Total posts: 3,383
-->
@n8nrgmi
it doesn't matter if he used it or not. my argument is that if he did, it'd be more lethal in a packed crowd like that. if we have bump stocks everywhere people will be more likely to use them or use automatic in general, when they shouldn't. most people won't bother to rig up an assault rifle to make it automatic. the point, is that if you put obstacles in people's way, it will on average limit some people. same with gun control in general.
again there's no definitive proof he actually did, so let's consider "most people won't bother to rig up an assault rifle to make it automatic" bump stocks have to be installed, the old one removed first, so it has to be 'rigged up' after you go out and purchase it for $100, thus if what you say is true and most people wouldn't rig it up, there was never a need to ban bump stocks. The best obstacle to someone with a gun is other people with guns pointing back at them. You seem to think these mass murders are of sound mind and rational thought, I can't even begin to guess why you'd think that.
machine guns are another topic but I would suggest you research why they are regulated the way they are and why. How many mass shooting were done with machine guns BEFORE the regulations?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
watch the videos at the bottom of post #162, then explain why it happened once, if in fact he actually used the bump stock as I previously posted they can be set not to move and function as a regular stock, I personally haven't heard or read any report that the gun he used actually was fitted with a bump stock and that he actually used it to fire more rapidly. Yes some of the guns which he had a bunch of had bump stocks on, did the one he use have one? Don't recall anyone saying specifically or leaving no doubt. Please let us know if you find some specific and plain language that says he actually did use the feature on the bump stock if the gun was fitted with one, and that bump stock wasn't locked into a non moving position.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
justify they are actually more effective.
no you have to justify infringing on rights.
Why isn't it possible?
because you are saying it's not a ban on all semi auto
Lethality isn't a binary property. It's a sliding scale.
um yeah it is either something is lethal or has a reasonable ability to be so or it doesn't, which guns currently in existence aren't lethal? none.
The function in this case is for the ability to consecutively pull the trigger without any other jiggery that is found in other guns types such as lever/bolt/pump action guns which slows down shooting speed.
yes, a semi auto ban, there ya go, you keep admitting to it yet don't seem to realize it.
Not really, because at some point a wall will be hit in terms of the second amendment.
there's already a limit "shall not be infringed"
you chose the word "adaptable" that's not a limiting word and isn't a definition nor a defining factor.
subset of semi-automatic weapons
I've said this before but perhaps not in a way that it needed to be or obvious enough. there are subsets of gun, not semi-automatic guns, semi-automatic as I said refers to every gun that function by what is defined as semi-auto, one shot per pull of the trigger.
you could include revolvers in that definition as well
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.
I'm not sure how I can tell you in the kindest way this makes no sense and you don't know enough about the topic, which isn't an insult there are plenty of things I don't know much or enough about. There is NOTHING, not one thing, zero, nadda, no thing that can be added, extended to a gun to make it more lethal, the bullet is the lethal part. With that said a bullet that doesn't hit doesn't kill. So if you think things can be added to increase accuracy or something like that is pure fantasy to think it would make any real statistical difference. If it were that easy the military would be using it. The military seem to function just fine with standard iron sights, no forward pistol grip and the other cosmetics do not effect the accuracy or legality of the gun. This is political b.s. that you shouldn't fall for. This is why people refuse to talk about the subject in general, the false information and ignorance.
Less guns means less gun violence.
that's true on paper, but to reduce the number that already exist to see any measurable effect would require as I said a military/police state going from house to house. Just like last ban, when it's announced and or talked about, manufacturing goes up as do sales.
Could you go into a little into why you think the bump stock ban doesn't fix anything?
well I thought I had already, but I've been in many threads like this and it all repeats so here you go.
I would also draw your attention to the age of these videos, also I'm not responsible for any nightmares you may have :)
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Oh I'm not saying it's ok, but that is the best attention getter in a world that has really become desensitized. He wanted to get people's attention and succeeded, he wanted to be heard, listened to etc just like @ResurgetExFavilla was saying, even so this will be forgotten soon enough. We have escalated to the top, call someone a jerk is laughable, profanity is meaningless, physical violence is the norm soon killing will be, seems like a rather natural progression. Squeaky wheel....the extremes get the attention but what happens when nothing is extreme? We can't go back to a gentler more polite society, just can't happen. The word jerk will never have the effect it once had, when it has an extreme insult and not said casually. "when everyone's super no one will be", everyone wants to be super.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
it other countries they may define it anyway they wish, they do not have a right to free speech, there can be no hate speech laws or compelled speech laws in the U.S. so long as the 1a exists.
Without the protection and acknowledgment of rights like freedom of speech, imagine, should a religious group gain control in oh I dunno some European country, then they would make the speech laws and there would be no way to stop them. Don't forget it doesn't just stop at speech but expression too, like what you can and can't wear.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
He could have made that point using a paintball gun. He wanted to kill as many Muslims as possible.
man enters (building) with paintball gun, people left with welts and possibly ruined clothes, news at 11
don't think the impact and coverage would be quite the same lol
man enters (building) with giant feather citizens brought to tears with relentless tickling, news at 11
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes climate change is real. You even said so in your first post. Does it matter? Not really. We are either able to live on the planet or not. Once humans are gone who cares.
exactly, the irony for me is hysterics over this but not so much for the wars, murders and creative ways we have come up with to kill one another, we seem to be a rather fickle species when it comes to the methods and reasons for death. Seems the true priorities are a bit askew.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
arsenic and asbestos are organic, apple seeds contain cyanide. plants have their own protections, they don't want to be eaten lol less people healthier planets it's just common sense.
Created:
as a side note, 30 round magazines and higher tend to be very unreliable either not feeding or causing jams, there's some really good and valid reasons why you wouldn't want those anyway, so much like the bump stock it's fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
But you are ignoring my desire to work within the second amendment and to create a clear boundary between what classes of firearms should be examined.
I've asked you several times about which guns, ammo, cosmetics etc and either you gave a vague answer or didn't know.
Well, how would you argue that bolt-action rifles should be considered assault weapons. That should be an interesting exercise
because some take magazines, even ones made during WWII
How is it illogical when semi-automatic handguns are less effective than semi-automatic rifles?
because of bullet capacity, this is the argument after all right? a semi auto handgun can hold as many or more rounds than a semi auto rifle. As many of these studies have said the number of misses is pretty high even by train police, more so for the psycho mass murderer. What ever effectiveness difference you think there might be is inconsequential to someone not trained in either one and the stats show that pretty well. While an AR-15 might be the best for home defense that is a total different environment and situation than a psycho mass murderer has in mind.
Or that 50-100 round cartridges would definitely be included in the ban
again look at the study, how many shots are actually fired. this is an exercise in futility.
Which is why these policies aim for gradual change over time to the point at which those methods will become increasingly more difficult to achieve
we will never see that in our live times, more effective things can be done immediately if the focus was on them, rather than this wishful thinking.
That's why the series of gun experts would make it unvague, well defined and unopenended.
that's not how you described it, nor is it possible.
These would certainly be good questions to perform studies on. On the other hand, we can only work with what we have, and what logically makes sense
sure like existing laws and punishments, sounds good to me, hey here's a thought I've mentioned in other threads on similar topics. As you may or may not know, crimes are public knowledge in some states and it might be all federal ones are but I can't recall. Some states have searchable data bases as well. Why not make that the standard for all states and federal crimes that would prohibit someone from purchasing a gun? Any responsible gun owner would never want to sell their gun to someone who can't legally have one. Why not remove the hurdles so they can easily find this information out before the sale? Essentially make a public version of the NICS check. Employeers do background checks, lots of entities do, why not let individuals, given the data bases that already exist? mind you the data bases I've examined are terrible, but they could hire a couple of high school kids to fix them up and make they very useful. Make it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing and a majority of them will.
post #142
The lethality of a gun of course. (all actual guns are lethal fyi)
A study would have to be performed to determine the exact defining criteria, but of the legal weapons available, only semi-automatics are likely to fill this criteria. (there is no difference between platforms, semi auto describes function and nothing more)
Well we know that pistols are less effective than rifles. So in this case, we need only block the features related to pistols that allow them to be as effective as rifles and high-end pistols (that's subjective and depends on the individual, why does law enforcement almost exclusively carry handguns then, shouldn't they be using the best tool?)(it's not something that can really be determined because it's also situational)
post #104
definition of assault weapons seems reasonable. Extend this definition to include other firearms not commonly described as assault weapons, but have multiple features in common with assault weapons. Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable. Finally, ensure that this definition is adaptable for the removal and addition of gun. (this sounds opened to me and perfect for the slippery slope argument)
perhaps some clarification on those statements because it sure does seem like a semi-auto ban to me.
any, the studies I have seen which have some details and flaws don't show any concrete proof just maybe and possibly, perhaps your study will read differently, though based on some of the statements you gave about, it doesn't seem very likely.
when you make statements like "it's worth trying" and similar that's wanting people to take it on faith. If you look at the long study they go into the economics of bans and talk about bans it's actually counter intuitive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
you do realize that the pesticides and fertilizer end up in the drinking water as it is now, both of which are toxic, Roundup is a pretty good example. We can't keep our drinking water and environment clean from the farming that exists now, expanding to a much great scale should produce much worse results I think. the production of fertilizer and pesticides probably isn't a green process either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'd bet they don't face the same regulations and aren't scrutinized like restaurants and fast food chains are. This is kind of like a farmer's market, there can be places which allow for people to sell their goods and services, capitalism works after all, but the rules need to apply to all and equally. These vendors should be preferred to people no working and using tax dollars.
they don't pay taxes and it's an unfair competition for the vendors who pay a rent and taxes.
that shouldn't be allowed but this is California after all, this is how they are going to force whitey out of their city and state.
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
wow I totally agree and identify with what you said, extremely insightful imo
Created:
So-called “assault weapons” are not machineguns or automatic-fire weapons, but are semiautomatics functionally identical to scores of firearms that are not classified as assault weapons. They do not fire more rapidly, do not fire more bullets, and do not fire higher caliber bullets than many other semiautomatic firearms not defined as assault weapons. Some of the features that qualify a semiautomatic as an assault weapon make the weapon more accurate or easier to transport and handle. It would be strange indeed for a policymaker or politician to announce support for less accurate and less easily used firearms.
"While some of the support for banning assault weapons derives from the erroneous belief that they are machineguns, I suspect other support is based on the belief that, on account of misunderstanding due to the pejorative label, this is a winnable issue politically, and a step toward further gun controls."
this hits the nail on the head as it were.
"Indeed, it is not uncommon for rampage killers to use several different guns or to carry many fully loaded magazines."
Created:
-->
@dustryder
That was an example for the mechanism of action and the numbers were arbitrary.. How much a gun can kill entirely depends on how much ammo you've brought, the amount you can fire the gun and how long you have to freely fire the gun. Which is the discussion on which guns should be banned because they have these properties
hence why I say you want a gun ban for all practical purposes but won't admit it for whatever reason.
Well first, Assault rifle =/= assault weapon.
sure such a generic term can be changed to mean anything, include practically anything a.k.a. gun ban. I get it, not sure why you don't they are your own words after all.
the link is blocked at work for some reason, I'll try to read it tonight if I have time until then
inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.
something interesting I have found in these studies thus far, they say the scum bags had assault weapons and then list a bunch of others like hand guns etc, never really saying definitively whether the a.w. was used and or how many were actually were shot with the a.w. vs the other weapons used or in possession of the scum bag.
The issue with your premise that fewer guns would probably reduce murders, but again that could only be accomplished with a gun ban, perhaps not a total ban but a ban of all semi auto guns at the very least. With the a.w. ban ALSO came large capacity magazine ban (another arbitrary term) which is probably more effective as that would cover all semi auto vs. a.w. ban which is specific to guns with certain cosmetic features.
anyway this goes in to some detail about the different aspects, but it is 114 pages, I've skimmed it and plan to go back to it and your link as time allows.
basically, as you said the potential of guns that can shoot semi automatically has the potential to injure and or kill people in a shorter period of time based on the ammunition capacity. Since the bullet is what actually injures and kills, the more shot the greater the chance of injuring and death. To call for an a.w. ban is a farce and illogical as I have stated since all semi autos function the same way and can hold as many as 50-100 rounds, including handguns.
If magazines could magically be made to only old 10 rounds then the platform used, ar-15, ak-47 etc is irrelevant. As is your call to ban those rifles.
planned mass murderers would opt for another available tool, whether legal or not, large capacity magazine whether legal or not since they will be available either already in existence, grandfathered, modified low capacity magazines, 3d printed or other homemade magazines.
thinks you can't account for
"Experts believe numerous factors contributed to the recent drop in these and other crimes, including changing drug markets, a strong economy, better policing, and higher incarceration rates, among others"
I'm not sure if you were trying to be slick, but wording such a ban so it would be changed to include other and future weapons, leaving it vague, practically undefined and open ended is the slippery slope pro 2a people talk about. It's a tactic to avoid calling for what is really intended an out right ban on all semi auto guns if not all guns period, not a very good tactic but one often tried.
"how many homicides and injuries involving AWs and LCMs could be prevented if offenders were forced to substitute other guns and magazines? In what percentage of gun attacks does the ability to fire more than ten rounds without reloading affect the number of wounded victims or
determine the difference between a fatal and non-fatal attack? Do other AW features (such as flash hiders and pistol grips on rifles) have demonstrable effects on the outcomes of gun attacks? Studies of gun attacks could draw upon police incident reports, forensic examinations of recovered guns and magazines, and medical and law enforcement data on wounded victims."
details matter.
again I'll try to review your link when I can.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If a law is counter to the stated goals of a nation (like liberty for all persons) then either the law must be changed or the stated goal must change.
both parties have had the opportunity to do that and yet, here we are, conspiracy or not, sure does seem to fit don't you think? :) Plenty of vids showing what both parties think about illegal i immigration which was very similar until Trump was elected.
Created:
-->
@FaustianJustice
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. there are far more efficient ways a better bang for your buck if you will, but given the current, past and even future political climate these are the cards we have been dealt. It's huge symbolism as well, someone is at least doing something even if it's not in the top 20 of things that would be more efficient. Politically, this is probably the only thing Trump could actually do and possibly accomplish, the path of least resistance, from his pov perhaps.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I will look at the pdf tomorrow.
which guns can only kill 5 or less? I'm really trying to understand how you think this will work, but again it can't so long as there are guns that hold 5 or more rounds and can be easily reloaded. You seem to think not having something readily available to these people they will give up on their plan, when in fact most were planned, so why wouldn't that plan include a similar weapon that is available like a handgun, other semi auto gun, pump shot gun, semi auto shotgun or lever action rifles? This is why your selective ban of assault rifles is illogical when it's so easy to accomplish the same result with a different tool that's not banned..
You do know the Las Vegas scum bag was very wealthy right?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
sn't a larger group of voters more representative of the total populace? We are a nation of immigrants. Why should someone's original nationality matter to us?
not if they are non citizens, foreigners, how could it be?
we take in immigrants....legally and those who benefit the country, the brain drain has benefited the U.S. greatly and will continue to do so. But that's illegals.
Created:
-->
@FaustianJustice
neither side has dealt with or even indicated a desire to deal with the visa overstays etc, as I said it's the wall or nothing because I don't hear anyone offering any real and serious alternatives. I'm not sure why this problem has been ignored for so long but there must be a reason and motives. fmpov this boils down to doing something vs doing nothing. There's just obstruction and no problem solving, typical government.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe enough are coming illegally not to contribute and support but to take advantage of the system. Right now it's superior in freedoms like speech and opportunity. The criminal aliens are using the already thin resources that those under served citizens could have access, as the dept skyrockets, something has to change. While keeping out and getting out as many illegals as possible won't impact the dept in any noticeable way it could help with school crowding, rent prices and other services though only in certain areas. IF big if e-verify became standard, voter id laws and no tax to illegals, the probably would practically be solved. The incentive to make it in or die needs to be removed, then only the legit would attempt it and do it legally. When you consider the bigger picture of all those who don't or can't try to get in legally or illegally are still stuck in their country and in their situation, but it's been that way and no one really cares, they only care about the ones who try and or make it, hypocritical imo. No one wants to leave their home, their country, everything they have ever known, what they really want is for it to get better.
teach a man to fish......a hand up instead of a hand out. The Democrats give hand outs so people can't get up. A few make it, a very few but they are pretty good at keep poor people poor so they can promise them free stuff and get their votes without ever fulfilling them.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
something so important, yes I want to review the specifics myself which don't seem to exist, your claim of "because experts say so" isn't adequate for me, you are basically asking everyone to take it on faith that these experts aren't biased and the study wasn't manipulated. Studies have been found to be inaccurate and flawed after they were readily accepted, what you have is a 2 legged stool. I don't have to prove the study is wrong, flawed whatever because one hasn't been pretested to examine. And without allowing people to examine what you call proof, you are just on a religious crusade of faith.
how many guns in private hands is a small enough number to prevent them from falling in the wrong hands? most of the mass shooting were planned that shouldn't be in dispute, explain how not having access to an assault weapon, yet still having assess to other semi automatic rifles, pistols or other rapid fire guns would stop these plans.
using a hammer to put in a screw, while not ideal still get's the job done.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps we could consider comprehensive immigration law reform.
we could, and should but that won't happen any time soon. The democrats will oppose everything Trump wants and when they get power they won't address it, otherwise we wouldn't and we shouldn't even be having this conversation. As A.O.C. said the illegals are her constituents, they want to let them vote, heck even they want 16 year old children to vote. These are the last days of the U.S.A. as it has been known. R.I.P. :(
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
you over estimate the importance I have for this site LOL 95% I read and post in between things I have to do at work, this is extremely low on my priority list, so yeah mistakes happen.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
it won't be 100% nothing ever is, but if you can use the limited manpower and resources at points of entry because it's too difficult and too slow to try and over come the wall/barrier then that's useful.
barriers are used all the time to funnel people through check points or other secured area, that's how I see a border barrier working. the other ways people get in illegally or over stay etc needs to be addressed and a much stronger stance should be taken.
Created:
-->
@FaustianJustice
if you recall in the beginning those opposed said how horrible it would look, so the designed have to include pleasing aesthetics, which no doubt is more expensive. No one counter offered with cheaper more effective design which I think was the whole point of it as a negotiation technique. Since no real negotiation took place he's left with no choice but to stick to the plan which well set precedence for future issues. This seems like it was a game of chicken and the democrats blinked. It's quite possible I'm wrong but only Trump knows for sure. Unfortunately this has become and all or nothing issue so here we are. 2 choices a physical barrier or no barrier, I'll go with the barrier.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
that link gives no data anyone can verify, so it's useless. it's from New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
which is a hugely liberal anti gun state so you'll pardon my skepticism without any actual proof, real stats and numbers
your "logic" is based on the assumption that the ban worked, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You'd ban "assault weapons" when
in fact practically all other types can be used for mass murders. Logic would be banning any guns capable of killing 4 or more people before having to
reload.
I'm not willing to take your opinion on faith.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Alsa one perfect as yourself can't comprehend the flaws of us imperfect meer mortals, I would attempt to explain what a mistake is but how could you comprehend such a human flaw? We are not worthy of your presence.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
We are going round in circles. Show me a link to the actual study with details, I want to see the specific data myself, number killed, weapon used etc. This is what your whole argument hinges on though you say the data is weak which I interpret as it anecdotal at best, thus it's meaningless as a reason to restrict my rights and to ban the best weapon for home defense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They ironry is not lost on me, another gun free zone, as in it was no one had one. I believe that they have much stricter laws than the U. S.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Read up on fertilizers and pesticides, then all the equipment needed. You want to clear forests? National parks? What land are you thinking of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The field data and our simulations show that the annualaverage of air temperatures at 2.5 m of the ground in thecenter of simulated solar farm section is 1.9c higher than theambient and that it declines to the ambient temperature at 5 to18 m heights. The field data also show a clear decline of airtemperatures as a function of distance from the perimeter ofthe solar farm, with the temperatures approaching the ambienttemperature (within 0.3c), at about 300 m away.
though these farms are small scale now, what if.....
Created:
-->
@dustryder
good as it should have been, I was talking about security measureS for schools but your tunnel vision only lets you see the word 'ban'. You totally ignored the portion of locked doors and other security measures that don't need approval, which in many cases haven't been done, still!I do believe Dianne Feinstein's latest iteration of an assault weapons ban was blocked?
Again, not at all. Your own video shows that there are practical differences between the types of semi-automatics. Such differences are the defining lines on what should and should not be banned.
