rig up for those who are "sophisticated"
I don't have to find a reason to "keep them" others have to find a reason to ban them, which doesn't exist except in misinformation and emotion. Defending one's home is far different then going into a large building, wide open event etc to commit mass murder, which is done far more often with handguns if you bother to read the links.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
with regards to your "study"
"Forty-four of these incidents met the strictest criteriafor mass shootings (4 or more killed)" that's from 1981-2017 37 year span. Now they talk about the total number of deaths, but how many of the 44 incidents they used was an assault weapon the only weapon used? I skimmed it, let me know where to find it please.
and from your "study"
"An assault weapon ban is not a panacea, nor do our analyses indicate that an assault weapon ban will result in feweroverall firearm-related homicides."
the shooting at Virginia Tech wasn't with an assault weapon for instance
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I looked at the "study" in 37 years there were 44 mass shootings they used, then all the talked about is number killed rather than how many of the 44 an assault weapon was actually used, unless I missed it, which is possible, if so let me know where to look. but if you look at my link, just skim it you'll see how many mass murders the weapon of choice is a semi handgun. if a list exists from 1981-1998 I'm sure the ratio really won't change statically.
Created:
Created: