I’m not going to bother starting a debate here, but I’ll point out that you didn’t suggest a course of action in this statement.
Start a debate… I’m fine with it.
As far as a course of action is concerned, I implicitly (possibly even explicitly) did suggest a course of action. Recognizing what the actual problem is, rather than what you want the problem to actually be because the media told you what it is, is the first step in fixing the problem.
A gun that fires cartridges less powerful than machine guns and more powerful than pistols. There is no precise definition btw.
Ok, a couple things stick out to me. Mostly with Bchad’s posts, which I find misguided.
First off, the difference between an MCX or any other assault rifle is largely irrelevant at this stage. They all are carbine / rifle sized guns that can shoot large clips fast. So there’s that. Although to be clear this gun is not a machine gun, it is a semi automatic (must pull trigger each time) such as it matters.
Bchad, you need to be more clear and use your facts. Do you want to curb gun deaths or curb events like this particular incident. These seem the same, but they aren’t particularly if you’re advocating an AR ban. Assault weapons account for less than 3% of non-suicide gun deaths in the US in any given year, but are the backbone of the civil defense stance. So if you really want to curb gun deaths you’re simply barking up the wrong tree. Eliminating an entire class of weapons over a barely marginal impact is ineffective policy. You’d want to look into handguns rather than AR’s, background checks and increased federal control of gun related sentencing for that.
But lets just pretend you got what you wanted and imposed an AR ban like the federal one that covered all of these weapons in place between 1994 and 2004 and successfully prevented Columbine from occuring in 1999… We can point at Paris (despite gun ban), the London subway, OK City, Boston, etc etc etc to illustrate that the real problem people have is with perception. Even if you banned assault weapons and somehow it worked (as opposed to the prior ban), people like this and events like this will still occur and I can’t be sure a bomb in a club or a full length rifle would have been less of a problem. To the point that is repeatedly voiced, 6 died and 63 were wounded in Chicago in Memorial Day shootings, as they are every year as part of their annual tradition despite some of the strictest gun laws. There are far bigger impact areas to pursue rather than the assault rifle boogie man. We can also point to the actual steady DECLINE rather than perceived INCREASE in related gun deaths nearly every year since the AR ban rolled off in 2004.
Thats pretty arbitrary to say that it’s the full auto capability that makes something a weapon of war given that full auto has a very niche use even in a military context.
Let’s assume I agree with you that it’s a people problem, not a gun problem. Again, what is the course of action to prevent mass shootings in our country going forward?
your ignorance on guns is really starting to shine through…
The characteristics of an assault rifle include, but are not limited to: fully auto/3-shot burst capability and a pistol grip.
I don’t think a fully automatic vs semi is really something to get caught up on. I have friends that have gone the special forces route and they nearly never use the fully automatic firing options. I actually think lethality would decline if people did.
Did mass shootings ever happen in the wild west? Maybe gun ownership should be required by law? There are many towns in Texas with 100% household gun ownership and a zero % crime rate.
weapon of war was your term… i was putting it into factual context for everyone, rather than your arbitrary generalized, all-encompassing umbrella of a weapon category. the fully auto/3-shot burst selection capability is the primary difference between an “assault rifle” or “weapon of war” and the common civilian AR-15 or AK47 imposter. Shall I explain the difference between fully auto and 3-shot burst to you? Is 3-shot burst sufficiently self-explanatory for you to understand?
I already solved this shit years ago:
http://www.analystforum.com/forums/water-cooler/91317474
Also, O’rielly’s point on federal sentencing beginning at 4:30 is excellent.
Actually your ignorance is showing through. That’s the definition of an assault weapon, which is a legal term, and not assault rifle, which is not clearly defined.
Guys, let this sh*t go, you’re arguing technicalities. We have the same general idea and arguing about whether a gun has three shot burst or whatever is getting caught up in minutia. It really doesn’t matter and I say this as a gun person.
The M4 carbine is a shorter and lighter variant of the M16A2 assault rifle. The M4 is a 5.56×45mm NATO, air-cooled, direct impingementgas-operated, magazine-fed carbine. It has a 14.5 in (370 mm) barrel and a telescoping stock.
The M4 carbine is heavily used by the United States Armed Forces and is replacing the M16 rifle in most United States Army and United States Marine Corps combat units as the primary infantry weapon.[5][6]
The M4 is also capable of mounting the M203 grenade launcher. The distinctive step in their barrel is for mounting the M203 with the standard hardware. The M4 is capable of firing in semi-automatic and three-round burst (like the M16A2 and M16A4), while the M4A1 is capable of firing in semi-auto and full automatic (like the M16A1 and M16A3).
I think the main issue is whether people think this guy is more like the kids who shot up Columbine or more like the kids who blew up the Boston Marathon. If it looks more like Columbine, you say it’s a gun problem (or a mental health problem, or both), if you say it’s more like the Boston marathon, you say it’s a terrorism problem.
From the evidence I see, it looks to me more like Columbine, but because the whackjob who did this was muslim, he says “hail ISIS” before going down in what he considers his blaze of glory. That doesn’t mean there isn’t also a terrorism problem that needs to be addressed, but it doesn’t look to me like this was ordered or coordinated by ISIS or Al Qaida.
Then there’s the question of how our reaction would change if it is established that ISIS or AQ ordered this attack. Clearly a response is required in that case, but does that mean the gun concerns are somehow not relevant anymore? As if there aren’t enough school shootings and things like that going on?
And as for objecting to the phrase “portable machine guns,” I’ll grant you that I didn’t pay close enough attention to the exact type of gun that was used, if you want to ding me for that, fine, but I think you’re just shooting for debate points by taking a point about the general availability of automatic and semiautomatic guns and saying, “but that brand of gun wasn’t used here,”
No shit sherlock, but you’re so caught up in arguing with your verbal diahrea that you can’t tell you’re just spewing white noise. My point was very clearly, that in speaking with probably five or six special forces guys, they’ve all told me they pretty much leave it locked in semi auto the entire time, that the other modes are counterproductive. Copy and pasting a link showing that in addition to semi auto, some guns have a 3 shot mode and some have full auto is completely missing my point.
Your argument is wrong. Firing modes don’t define either assault rifles (separate from assault weapons) which I’ve pointed out before, or weapons of war. Is a semi auto anti materiel rifle not a weapon of war?
agreed with BS. Knew some guys that while not spec ops were doing recon for the marines and no one uses their weapon on burst or auto that is video game crap. You can only carry so much ammo and you need to make each shot worth while.
Columbine occured while the comprehensive AR ban was in place, how could that be? A gun problem during the strictest period of gun control in the US? Are you admitting the ban doesn’t work if that is what this most directly compares to?
What I want are two things:
First, for people to read my solution I linked to above and see if that makes sense. I really think it’s the best answer that everyone can agree on.
Secondly, for us all to accept that what we’re really focused on are less than 3% of gun casualties (which could easily just occur with a different gun choice) in any given year, which is largely a waste of hot air.