I've asked you for specifics which you haven't or can't provide but rather left it open ended that any gun could be added to the list and criteria expanded to fit that gun, that's a gun ban. You have yet to establish and defining lines with any rational reasons.
I said that for the average person it's easier to purchase a gun from a store than to acquire one from the black market. Is this something you dispute?
why would it be difficult for a non criminal to buy a gun? LOL dang you need to search this stuff yourself, this hand holding is getting tiresome. Only NON criminals can buy a gun from a gun store, yet criminals get guns and easily on the black market, this has been common knowledge just like the ease of getting illegal drugs, I'm not sure what bubble you live in but that's the reality for the majority of the world. I suggest you study up on the original and digital "silk road" and if you think it's totally gone away you need to learn a lot more about the world.
We have a logically sound way of dealing with guns.
not based in reality but as soon as they develop magic wands, sure.
It's similar in concept to the prohibition which was effective in many ways.
you mean when the banned all alcohol? I fail to see the similarities between all and only specific things being banned.
But you don't wish for this method to be tested.
if you had rights you wouldn't want your rights to be experimented on, because then they are no longer rights, I don't fault you for not understanding this concept but rather it's a symptom of where ever you live. animals don't know their in a zoo either.
previous successful bans.
it's been debunked let it go.
How do we know if it won't work if we haven't tested it? Because I can tell you one thing. What doesn't work is ignoring a problem.
you mean like not securing schools after the first shooting? Yeah I agree
so by your logic you'd be ok with armed teachers then, except that schools have tried it, and it works. following your logic, there hasn't been one mass murder in a school where teachers are armed, so all schools should have armed teachers.
I gave you the link that shows how the stats where picked for mass murders when 6 or more were killed thus skewing the data in the favor of the ban because 3-4 is the accepted number to qualify as mass murders. It's up to you to read it, I can't make you. here it is again
here's a fun fact since you mostly ignore my idea about enforcing laws and appropriate punishments, a woman purchased a gun for her known felon boyfriend who then went out and killed some people, what she did is illegal, it's a straw purchase, he's charged with murder naturally, she is sentenced to, get this, are you ready? probation. does probation sound like an adequate deterrent to prevent this sort of thing? I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
oh I know I've posted before about the rare metals etc that are needed to make the batteries and how much earth you have to dig out just to find the small amounts that might be in there, cobalt I think it was. China is creating an environmental nightmare because of the profit and demand for it, like they aren't doing that already anyway lol They would love it if were where dependent on them for solar panels and batteries. Trying to dictate terms to someone you are dependent on doesn't work very well either.
There's inherent risk in everything but with more knowledge and better technology we can minimize it. Given the advancements and what we know now, nuclear,hydro and gas power is a no brainer. Neither are sun or wind dependent and leave a smaller environmental foot print generally.
all I can say is LOL
since they absorb heat, where does that heat go? oh into the surrounding environment, isn't that global warming? Or do they use 100% of the heat they absorb every second of every day and turn it into electricity? somehow i don't think so.
the most efficient I can find is about 20% where's that 80% go? LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
war, disease, famine......institude a one child policy like China, maybe limit people who work to have children? I'm not actually proposing anything just pointing out the obvious that people are the problem.How do you propose the reduce the world's population?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
But I do believe the second amendment people have prevented these proposals for the most part.
yeah? they prevented locked school doors, metal detectors and guards? can you give one example where and why a pro patriot would do and have the power to prevent those things.
Is there something you are misunderstanding about the adaptability of a ban list?
no just waiting for you to admit you want to either ban all guns or all semi automatics, perhaps you haven't come to that realization yourself yet, I hope you do soon.
Maybe you don't understand what a magazine is or how it works, it's literally a plastic box with a spring in it which is why they are so easy to 3d print. Now do you know what a lower receiver is? that's the part of the gun that makes a gun a gun, it has the serial numbers stamped on it and is what the background check is for. You can purchase just the receiver and assemble the rest of the gun from parts. These can also be milled with a cnc machine or even a hand held router with a jig. I refer you back to your favorite search engine and look up a video where a guy melts down aluminum cans and pours them into a mold and makes an ar-15 receiver. Then I would tell you to look up how to make an ak-47 receiver because all it is, is bend sheet metal with holes drilled into the right places. Congratulations you've expanded the black market for guns. You say it's easy to get a gun but have never tried to.
If those mass murders who used a so called assault weapon couldn't get one legally how do you know they wouldn't have gotten one illegally or used a hand gun with similar results? Ah, you don't and couldn't possibly know. Therefore this claim that a ban reduces these crimes is impossible to prove and the stats clearly demonstrate it's not true anyway.
