it’s not that they use the 3-shot option, or the fully auto option… i never said they did… In fact, i would suspect that they would prefer to shoot in semi-auto mode because of a higher rate of accuracy. However, I was merely explaining that the difference between the AR-15, and the rifles armed forces have is the CAPABILITY (emphasis added) to shoot in the other options. The AR-15 common among civilians does not have a 3-shot option or fully auto option on the selector switch. Rather, it just says “Fire” and "Safe"or “Safety”
I declare victory.
OK. But as I’ve stated three times now. IT DOES NOT MATTER. You’re in a pissing match over semantics because the effectiveness between either model is identical. If the entire armed forces is using these things in semi-auto for better effectiveness and the civilian version is semi auto, what the hell does it matter if someone insinuated it was three shot burst in the debate? Really. For all it matters, we all have the same general idea of what we’re talking about here. It’s been cleared up and it stopped being about adding useful input about a page ago.
So do I
Video game crap? You never go full auto in any FPS - Halo, CoD, Battlefield. The recoil makes your accuracy horrible. It’s all about short, controlled bursts.
To tag along on what bchad has implied, it seems the shooter may have been gay (which makes perfect sense). Eventually, he got to a point where he just exploded (damn near literally). But, he likely had so much anger because his religion (and his father’s dickish behavior inspired by his religion) drove him to deny his true self and take it out on those he envied most.
So, it’s both a columbine and radical muslim thing. Bad combo.
the entire armed forces isn’t trying to, nor are they allowed to, try and inflict as many casualties as possible in a crowded room of people dancing and drinking with one another. In the event they were trying to mow down an entire room of people as quickly as possible without any regard to who they were trying to shoot, AND they had the ability to shoot fully automatic, they would undoubtedly shoot in fully automatic. To believe anything otherwise would be foolish.
And IT DOES MATTER when you have politicians, liberal media pundits, and their ilk trying to define a gun as something it’s not by linking them to the very weapons the armed forces have. It’s been evidenced extensively in this thread alone (i.e. palantir, bchad, STL). Non-Gun people just take them at their word when they say fully automatic assault rifles are to blame and they need to be banned… when in fact, not a single fully automatic assault rifle has been used in any of these attacks. So, it’s hard to say it does not matter when these idiots have brainwashed half of America and most of the people in other countries into believing Americans have such lax gun laws that people have access to military grade weaponry when it’s just not true.
Don’t lump me in there. I haven’t said anything about fully automatic vs. semi. I was just curious what constitutes a gun to be classified as an AR.
my apologies.
EDIT: I lumped your following comment into the “having your opinion/understanding of guns formed by what politicians and media tell you about guns” category…
I don’t know how the Columbine kids got around the AR ban (or can’t remember), but it seems to me that making the things more widely available is to shoot-em-up outcomes the way making bathrooms available to whatever gender you identify with makes the danger of men going into womens’ bathrooms for the fun of it much easier.
I think that part of the problem here is that gun laws here in the US are likely to be extremely leaky or poorly enforced or that there are enough guns that would be grandfathered in as to make these laws little more than a paper tiger.
I don’t know what guns got used in the theater in Paris in November. I seem to remember they were automatic guns, which IIRC are highly controlled in France. What that seems to show is that terrorists are still able to get their hands on guns, but schoolchildren have a much harder time doing the same. I think that’s an improvement over the idea that everyone can grab a few if they want them.
I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t really want to ban guns - I enjoy recreational shooting as well - but I think it’s at least worth considering, and I’m frustrated that the discussion of what would be a sensible gun policy rarely even makes it to first base.
(I’ll take a look at your solution, but I have stuff to get done here too, so might not be able to respond in much detail).
The thing I find most hypocritical is that democrats scream for gun control when they know they can’t get it passed, but did absolutely nothing when they could. I agree it’s messed up that someone on the do not fly list can legally purchase a gun, but if democrats had practiced what they preach when there was no one to stop them, that wouldn’t even be an issue anymore.
Many republicans have pretty messed up view on guns, but at least they are transparent on the issue. If democrats truly cared about gun control, and not just scoring points politically, they would call out members of their own party, starting with President Obama, former majority leader Reid, and former Speaker Pelosi. Any member of the house who was a member back in 2009 and 2010 and shouted at Speaker Ryan this morning should be on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. explaining why they didn’t introduce even a single piece of gun control legistlation in 2009 or 2010 calling for a reauthorization of the assault weapons ban.
Again, fair enough. Though if you knew anything about me I doubt you’d believe my opinions are so easily manipulated.
False. I doubt you’ve ever shot fully or even a semi AR at this point. Ammo is heavy. Carrying twenty 30rd clips is about 23 pounds of very bulky weight and reloading quickly with that much bulk is a task. Layer on the fact that your rounds are small (~.22 caliber) and loosely flying about and you’re more likely to be hitting empty air or non-vital areas then anything lethal. Lethality by and large would fall by a mile. I’m not going into the math because of the morbidity but I used a few basic assumptions such as hit concentration on individuals (because of the rapid fire) and even a favorable hit rate and came in at a much lower injury count.
Wont argue with you on that higgy. I think when you have control and you know you cant get something passed you do either one of 2 things: 1) you dont bring it up for a vote since your defeat will be embarrassing or 2) you bring it up for a vote to make the other side vote nay and try and embarrass them. (as seen with the repubs and their 7000 votes to repeal obamacare) Both ways are political posturing as nothing will get accomplished.
Would certainly have been nice to see them at least back up their efforts with a serious effort, but I think the NRA money and general support (even among many dems in fairly conservative areas) may have been too much political capital they couldnt afford to spend. PA is largely out of play for republicans in presidential elections lately but dems going far on gun laws may put that back in play etc.
I don’t think it’s a bad solution, though I can see some implementation snags. These aren’t necessarily arguments against it; merely some things to think about.
-
Given the second Ammendment is in the Federal constitution, states may not be able to make those kinds of gun laws. Imagine if you said “We’ll leave to the states a decision on how much to allow freedom of speech.” At some level, this does happen in the form of how libel laws differ from state to state, but I could totally see an organization like the NRA saying that the second ammendment prohibits the states from doing this. Thus, in order to do this, one would have to ammend the constitution to say that the prohibition formerly in the 2nd ammendment is devolved to the states. That is possible in an idealized world, but I don’t imagine it happening anytime soon.
-
If one state loosens up its laws (say Texas, who might think about seceding and thus arming its population), then it might include making arms sales legal to non-residents too. I guess the Feds could apply the interstate commerce clause to make bringing guns across state lines a federal offense, though how that would be enforced is tricky, since one would mostly know either by accident (tips, searches, etc.) or after-the-fact.
-
It would be interesting to see how this works when families move or inherit property. Perhaps guns must be returned to dealers if anything goes out of state, or guns would have to be re-registered through a network of licensed dealers. That would be a potential for leakage.
Anyway, I think that’s a sensible proposal, though I’m not sure how it would have affected the case we are talking about now (though, admittedly, my brain feels a bit like goo now).
until now, I was unaware that he was on a no-fly list. I knew he had been interviewed at least twice prior for possible connections to ISIS, but the interviews were “inconclusive,” and after that, he was no longer being investigated or being watched by the FBI. I believe I read on CNN that he was able to bypass some, if not many, of the FBI background checks because he was a “security guard.” In any event, he was known to the FBI, and he slipped through their own background checks… which is pretty messed up.
I wonder if FBI was too busy investigatting Hillary’s email that they didn’t have resources to devote to this?
Another reason to hate Hillary.
First and foremost, you are correct in that I’ve never shot a fully auto gun. Your doubt regarding me shooting an AR is wildly misguided. I own three AR-15s, one AR-10, a ruger mini-14, among about 22 other guns between shotguns, bolt-action rifles, and handguns. I’ve dabbled in 3-gun competition, I shoot recreationally, and I hunt… A LOT.
I’ll agree to disagree on what would inflict maximum casualties/mame the most people in a crowded room of 300+ people in a “pick your target and shoot” vs “spray and pray”… like you said… it’s too morbid to think/talk about.
I don’t know, Higgs, I’m not in control of the Democratic party.
I guess at the time you discuss, Obamacare was considered more of a priority than gun control, and there was only so much political capital that could be used, even with a majority in both houses. You make it sound like controlling the white house and two houses of congress could make the Democrats do whatever they like, except if that were true, we’d get a single-payer option on healthcare and not this Obamacare least-common-passable-denominator crap. The Republicans still fillibustered pretty much everything and required supermajorities to get anything passed in the Senate, which basically neutralized nominal control over the Senate. Add to this that the party is not monolithic across all issues, and so the fact that there were 51 senators or whatnot doesn’t automatically mean “Democratic leaders always get what they campaign for” (e.g. Blue Dog democrats mentioned earlier).
So, yes, politics pushed gun control further down the agenda than other things like heath care and the earned income credit. And now someone shoots up a place and you want to say that this means that Democrats are hypocrites (though you might want to distinguish between Democratic politicians vs just people who vote for Democrats). For politicians, pretty much all of them end up being hypocrites if you look carefully enough, but that doesn’t mean that basic positions don’t make some sense.
Gun control is not an issue that drives my vote or my world view, but things like this happen and it still seems relevant to think about. I would think Republicans would be more concerned about gun control. Wouldn’t the 1% be safer if the 99% couldn’t get their hands on lethal weapons?
I like this idea. It’s certainly a hell of a lot better than deflecting blame about mass shootings, shrugging your shoulders, and just sitting around waiting for it to happen again which a lot of people seem content with.