The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[KI4MVP]

The founding fathers likely didn't anticipate humans having devices that allow them to communicate with anyone in the world, yet the 1st amendment still covers the Internet.

Not even remotely the same thing.

I've made this point in the past, the "right to bear arms" has clearly been determined to not be a unlimited right. The debate has never been if there is a line, the debate has always been where that line is. The rights of others to be able to live their lives without the fear of being shot by a random person with a gun has to be factored in.

The stat was 18 shootings at school this year, that stat got debated because many of those 18 gun incidents did not involve students being shot at. But the fact remains that 18 times this year, guns have gotten onto and been fired at school property. That is just insane.

And the party who fights against gun legislation also refused to provide adequate school safety funding in Florida.

 

[Mr. Orange]

I'm sorry, but this is the exact reason so many of "us" simply tune you guys out on gun control issues. No matter how many times the point gets made -- and I don't think it's exaggerating to say there have probably been 50 posts here making this point -- the AR-15 and "assault weapons" are not automatic weapons. They are not "machine guns". But the exact same core factual error keeps getting made.

Joe Scarborough said yesterday that the AR-15 was "more lethal" than the M-16. Statements like that get repeated, and become part of many peoples' understanding of the issue.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMAJuZav5SY


This is an extremely common misunderstanding that I think is pushed deliberately by media types and politicians who know better. They use the phrase "assault weapon", because they know that a significant percentage will infer that makes it like the automatic weapons they see in movies, etc.. If you call them on it, they'll innocently claim they didn't say it was automatic, while knowing full well that's the inference many people will draw.

ETA: The true issue is whether or not semi-automatic rifles should be banned. That is exactly how the issue should be framed for public debate. It's the most accurate, least misleading descriptor possible.

I meant to write "assault weapons" like I did in the rest of the post. It was clearly a typo and in no way should have caused anyone to tune out the post. I understand the difference. I also understand how one can buy aftermarket parts to turn a semi-auto into an auto.

 

[MediumBaller]

Not even remotely the same thing.

I've made this point in the past, the "right to bear arms" has clearly been determined to not be a unlimited right. The debate has never been if there is a line, the debate has always been where that line is. The rights of others to be able to live their lives without the fear of being shot by a random person with a gun has to be factored in.

The stat was 18 shootings at school this year, that stat got debated because many of those 18 gun incidents did not involve students being shot at. But the fact remains that 18 times this year, guns have gotten onto and been fired at school property. That is just insane.

And the party who fights against gun legislation also refused to provide adequate school safety funding in Florida.

The 1st amendment isn't unlimited either. It seems like most of the time these pussy mass shooters target gun-free zones. They attack places where they know the people won't be able to defend themselves - movie theaters, schools, night clubs, etc. We need to do a better job making sure that the people in these areas aren't sitting ducks. I've sat in class before and thought "wow, if someone comes through that door with a gun we're all screwed." Knowing that I was in a "gun-free zone" didn't make me feel safer at all.

imo, gun control isn't the answer because the overwhelming majority of crimes involving guns are not committed by lawful gun owners. We can create more gun-related laws, but the criminals will just keep breaking them like they do the current ones.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.f40422b9c4c7

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The stat was 18 shootings at school this year, that stat got debated because many of those 18 gun incidents did not involve students being shot at. But the fact remains that 18 times this year, guns have gotten onto and been fired at school property. That is just insane.

Right. And every single time it happened was in violation of the law. But that didn't prevent the shooting from happening. Point is, the intent behind a law is irrelevant -- what matters is the actual effect on the ground. The focus should be on actions that tangibly reduce the likelihood of this occurring again, not just actions that make people feel better about themselves because they feel like they've "done something".

Which means that if you're going to pass gun control laws, you have to ask the question of what that law will actually accomplish in relation to the goal you're trying to accomplish.

 

[KI4MVP]

The 1st amendment isn't unlimited either. It seems like most of the time these pussy mass shooters target gun-free zones. They attack places where they know the people won't be able to defend themselves - movie theaters, schools, night clubs, etc. We need to do a better job making sure that the people in these areas aren't sitting ducks. I've sat in class before and thought "wow, if someone comes through that door with a gun we're all screwed." Knowing that I was in a "gun-free zone" didn't make me feel safer at all.

imo, gun control isn't the answer because the overwhelming majority of crimes involving guns are not committed by lawful gun owners. We can create more gun-related laws, but the criminals will just keep breaking them like they do the current ones.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.f40422b9c4c7

I don't recall the last time one of these shootings was carried out by an actual assault weapon (which are illegal to sell), but instead they often get carried out by similar weapons (which are legal to sell) that can effectively be converted into assault weapons.

How about we star by fixing that problem, so we aren't selling weapons that can inflict mass casualties with minimal reload time.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-florida-shooting-gun-control-20180219-story.html

 

[AZ_]

I don't recall the last time one of these shootings was carried out by an actual assault weapon (which are illegal to sell), but instead they often get carried out by similar weapons (which are legal to sell) that can effectively be converted into assault weapons.

How about we star by fixing that problem, so we aren't selling weapons that can inflict mass casualties with minimal reload time.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-florida-shooting-gun-control-20180219-story.html

What are your thoughts on a National Gun registry in an effort to clean up unregistered weapons?

The sheer number of guns on our streets is so great, anything to make a meaningful impact has to be considered.

 

[Nathan S]

Right. And every single time it happened was in violation of the law. But that didn't prevent the shooting from happening. Point is, the intent behind a law is irrelevant -- what matters is the actual effect on the ground. The focus should be on actions that tangibly reduce the likelihood of this occurring again, not just actions that make people feel better about themselves because they feel like they've "done something".

Which means that if you're going to pass gun control laws, you have to ask the question of what that law will actually accomplish in relation to the goal you're trying to accomplish.

To be fair, I do think it helps that it's illegal to shoot people. There would *definitely* be more shootings if it was legal


(sorry, just getting all my trolling out while I still can)

 

[Huber.]

What are your thoughts on a National Gun registry in an effort to clean up unregistered weapons?

The sheer number of guns on our streets is so great, anything to make a meaningful impact has to be considered.

Ahh the future confiscation list. Creating a list of people that don't own guns (easy targets) and a list of people that do own guns (theft). Sounds like a fool proof plan. We should also make people register every time they exercise their first amendment rights.

 

[MediumBaller]

I don't recall the last time one of these shootings was carried out by an actual assault weapon (which are illegal to sell), but instead they often get carried out by similar weapons (which are legal to sell) that can effectively be converted into assault weapons.

How about we star by fixing that problem, so we aren't selling weapons that can inflict mass casualties with minimal reload time.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-skelton-florida-shooting-gun-control-20180219-story.html

So would you like to see a ban for so-called "assault weapons" or what are you proposing? 62% of firearm deaths are suicides, and of the 36% of firearm deaths that are homicides, most of them are carried out with handguns. Taking action on "assault weapons" might make the population feel like something is being done, but the reality is that likely wouldn't make that much of a difference in the big picture.

 

[KI4MVP]

So would you like to see a ban for so-called "assault weapons" or what are you proposing? 62% of firearm deaths are suicides, and of the 36% of firearm deaths that are homicides, most of them are carried out with handguns. Taking action on "assault weapons" might make the population feel like something is being done, but the reality is that likely wouldn't make that much of a difference in the big picture.

I want to fix the very real and growing problem of mass shootings, and your counter to that as a gun supporter that is that guns cause so many other problems we should ignore this one? Seriously?

 

[MediumBaller]

I want to fix the very real and growing problem of mass shootings, and your counter to that as a gun supporter that is that guns cause so many other problems we should ignore this one? Seriously?

No, my position is that so much energy is focused on this one particular part of the problem when it isn't the biggest part, or even close to it really. "Assault weapons" aren't the weapon of choice in most homicides, handguns are. What are you wanting to be accomplished to fix the problem of mass shootings? Are you looking for a complete ban on the AR-15 and similar guns?

 

[BMAN]

Like gouri, I’ve been a big gun advocate even though I lean left on a lot of things. But, after countless mass shootings (especially the latest ones involving kids) I just don’t know where I stand on it anymore. Something has to be done. I’m just wondering what the conservatives think the solution is on the board?

 

[Cassity14]

No, my position is that so much energy is focused on this one particular part of the problem when it isn't the biggest part, or even close to it really. "Assault weapons" aren't the weapon of choice in most homicides, handguns are. What are you wanting to be accomplished to fix the problem of mass shootings? Are you looking for a complete ban on the AR-15 and similar guns?

KI is referring to mass shootings as the problem.

You are trying to take what he's saying and apply it to guns in general, but he's clearly talking about incidents like this most recent one, the one in Vegas, etc. and how to better prevent those types of shootings.

In your data referring to homicides and gun type, is there a way to look for what types of weapons are most likely used in shootings that result in 10+ casualties bye a single shooter? 20+?

When's the last time one of those mass shootings occurred and was carried out by anything other than an assault styled weapon? I honestly can't think of a single one.

Sandy Hook - check
Aurora - check
Vegas - check
Florida - check

Hand guns, especially in the hands of untrained shooters, simply aren't as capable of these results as the weapons being used in the incidents above.

 

[Huber.]

Like gouri, I’ve been a big gun advocate even though I lean left on a lot of things. But, after countless mass shootings (especially the latest ones involving kids) I just don’t know where I stand on it anymore. Something has to be done. I’m just wondering what the conservatives think the solution is on the board?

No more easy target zones. No more making the shooters famous like the Daily Wire is doing. No more destruction of American values and family life. A a huge portion of these stories shooters are lonely, angry, bitter, rejected, fatherless, and directionless young men.

 

[KI4MVP]

No, my position is that so much energy is focused on this one particular part of the problem when it isn't the biggest part, or even close to it really. "Assault weapons" aren't the weapon of choice in most homicides, handguns are. What are you wanting to be accomplished to fix the problem of mass shootings? Are you looking for a complete ban on the AR-15 and similar guns?

I want to fix the problem where one person can kill large amounts of people in a relatively small amount of time. Like the Florida school shooting last week or the Las Vegas shooting last year.

We fail as a society when we can't send our kids to school knowing they will be alive to come back home at the end of the day. This specific problem gets progressively worse.


In the entire 1970s there was only 1 incident (two if you count the tragic Kent State incident)
In the entire 1980s there was also only 1 incident.

Fast forward to now

There are been 3 mass killing incidents in schools in the past 10 months.

14 of the 23 deadliest mass shootings in US history have happened in the last 13 years. Only 2 of the 23 deadliest happened before 1982. This is a relatively recent phenomena in our country that we need to address.