These preliminary results you cling to, don't exist in reality, just cherry picking stats and manipulation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
reduce the world's population, less people means less resources need, less global warming. Even running efficient plants, if the population grows they will need more and bigger plants to produce energy and more global warming again. Common denominator in all of this....people. Nuclear and natural gas are the 2 most logical until humans develop Star Trek like technology.
the batteries and infra structure need for wind and solar would be far worse environmentally, solar farms have already ruined some desert ecosystems.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
why do you think mass shooters dont turn their guns into automatics, or use bump stocks?don't you think many of them would use one if you offered them one before the attack?
the same reason military rifles are select fire, which means there's a switch on them so you can change between full auto and semi, obviously there's a reason they would want semi auto right? You can't aim a full auto well at all, but you don't need to it's not what it's for. Full auto is meant to keep the bad guys down and hiding so they can't shoot back, sure some actually get hit, but not as many if they were on semi auto and aiming. there's a term "suppression fire" basically you shoot a lot of bullets in their direction which makes them take and stay in cover. It's nothing like you see on tv or the movies neither are silencers, it's all b.s. Understand there was a time when machine guns were not regulated and still there might have been 1 mass murder with an actual machine gun/full auto. Far less than bombing and vehicles used to run crowds over that's for sure. The utility of weapons that fire that fast are few and for specific instances as I described. FPS mimic real life that's why when you fire on full auto it's very hard to control, because that's how it is in real life, only more so.
If full auto was so useful we'd have to make rubber bands illegal.
Mine you these guys are pros, but look as some of the pistol competition shooters, how fast and how many targets they can hit in just a few seconds, much faster than spray and pray.
Full auto gets the gun very hot and I think malfunctions more frequently than semi auto, they just aren't as useful, hence their occurrence is extremely rare. Banning bump stocks fixed a problem that never existed.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
no, slide fire stocks actually came out before bump stocks I believe, so these things have been around for years and only in one event was it alleged that it was used in a mass shooting. I say alleged because it was never definitively said that he actually used the bump stock, instead they used words and let people use their imagination to read that conclusion but never said it specifically and factually that I know of. Just because he had them, maybe even there was one on the rifle he used, doesn't mean he actually used it. They can be "locked" so it functions as a regular stock when you don't want to use the "bump" feature. again a search will reveal a multitude of diy ways to get the same effect as a bump stock or slide fire with very little to no cost. I'll narrow your search for you, type in "how to bump fire a gun with a rubber band" and you'll see my comment about banning them is correct. So then what? Censor the internet? Even though I would strongly disagree, a desire to ban all guns and or all semi auto is a better argument than banning just certain kinds.so you think if there were millions of bump stocks in circulation that mass shooters wouldn't be more likely to use one?
while I'm glad I got to use both a slide fire and bump stock, their usefulness and entertainment value is extremely low and certainly not worth the $100 to buy one. If I want that kind of entertainment I can go to the local private range and rent a real machine gun for less than $100, well maybe not with ammo depending on how much you want to shoot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
nuclear power and hydro power can provide reliable emissions-free power much more affordably than wind and solar power. Natural gas will produce a modest amount of emissions but is superior to wind and solar power on other important environmental fronts.
Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power
new Brookings working paper breaks down the comprehensive costs and benefits of five common low-carbon electricity technologies: wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, and gas combined cycle (an advanced, highly energy efficient type of natural gas plant).
renewable incentives that are biased in favor of wind and solar and biased against large-scale hydro, nuclear and gas combined cycle are a very expensive and inefficient way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
etc etc
Created:
Truth is, the Democrats aren’t leveling with the public about the billions we are already forced to spend on shelters, food, diapers, medical care and child care for migrants sneaking across the border and claiming asylum. Not to mention the costs of public schooling and health care provided free to migrants once they are released into communities.By deterring illegal crossings, the Wall will pay for itself in less than two years. It’s a bargain.
interesting, considering it's not coming from a right wing source
- Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for information due to proper sourcing and well respected journalists/editors.
I was a bit on the fence (pun intended) on the issue, but not after ready that article.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
What he doesn't say is how the comparatively least effective gun, a pistol objectively performs when not comparing it to other guns.
he did if you actually watched it. And may experts have said the same thing as what he was saying.
anyway Jeffery Dahmer didn't use a gun that's why my focus isn't really on the tool use but rather the individual, society at large.
so now we agree that the ar-15 is the best tool for home defense especially for those who aren't that skilled with firearms in general. That should settle the question as to why someone would want one and wouldn't a handgun be better.
You feel 18 rounds is too many but don't really explain why or what arbitrary number is enough. Even though a handgun could accept a 30 round even a 50 round magazine you aren't suggesting on banning those, even though as the fbi says the likely hood of over penetration from a handgun is much greater than the ar-15.
search these terms "ar-15 vs handgun over penetration fbi"
Other non semi auto rifles and pistols can still be shot rapidly. Yes somehow you think banning a certain type of gun which can't really be defined wouldn't still allow someone to use something else to accomplish their goal. If you look at this very close you'll see what this is, is a brace for a handgun, yes you actually put a handgun inside it.
Now picture that 50 round drum sticking of out and you'll probably have nightmares for a week.
Here's another search for ya "nerf gun shooting real bullets"
data shows just over 2m rifles produced for domestic use by these manufacturers from 2000 to 2010
the reality is any kind of ban or confiscation would take either a huge about of police and military operations to go from house to house or probably more years than either one of us will be on this earth. I agree something needs to be done and we should try, but we need to do things that can happen quickly and efficiently, the most outcome for the least resistance. And if we look at history none of these things or a very few have been tried, which begs the question, why?
There was a school shooting before Newtown and yet not much was done to address school security. What measures have been put in place after the school in Florida? Lots of ideas talked about and tossed about but what has actually been implemented? And yet the cries to ban guns, more laws blah blah blah this is why i believe there's ulterior motives to these bans. if it was truly about saving lives so many useful things should have and would have been done many years ago, and yet...... Can you understand the skepticism people have and why?
You probably aren't old enough to remember the earth quake and other things that have happened in Japan years ago. Because of their culture you didn't see people looting or taking advantage of the situation, you saw people helping one another. Compare that with the society in the U.S. and there's quite a sicking contrast. I would even say that type of behavior is the worst of any other country. And yet, as I have stated many times, the true problem is this sickness in U.S. society and no one seems to care or want to address it, I have my conspiracy theories as to why.
Here's a great example
In serial killing, the USA with a staggering figure of 2743 serial killers stays at the top position. This figure is approximately 19 times more than the number of serial killers in England. In the USA, the serial killers are of all races like White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans.The most common method adopted by these serial killers in the US is bombing, strangulation, poisoning, and stabbing.As a disturbed childhood is quite common in the profile of such killers, it is important to make sure every child is receiving love and care from his or her caregivers at home.
let's add in the drug and mental health problems (again largely ignored) and the totality of it all makes for a very sick society. But this is nothing new and yet not much has been done about any of these things even though most are tied together or otherwise related. We could get into the family breakdown, absence of fathers or a male role model etc, but I don't think it's necessary.
Until Klarevas came along, virtually all researchers had concluded that it was impossible to discern what, if any, positive effect the ban’s prohibition of rifles with “military-style features” had on crime or mass shooting incidents.a ProPublica investigationreported in 2014, gun control experts said there was no evidence it saved lives.
But there's a serious flaw in Klarevas' result: There are few actual "assault weapons" of any type in his dataset, either pre- or post-ban.I say “apparent” drop in fatalities because, as Klarevas admits in a footnote, if you use the most widely accepted threshold for categorizing a shooting as a “mass shooting” — four fatalities, as opposed to Klarevas’ higher threshold of six — the 1994 to 2004 drop in fatalities disappears entirely.five mass shootings that took place with “assault weapons” in the decade before the ban, and three that took place during its tenure. These numbers are far too small for any sort of statistical inference, especially if you're trying to build a case for banning tens of millions of legally owned rifles.
based on the modularity of the AR-15’s design, that if a new ban passes and it’s anything like the old one, millions of Americans will be able to legally obtain substantially the same guns we can buy today, but we’ll just have to buy them in pieces.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I have no idea. A study on maximal allowed rounds would certainly need to be performed however. Personally my gut feeling is that even 18 for a pistol is too many but if the study shows otherwise I certainly wouldn't have any objections.
I'm confused because you want to ban ar-15 in part because it can hold 30 rounds, you know some states put a limit on how many a magazine can hold right? if the were restricted to 18 would that be ok then? if not why not?
executed better, I agree. Every law should be executed in the most effective and complete way possible.
agreed
Does this "run or give up" behaviour apply to mass shooters?
there's no way to tell, if they hadn't returned fire perhaps they would have been a mass murderer, there's no way to tell. We can't count the mass murders that never happened.
there is no test, the questions you have asked have been asked many times and answered I suggest you research it rather than take my word for it. btw police don't have full auto, the right is to bear ordinary common weapons like semi-auto. the bump stock is useless and the ban a laughable farce to placate irrational liberals.
I get the feeling that mass shooters have knowingly already discarded their own life from the moment they pull the first shot.
how many have been killed vs caught? I wouldn't count on the muslim mass murders because that was a religious thing like the suicide bombers but they used guns.
That said, what is the proper tool for defending yourself and your family? Is a semi-automatic pistol with lets say a 10 round capacity sufficient or do you need an AR-15?
since it's my life, my family how about you leave that choice up to me, rather than you making that choice for me? Or are you suggesting the government turn totalitarian/fascist?
ah yes those "experts" because they don't have personal and political agendas LOL
the evidence remains murky and depends on how researchers define "gun-free"
that's bs, it's where you aren't allowed to have a gun, stupidly simple
He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present
that's just being pedantic.
you haven't countered the points that they made. You've ignored them,
I've already disagreed with your opinions, the whole correlation thing.
search the tube for "ar-15 for home defense" assuming your internet is not censored I'll start you off https://youtu.be/i3sLHGduI3w
watch that one at the very least and tell me how you disagree with him, or perhaps if you don't disagree with him. it should be very educational for you I think. It was for me.
I agree we are kind of all over the place because it's a complex topic imo and you bounce back a forth a bit between an ar-15 and ak-47, btw ak-47 aren't that easy to shoot imo, not my favorite by any means.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Pistols carry between 7-18.
how about 20 rounds? would you agree to just 2 more?
If mass shooters wished to kill as many people as possible, they would use fully automatic firearms.
not if they are smart, spray and pray doesn't even work well in video games, you can't aim a machine gun accurately. Sure they are awesome in movies but real life, not even close and I'm telling you this as someone who's used a bump fire stock a couple of times.
You've hit the wall in terms of such laws.
you mean except for the felons caught trying to purchase guns right? there's no wall there since they are rarely prosecuted. I could go one, but that example should suffice.
So what is your solution for these cases?
allowing trained and lawful citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves and others. When a criminal has a gun who do you call, another person with a gun. All these mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones right? Even the one on the military base, that area was a gun free zone.
what better deterrent than thinking the would be victim is armed? plenty of examples when a shooter is shot back at they run or give up.
why do citizens need an AR-15 or similar type of gun?
it's none of your business what I own and there is no "needs" test for the 2a
I don't care for frivolous rights that can only do harmis this a right that citizens need to have?
the right to protect myself and my family isn't frivolous, it would be if I didn't have the proper tools to do it with though. Everyone has the right to go to Mars, what good is that since it's not possible? same idea.
you are having a difficult timing defining on what you wanted banned so you have to keep expanding the list aka gun ban, let's say the ar-15 is banned, what is to stop someone from making something kind of similar but calling it the "cute and fuzzy bunny" gun, it's not an ar-15 so it's not banned right? Either you chase your tail and ban things as them come out, which there are probably millions of combinations etc or you ban guns.
Bans or threats of, make people go out an buy them. During Obama's reign there were shortages and higher prices. Now they are having to come up with creative ways to make sales, even ammo is dirt cheap, some cheaper than pre Obama. Remmington either is or was going to have to file bankruptcy because the sales have dropped off so much after Trump was elected. Ironic don't you think?
anyway as I said you can't put the genie back in the bottle so unless you are advocating a house to house search for banned guys by the police and military (because it would take both and still take years to do) an assault weapon ban isn't practical, helpful or logical based on reducing mass murders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
what I find ironic is California had/has some of the worst air polluted cities in the U.S. and didn't do much to cleanup their own yard. Yet they want to lecture the rest of the U.S. and world.
California has eight of 10 most polluted U.S. cities
Published 12:01 a.m. ET April 18, 2018
do as I say, not as I do.
Created:
I need you to think for a bit and try reading behind the lines even if I haven't explicitly said so. If you are completely clueless about guns and are an average joe bloggs, like many people are, is it easier to legally buy a gun from a gun shop, or illegally buy a gun from the black market.
a felon can't purchase a gun legally, so they would have to purchase it on the black market. But somehow you seem to think if you stop law abiding citizens from purchases it's some kind of trickle down effect that there won't be a black market supply which is absurd.
Ok. If I understand it correctly, it's a cosmetic feature that is a common characteristic found on guns classed as assault weapons. But I've already stated the main thing I care about is the killing potential of a gun. If a pistol grip is irrelevant in this regard, I would not include it in the list of specifications for an assault weapon. Is this what you wished to hear?
it's like pulling teeth with you, just come out and admit you want to ban all semi automatic guns.
you want to stop or reduce "mass murders" which has an arbitrary number of 4, therefore ANY gun that can hold 4 or more bullets must be banned. Which in all practical purposes voids the 2a.
you just don't understand human ingenuity and the creativity they will devise to circumvent laws, synthetic drugs is a pretty good example, some of which were only made illegal long after they were created.
this is NOT a semi auto rifle https://youtu.be/0MFvxSrfemg?t=100 lever action aka single shot
different type of gun, NOT a semi auto https://youtu.be/2tuBJtqbm9A?t=86 bolt action aka single shot
your claim that you want to ban "assault rifles" is either a deception or ignorance, you want to ban virtually all guns that hold 4 or more bullets to prevent or reduce mass shootings, which mass shootings is your primary focus.
Laws should definitely be enforced absolutely. However this is punishing criminals after the fact which is not gun control. It doesn't prevent or reduce the impact of such events from concurring in the first place, which is the point of gun control
laws are meant to deter behavior, that's all they can do, hence my premise the problem is people, not objects. If the deterrent isn't adequate or working it needs to change. If you are familiar with Star Trek Next Generation, they came across a planet with no crime, why? because breaking any law carried the death penalty, as one character said why would anyone break the law knowing the punishment was death? I'm not suggesting that way of life but I hope you see the point. Risk/reward, pros/cons there's also a saying, if you can't do the time don't do the crime. Laws and punishment have become to lax, prisons too soft, free tv etc So rather than dealing with those issues you want to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. That's where the opposition to such ideas comes from, if you can see all this in context of the bigger picture.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Do you have any ideas on how to prevent sickos from committing homicide?
I personally don't, but this has been studied for decades, but more could and should be done. People are much quicker to violence than 20-30 years ago. The incidents of road rage, for example, that sometimes end up in someone's death was extremely rare back then. There's less self control, respect and moral among many other things compared to when there was less violence. Society is desensitized to violence and causes a lack of empathy for a fellow human being. There's a lot of ideas and have been, but not much gets done. You see it's not really about fixing the problems but rather banning guns. If you were serious about the issue then fixing the laws that already exist would have already happened right? There's no controversy with fixing existing laws is there?
Created:
-->
@Alec
look at youtube tasers aren't as effective as you think even when used by trained police. Guns are also used for hunting and target shooting, not just self protection. In fact I would say most guns are not purchased for protection, but rather some form of recreation.
tim mcveigh didn't use a gun, this is why my stance has always been changing hearts, identifying and helping if possible these disturbed individuals before something happens. What's to stop someone like him from doing something similar, nothing. Don't forget the Boston marathon bombers. The sick mind that wants to kill is very difficult if not impossible to stop, but we should try and do more to be proactive. We have to do a better job of identifying these sick individuals and work within the laws to prevent things like that from happening, to our best abilities anyway.
Created: