The first incident

[Crepitus]

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/)

Most likely the first of many if we attempt to arm educators.

[Ransom]

Versus the untrained teacher who just had to resort to his girth to protect his students.

[Chris]

IOW, if the solution in and of itself is not the one single perfect solution then it would not be a solution at all?

[Safety]

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/)

Most likely the first of many if we attempt to arm educators.

Now Crepitus, you could spend the next three years providing cases of this happening, and the hard right will not understand the point you are making. They will instead attempt to deflect, obfuscate, or play games with semantics about generalizations.

[Crepitus]

Now Crepitus, you could spend the next three years providing cases of this happening, and the hard right will not understand the point you are making. They will instead attempt to deflect, obfuscate, or play games with semantics about generalizations.

Yeah, I know. Gotta try though.

[Crepitus]

IOW, if the solution in and of itself is not the one single perfect solution then it would not be a solution at all?

Gee Chris, you mean like banning the sale of semi-auto rifles? Or raising the purchasing age? or any one of the other solutions you and others have poohooed because they aren't perfect?

Well I got news for you: Those policies will almost certainly lead to less shootings, not more, as arming teachers will.

[Chris]

Gee Chris, you mean like banning the sale of semi-auto rifles? Or raising the purchasing age? or any one of the other solutions you and others have poohooed because they aren't perfect?

Well I got news for you: Those policies will almost certainly lead to less shootings, not more, as arming teachers will.


Right, using the logic of the OP, none of the solutions you advocate are perfect, so they should be abandoned.



Those policies will almost certainly lead to less shootings, not more, as arming teachers will.

Like so many lefties, big claim, no argument.

[Ransom]

The hard right understands the point. We're obviously going to have to train teachers better....and the teacher I don't think should carry the weapon, merely have fingerprint access to it. The hard left needs to realize that our children are just as important as the stars with armed security, the red carpet at the Oscars, or our public properties such as the White House or Capital Hill.

[Crepitus]

Right, using the logic of the OP, none of the solutions you advocate are perfect, so they should be abandoned.




Like so many lefties, big claim, no argument.
So, how many shootings the the 1984 assault weapons ban lead to?

[Chris]

Now Crepitus, you could spend the next three years providing cases of this happening, and the hard right will not understand the point you are making. They will instead attempt to deflect, obfuscate, or play games with semantics about generalizations.


That generalization concerns many cases is not semantics. So who exactly is playing those games but you.

[Ransom]

Gee @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), you mean like banning the sale of semi-auto rifles? Or raising the purchasing age? or any one of the other solutions you and others have poohooed because they aren't perfect?

Well I got news for you: Those policies will almost certainly lead to less shootings, not more, as arming teachers will.

My shotgun is a semi-automatic, should we ban that?

[Chris]

So, how many shootings the the 1984 assault weapons ban lead to?

According to the logic of the OP, it didn't stop all, or even many, so it's not perfect and ought to be abandoned.


Can you even define assault weapon?

[Crepitus]

According to the logic of the OP, it didn't stop all, or even many, so it's not perfect and ought to be abandoned.


Can you even define assault weapon?

I am gonna hafta question you "logic" here. The point of the OP is that the solution is most likely worse than the problem, in other words having more guns in schools will lead to more shootings not less.

Please tell me how, in your opinion, that is what happened with the 1984 assault weapons ban. Did it lead to more shootings instead of less? If so, by what mechanism?

"defina an assault weapon" is nothing more than an attempt to derail the conversation. Please stop.

[Crepitus]

My shotgun is a semi-automatic, should we ban that?

Definitely. That's one of the least sporting hunting guns ever invented. Learn to shoot better.

[Chris]

I am gonna hafta question you "logic" here. The point of the OP is that the solution is most likely worse than the problem, in other words having more guns in schools will lead to more shootings not less.

Please tell me how, in your opinion, that is what happened with the 1984 assault weapons ban. Did it lead to more shootings instead of less? If so, by what mechanism?

"defina an assault weapon" is nothing more than an attempt to derail the conversation. Please stop.




the solution is most likely worse than the problem

Generalizing from a single case?


If you actually read the story, it was an accidental discharge, into the ceiling, and a fragment richocheted and hit a kids neck. An unfortunate accident.




Shootings continued during the ban, already said that.



So you want to ban something you cannot define.

[Mister D]

Defining the terms of discussion is an attempt to derail the discussion. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Mister D]

Definitely. That's one of the least sporting hunting guns ever invented. Learn to shoot better.
On record.

[Mister D]

Gee @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), you mean like banning the sale of semi-auto rifles? Or raising the purchasing age? or any one of the other solutions you and others have poohooed because they aren't perfect?

Well I got news for you: Those policies will almost certainly lead to less shootings, not more, as arming teachers will.
Should we ban semi-auto pistols too? Why stop now? lol

[exotix]

Notice that when an assassin opened-fire on an (R) baseball practice killing and maiming (R) NRA boot-lickers ... nothing happened ... this should frighten every one ... literally condoning mass-murder and massacres ....


Steve Scalise uses Sandy Hook massacre like Charleton Heston did after Columbine ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGovDoLqsmY






Steve Scalise uses the Vega Massacre and his own now permanent disabilities from gunshot injuries like CPAC does after ever massacre ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alEcAAh7mFs

[Max Rockatansky]

Versus the untrained teacher who just had to resort to his girth to protect his students.
Agreed. As a lover of history, I'm reminded of the Luddites in England and the first auto accident in the US.

http://gothamist.com/2012/05/14/nycs_first_car_accident_in_1896_inv.php
Grover Cleveland was in the White House and we could pick up laudanum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudanum) without a prescription to cure what ailed us, but cyclists were still running afoul of pedestrians and motorists. New York City's first automobile accident occurred on May 30, 1896, when Henry Wells of Springfield, Massachusetts, struck cyclist Ebeling Thomas on the "Western Boulevard" (better known to us as Broadway).
The Times reports that Wells was operating a "horseless wagon" in a "horseless wagon race" bound north, and that Thomas was riding south when, according to witnesses, "the motorman of the horseless wagon seemed to lose control of the wagon, which ran zig-zag and thus confused the bicyclist." Thomas suffered a fractured leg, and Wells was "locked up" in the police station at West 125th Street. The article is refreshingly devoid of the phrase "no criminality suspected." (http://gothamist.com/2012/02/15/heres_why_drivers_get_away_with_mur.php)
"Five reckless riders" on Broadway, two of whom were riding on a tandem bike, were also arrested (arrested!) for "riding faster than the law permits." The report notes that they were "warned by Patrolman Gilles of the bicycle corps, but they paid no attention." Two more cyclists were nabbed for speeding downtown, one at 14th Street and Second Avenue. Magistrate Crane, in addition to fining the men $3, "gave the scorchers a severe lecture."

"Some of you people think that no one has a right in the street but yourselves. I know I have had to run for my life to get out of the way of reckless bicycle riders."Presumably Magistrate Crane added, "Damn hipsters."
The first fatal car accident in New York (and possibly in the country—the first reported auto accident in the US was in Ohio in 1891 (http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2596)) occurred on September 13, 1899, when H.H. Bliss, a "real estate dealer" was hit by a car as he exited a trolly on West 74th Street and Central Park West, known as the "Dangerous Stretch." According to the Times' report, the car veered after a truck blocked its path, "and the two wheels of the cab passed over [Bliss'] head and body. His skull and chest were crushed." The driver was placed under arrest shortly after the incident. Read the entire source articles below.

If we follow the advice and line of logic in the OP, automobiles would have been banned immediately.

[Ransom]

Definitely. That's one of the least sporting hunting guns ever invented. Learn to shoot better.
Much better then if it's a pump action? That would be legal?

[Bo-4]

Yep, the first of many without question. Arming teachers is about as dumb an idea as putting beanie weenies on the school lunch menu.

[Safety]

Yeah, I know. Gotta try though.

Rock on!

[Chris]

Defining the terms of discussion is an attempt to derail the discussion. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Right, and saying you can't generalize from a single instance is playing semantic games.

The desperation of the left.

[Crepitus]

Generalizing from a single case?


If you actually read the story, it was an accidental discharge, into the ceiling, and a fragment richocheted and hit a kids neck. An unfortunate accident.




Shootings continued during the ban, already said that.



So you want to ban something you cannot define.

More guns = more accidental discharges. Less assault weapons means less assault weapons around for people to get shot with. It's not that hard.

[Chris]

Yep, the first of many without question. Arming teachers is about as dumb an idea as putting beanie weenies on the school lunch menu.

Based on personal speculation? That's your argument?

[Mister D]

More guns = more accidental discharges. Less assault weapons means less assault weapons around for people to get shot with. It's not that hard.
What's an assault weapon?

[Chris]

More guns = more accidental discharges. Less assault weapons means less assault weapons around for people to get shot with. It's not that hard.

Do you have data to back that up?

No, you don't.

It sounds true to you so it must be true, right?

[Mister D]

How many people are shot with "assault weapons" anyway?

[exotix]

What's an assault weapon?Easy, simply educate yourself on the term assault.

[countryboy]

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/)

Most likely the first of many if we attempt to arm educators.

Hmmm, still better than 17 DEAD CHILDREN. I mean, at least thinking people realize this.

[Safety]

More guns = more accidental discharges. Less assault weapons means less assault weapons around for people to get shot with. It's not that hard.

Absolutely. I mean, that same argument is made to address the rate people are shot by cops, they say, more interaction with the police = more chances of being shot. So why would that be any different in this case? But I bet money that some will attempt to argue against it anyway.

[Safety]

Easy, simply educate yourself on the term assault.

Is that using a small "a" or capital "a"?

[Chris]

Absolutely. I mean, that same argument is made to address the rate people are shot by cops, they say, more interaction with the police = more chances of being shot. So why would that be any different in this case? But I bet money that some will attempt to argue against it anyway.

But you wi;ll not find anyone who will or can argue for it, not logically, feel good, yes, logic, no.

[Chris]

Easy, simply educate yourself on the term assault.

You all on the left are using the term but when asked to define it you can't. Speak of meaningless speech.

[Tahuyaman]

So, how many shootings the the 1984 assault weapons ban lead to?
Did it prevent any? Did they decrease because of the ban?

[Max Rockatansky]

Definitely. That's one of the least sporting hunting guns ever invented. Learn to shoot better.
Thanks for confirming you want to ban semi-auto shotguns. Presumably semi-rifles too for the same reason. There have been more than a few LW anti-gunners who disclaim their ultimate goal is to ban guns or even semi-auto guns, but you've confirmed it again. Thanks!

[Max Rockatansky]

How many people are shot with "assault weapons" anyway?
Not very many. Most are handguns by gang-bangers and domestic disturbances.

[Safety]

But you wi;ll not find anyone who will or can argue for it, not logically, feel good, yes, logic, no.

Are you implying that in one instance it is a logical argument and in another instance it is not? When does an equation change based upon the values placed in it?

[Mister D]

Thanks for confirming you want to ban semi-auto shotguns. Presumably semi-rifles too for the same reason. There have been more than a few LW anti-gunners who disclaim their ultimate goal is to ban guns or even semi-auto guns, but you've confirmed it again. Thanks!
But no one wants to ban guns! That's RWNJ fake news! lol You just have to tease the truth out of them.

You know, I've caught at least two progressives here lying about owning weapons so don't surprised by how low they will stoop.

[exotix]

You all on the left are using the term but when asked to define it you can't. Speak of meaningless speech.Easy, notice how @Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4) coyly asked what is an assault weapon ... simply go back and look at all his posts where he calls cars to knives to anything an assault weapon in comparison to guns.

[Mister D]

Is that using a small "a" or capital "a"?
Low IQ doesn't understand capitalization.

[Mister D]

Absolutely. I mean, that same argument is made to address the rate people are shot by cops, they say, more interaction with the police = more chances of being shot. So why would that be any different in this case? But I bet money that some will attempt to argue against it anyway.
Right so ban guns and no more gun violence, right? lol

[Ransom]

Yep, the first of many without question. Arming teachers is about as dumb an idea as putting beanie weenies on the school lunch menu.
What of a safe located in the classroom and parents being notified that several teachers who would remain anonymous had access to a weapon, had been trained and were receiving ongoing training by the police department. A fingerprint accessible safe drawer.

[Bo-4]

Right so ban guns and no more gun violence, right? lol

Maybe you can find us someone in this forum who advocates banning guns.

We'll wait :D

[Mister D]

Maybe you can find us someone in this forum who advocates banning guns.

We'll wait :D
Well we have Kansas here suggesting we ban all semi-autos. lol oops

Oh, and the logic was more guns = more accident so no guns = less or even no accidents and gun violence. Understand, Idaho?

[Safety]

Maybe you can find us someone in this forum who advocates banning guns.

We'll wait :D

When they point to crepitus's post, make sure to respond with "everybody with a brain knows it was a joke". That seems to work for other discussions.

[Chris]

Maybe you can find us someone in this forum who advocates banning guns.

We'll wait :D


Crep wants to ban assault rifles. Are they not guns?

[Mister D]

Crep wants to ban assault rifles. Are they not guns?
What's an assault rifle? And, no, he wants to ban semi-autos.

[Chris]

Easy, notice how @Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4) coyly asked what is an assault weapon ... simply go back and look at all his posts where he calls cars to knives to anything an assault weapon in comparison to guns.

We'll wait for you all to find that.

[Mister D]

When they point to crepitus's post, make sure to respond with "everybody with a brain knows it was a joke". That seems to work for other discussions.
You lied brazenly about nathan's post. That was shameful.

[Bo-4]

Based on personal speculation? That's your argument?

Chris - it's just dumb and about every law enforcement organization is opposed.

Bullets flying around a classroom and the cops arrive, unsure of whether a shooter is the bad buy or the teacher?

It's just common sense

You want guns on campus fine - in the hands of professionals .. increase the number of those guys.

Teachers should TEACH

[Mister D]

We'll wait for you all to find that.
Look back in my posts for what? lol

[Chris]

What's an assault rifle? And, no, he wants to ban semi-autos.

Slippery slope.

[Max Rockatansky]

But no one wants to ban guns! That's RWNJ fake news! lol You just have to tease the truth out of them.

You know, I've caught at least two progressives here lying about owning weapons so don't surprised by how low they will stoop.
Sad, but it's true that they are duplicitous and deceitful about their anti-gun agenda. Another reason to never, ever trust Democrats on any form of gun legislation.

[Chris]

Look back in my posts for what? lol

Why you calling cars assault weapons or some such.

[Bo-4]

Well we have Kansas here suggesting we ban all semi-autos. lol oops

Oh, and the logic was more guns = more accident so no guns = less or even no accidents and gun violence. Understand, Idaho?

I don't know "Kansas" and would need to see the post in order verify they were advocating for a ban on assault-style or ALL semi-auto.

But even if you're not exaggerating (and you've a penchant to do so) who cares if a few people want to ban all semi-auto? It ain't gonna happen.

[Cletus]

Much ado about nothing.

The teacher was a reserve cop who was not authorized to have his firearm in the classroom. The dumb ass had a negligent discharge into the ceiling.

This incident is not indicative of anything. It is one incident of some incompetent oaf trying to demonstrate something and screwing it up. It actually has no bearing on an armed teacher program because armed teachers would have no reason to be using their guns for demonstration purposes.

If Crepitus is so scared of guns, he shouldn't have any. If he wants to try to take mine, I would invite him come to my home and try to do so. He is not going to get the legislation he wants, so he can either Ranger up and learn to live with the fact that he is going to spend the rest of his life surrounded by guns or invest in a large stockpile of adult diapers so people don't see him pissing all over himself every time he has to go out in public.

[Chris]

Chris - it's just dumb and about every law enforcement organization is opposed.

Bullets flying around a classroom and the cops arrive, unsure of whether a shooter is the bad buy or the teacher?

It's just common sense

You want guns on campus fine - in the hands of professionals .. increase the number of those guys.

Teachers should TEACH



The idea is to train teachers, who volunteer, not only in how to shoot but how to fight.

"about every law enforcement organization is opposed"--false.

"Bullets flying around a classroom and the cops arrive, unsure of whether a shooter is the bad buy or the teacher?"--oh so scarey, great emotional appeal.

It's not common sense, just something that appeals to you and others on the left.

[Mister D]

I don't know "Kansas" and would need to see the post in order verify they were advocating for a ban on assault-style or ALL semi-auto.

But even if you're not exaggerating (and you've a penchant to do so) who cares if a few people want to ban all semi-auto? It ain't gonna happen.
Kansas is Crepitus, Idaho, and he can't even define "assault weapon" but he does want to ban semi-autos. Oh wait...it was a joke. :wink:

Some of you people lie when you claim to own weapons so I'm a little skeptical.

[Mister D]

Why you calling cars assault weapons or some such.
Eddy must have me mixed up with someone else.

[Max Rockatansky]

Maybe you can find us someone in this forum who advocates banning guns.

We'll wait :DWho is the "we" in "We'll"?

The latest is here:




More guns = more accidental discharges. Less assault weapons means less assault weapons around for people to get shot with. It's not that hard.



My shotgun is a semi-automatic, should we ban that?
Definitely. That's one of the least sporting hunting guns ever invented. Learn to shoot better.

[Mister D]

Sad, but it's true that they are duplicitous and deceitful about their anti-gun agenda. Another reason to never, ever trust Democrats on any form of gun legislation.
Indeed. I actually support measures some of you here don't but I cannot blame you for not budging. Your opponents are dishonest. Any compromise is tactical. It is not their ultimate intention to compromise.

[Chris]

Indeed. I actually support measures some of you here don't but I cannot blame you for not budging. Your opponents are dishonest. Any compromise is tactical. It is not their ultimate intention to compromise.

I think more would if the left would present their arguments in a reasonable way. They don't. Perhaps they can't.

[Bo-4]

Kansas is Crepitus, Idaho, and he can't even define "assault weapon" but he does want to ban semi-autos. Oh wait...it was a joke. :wink:

Some of you people lie when you claim to own weapons so I'm a little skeptical.

The correct term is assault-STYLE and I can definitely define.

So can a trauma center physician

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html

If you doubt that I'm a gun owner, put your handgun in a hard case, declare at checkin, come to Boise and I'll take you to our awesome new range.

https://www.iishooting.com

17 shots at 35 feet within 90 seconds, no bracing from upright position .. least accurate buys dinner :cool20:

[Mister D]

The correct term is assault-STYLE and I can definitely define.

So can a trauma center physician

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html

If you doubt that I'm a gun owner, put your handgun in a hard case, declare at checkin, come to Boise and I'll take you to our awesome new range.

https://www.iishooting.com

17 shots at 35 feet within 90 seconds, no bracing from upright position .. least accurate buys dinner :cool20:
Bo, this is typical of you. Was there something you wanted me to see in those links? I'm only interested in the definition of "assault weapon", "assault style" or whatever the fuck it is you're talking about.I have a suspicion this is a little subjective. Please paste whatever you thin is relevant. Don't care about "ghastly" wounds.

[Cletus]

The correct term is assault-STYLE and I can definitely define.

So can a trauma center physician

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html

If you doubt that I'm a gun owner, put your handgun in a hard case, declare at checkin, come to Boise and I'll take you to our awesome new range.

https://www.iishooting.com

17 shots at 25 feet within 90 seconds, no bracing from upright position .. least accurate buys dinner :cool20:

You should be able to do it in less than 10... while moving. A child should be able to squeeze off 17 in 90 seconds. That is a lifetime. I was on the range on Sunday and engaged a target at 215 yards with a Glock 17. Last week, I did it with a Glock 19. What you are talking about doing is piddly shit anyone should be able to do.

90 seconds to empty a mag... :grin:

[Mister D]

I did not do well with a pistol the last time I tried.

[Bo-4]

Bo, this is typical of you. Was there something you wanted me to see in those links? I'm only interested in the definition of "assault weapon", "assault style" or whatever the fuck it is you're talking about.I have a suspicion this is a little subjective. Please paste whatever you thin is relevant. Don't care about "ghastly" wounds.

Everyone should care about ghastly wounds, the ease of concealment over a standard rife, and the ARs appeal to crazy people hellbent on carnage.

[Chris]

Bo, this is typical of you. Was there something you wanted me to see in those links? I'm only interested in the definition of "assault weapon", "assault style" or whatever the fuck it is you're talking about.I have a suspicion this is a little subjective. Please paste whatever you thin is relevant. Don't care about "ghastly" wounds.

According to Bo's post you can define it by the effects on the body.

[Bo-4]

You should be able to do it in less than 10... while moving. A child should be able to squeeze off 17 in 90 seconds. That is a lifetime. I was on the range on Sunday and engaged a target at 215 yards with a Glock 17. Last week, I did it with a Glock 19. What you are talking about doing is piddly shit anyone should be able to do.

90 seconds to empty a mag... :grin:

Okay - 60 seconds is fine, but accuracy is the objective in this competition, not speed.

[Mister D]

Everyone should care about ghastly wounds, the ease of concealment over a standard rife, and the ARs appeal to crazy people hellbent on carnage.
So that would be a, no, I cannot define these terms. Thank you, Bo.

[Chris]

Everyone should care about ghastly wounds, the ease of concealment over a standard rife, and the ARs appeal to crazy people hellbent on carnage.

And here comes the mental issue so well defined as "crazy."

[Cletus]

I did not do well with a pistol the last time I tried.

I could have you on the range and by the end of the day, you would be shooting better than you ever thought you could. I could probably even make Bo a decent shot.

It is all about the basics.

[Mister D]

According to Bo's post you can define it by the effects on the body.
Pretty sure one of my 12 gauges would leave a pretty ghastly wound. How silly.

[Mister D]

And here comes the mental issue so well defined as "crazy."

That's a highly technical term.

[Mister D]

I could have you on the range and by the end of the day, you would be shooting better than you ever thought you could. I could probably even make Bo a decent shot.

It is all about the basics.
I thought my brother's 9mm was smooth. I didn't like the .40.

Yeah, just like anything else I guess.

[Cletus]

Okay - 60 seconds is fine, but accuracy is the objective in this competition, not speed.

One does not preclude the other.

[Cletus]

I thought my brother's 9mm was smooth. I didn't like the .40.

The .40 has more snap in the recoil than a 9mm does. It isn't as pleasant to shoot and it is no more effective than a 9mm. If you are comfortable with a 9mm, that is what you should consider as your defensive gun.

[Chris]

That's a highly technical term.

As is assault.

[Common]

You should be able to do it in less than 10... while moving. A child should be able to squeeze off 17 in 90 seconds. That is a lifetime. I was on the range on Sunday and engaged a target at 215 yards with a Glock 17. Last week, I did it with a Glock 19. What you are talking about doing is piddly shit anyone should be able to do.

90 seconds to empty a mag... :grin:

Absolutely I fire 17 rounds at the range routinely faster than 90 secs "Accurately" at 10 and 15 yards I strictly train now for self and home defense. I dont do 25 and 50 yards any more. 7,10,15

[Safety]

Are you implying that in one instance it is a logical argument and in another instance it is not? When does an equation change based upon the values placed in it?

I'll bump for non answer so far.

[Bo-4]

Absolutely I fire 17 rounds at the range routinely faster than 90 secs "Accurately" at 10 and 15 yards I strictly train now for self and home defense. I dont do 25 and 50 yards any more. 7,10,15

One of my instructors said that the average distance in a defensive situation (home invasion etc) is 12-15 feet. That surprised me.

[Tahuyaman]

Hard leftists are hoping for more incidents of this nature.

[Bo-4]

So that would be a, no, I cannot define these terms. Thank you, Bo.

I know the semantical games you guys play routinely around here when it comes to guns D. Bo has no interest ;-)

[Chris]

Are you implying that in one instance it is a logical argument and in another instance it is not? When does an equation change based upon the values placed in it?

No, I'm saying the left will not argue the equation logically.

It seems as if to the left everything they can imagine is a self-evident truth.

[Chris]

I know the semantical games you guys play routinely around here when it comes to guns D. Bo has no interest ;-)

What for instance? I mean, if you know, then you should example it.

[Bo-4]

And here comes the mental issue so well defined as "crazy."

Yes, Nikolas Cruz was a crazy nutbar and sadly due to lax laws in the Gunshine State .. cops were unable to separate him from his babies.

[Bo-4]

What for instance? I mean, if you know, then you should example it.

Example 1: Refer to a type of gun, brand of gun, part of a gun or an ammo type with even the stupidest minor error .. one is deemed unworthy of having an opinion

[Chris]

Example 1: Refer to a type of gun, brand of gun, part of a gun or an ammo type with even the stupidest minor error .. one is deemed unworthy of having an opinion

There are genuine arguments over that. You claimed to know of semantic games.

[Mister D]

I know the semantical games you guys play routinely around here when it comes to guns D. Bo has no interest ;-)
If Bo has no interest in being precise then his arguments are of no interest.

[Chris]

Yes, Nikolas Cruz was a crazy nutbar and sadly due to lax laws in the Gunshine State .. cops were unable to separate him from his babies.

AH, nutbar, yes, that pinpoints what to look for.

[Mister D]

Example 1: Refer to a type of gun, brand of gun, part of a gun or an ammo type with even the stupidest minor error .. one is deemed unworthy of having an opinion
You're not making a minor error, Bo. You want to ban a class of weapons you can't define.

[Common]

One of my instructors said that the average distance in a defensive situation (home invasion etc) is 12-15 feet. That surprised me.

Sounds about right but many take place shorter 7 feet. Remember you are inside a home there are variables, how big or small the house is, the design, is it closed off with walls or is it an open floor plan.

You cannot train for every variable you have to train for whats considered the sweet spot. However, training, practice becoming fully accustomed to the weapon you use for defense is the best defense.

[Mister D]

The .40 has more snap in the recoil than a 9mm does. It isn't as pleasant to shoot and it is no more effective than a 9mm. If you are comfortable with a 9mm, that is what you should consider as your defensive gun.
I sure thought so. It kicked significantly harder. I was starting to flinch a little and I know that's bad.

[Common]

The places with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime. Europe is experiencing a huge surge in gun crime and their gun laws are tighter than ours. ITS THE PEOPLE and their murderous intent and mindsets, just like this nutjob cruz

[Bo-4]

You're not making a minor error, Bo. You want to ban a class of weapons you can't define.

This work for ya?

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) to define some types of firearms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Goode130116-1) The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) with a detachable magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)) and a pistol grip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip), and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor) or barrel shroud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Goode130116-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Babay121222-2) Some firearms are specified by name.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Levs130131-3) At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Levs130131-3) The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States), the media, and the firearms industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_industry) itself.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Goode130116-1)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Tartaro1995-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Blake130117-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Kauffman121218-6) It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)", which refers to selective-fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective-fire) military rifles that can fire in automatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm) and / or burst mode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_(weapon)).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Blake130117-5)

[Bo-4]

The places with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime. Europe is experiencing a huge surge in gun crime and their gun laws are tighter than ours. ITS THE PEOPLE and their murderous intent and mindsets, just like this nutjob cruz

Gun laws at present are only as good as the laws in neighboring or nearby states.

But it is simply not true that the states with the strictest gun laws haven't reduced gun violence and crime.

http://www.scarymommy.com/strict-gun-laws-reduce-gun-death-rates/

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

[Chris]

Gun laws at present are only as good as the laws in neighboring or nearby states.

But it is simply not true that the states with the strictest gun laws haven't reduced gun violence and crime.

http://www.scarymommy.com/strict-gun-laws-reduce-gun-death-rates/

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work


Florida law makes the purchase of handguns by those under 21 illegal. Yet the shooter had a handgun. Laws are words on paper.

[Chris]

This work for ya?

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) to define some types of firearms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Goode130116-1) The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) with a detachable magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)) and a pistol grip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_grip), and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor) or barrel shroud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Goode130116-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Babay121222-2) Some firearms are specified by name.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Levs130131-3) At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Levs130131-3) The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States), the media, and the firearms industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_industry) itself.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Goode130116-1)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Tartaro1995-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Blake130117-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Kauffman121218-6) It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)", which refers to selective-fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective-fire) military rifles that can fire in automatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm) and / or burst mode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_(weapon)).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-Blake130117-5)



At least, unlike your liberal compatriots, you are trying to argue your points and not just assume self-evidence.

Since, as I suppose, you are arguing a federal ban, you would need to come up with a sing;le definition.

[Safety]

What for instance? I mean, if you know, then you should example it.

Perfect example....http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/90780-Knives-Blunt-Objects-and-Fists-(Oh-my!)?p=2209353&viewfull=1#post2209353

Everyone here knew what Dr. Who was referring to, and the correction on a term due to splitting hairs, did not change it.

[Safety]

No, I'm saying the left will not argue the equation logically.

It seems as if to the left everything they can imagine is a self-evident truth.

You contradict yourself, because crepitus asked the same question used to argue against police brutality. If it is a valid argument in that case, it is a valid argument in this case.

[Chris]

You contradict yourself, because crepitus asked the same question used to argue against police brutality. If it is a valid argument in that case, it is a valid argument in this case.

No, I'm saying the left will not argue the equation logically.

I've been consistent in saying that.

Whether something is true or not depends on the argument behind it.

[Chris]

Perfect example....http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/90780-Knives-Blunt-Objects-and-Fists-(Oh-my!)?p=2209353&viewfull=1#post2209353

Everyone here knew what Dr. Who was referring to, and the correction on a term due to splitting hairs, did not change it.


It was Who equivocating and Cletus calling her out on a technical definition.

Your proclaiming something splitting hairs means little if you can't demonstrate it.

[Safety]

No, I'm saying the left will not argue the equation logically.

I've been consistent in saying that.

Whether something is true or not depends on the argument behind it.

So, if in the case of police shooting unarmed minorities, the argument is, "minorities have more interaction with the police, so logically they will suffer more shootings", and that is considered logical, then the same equation "More guns = more accidental discharges. Less assault weapons means less assault weapons around for people to get shot with." is the same logic, therefore, valid.

Period.

[Safety]

It was Who equivocating and Cletus calling her out on a technical definition.

Your proclaiming something splitting hairs means little if you can't demonstrate it.

Semantics. It was used as a non-argument.

[Cletus]

Perfect example....http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/90780-Knives-Blunt-Objects-and-Fists-(Oh-my!)?p=2209353&viewfull=1#post2209353

Everyone here knew what @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) was referring to, and the correction on a term due to splitting hairs, did not change it.

Who said a bullet was an "explosive device". It is not. That is not "splitting hairs". That is correcting an error.

[Max Rockatansky]

Semantics. It was used as a non-argument.
Semantics like those who claim they don't want to ban guns, just all semi-autos?

[Safety]

Who said a bullet was an "explosive device". It is not. That is not "splitting hairs". That is correcting an error.

She made a mistake in saying bullet instead of cartridge, many people do the same, they call a magazine a clip, or a semiautomatic rifle an assault gun. But that was not the crux of her argument, gun powder being an explosive was.

[Cletus]

Example 1: Refer to a type of gun, brand of gun, part of a gun or an ammo type with even the stupidest minor error .. one is deemed unworthy of having an opinion

If you are going to claim expertise in a subject, you should have a thorough knowledge of it.

[Safety]

Semantics like those who claim they don't want to ban guns, just all semi-autos?

Have to ask them.

[Cletus]

Sounds about right but many take place shorter 7 feet.

Exactly. That is why we train shooters from arm's length out.

[Cletus]

I sure thought so. It kicked significantly harder. I was starting to flinch a little and I know that's bad.

If you ever have a reason to be in northern New Mexico, drop me a line. We'll go out and let you surprise yourself a bit.

[Cletus]

She made a mistake in saying bullet instead of cartridge, many people do the same, they call a magazine a clip, or a semiautomatic rifle an assault gun. But that was not the crux of her argument, gun powder being an explosive was.

It was a case of Who pretending she knew more about the subject than she actually did.

[Safety]

It was a case of Who pretending she knew more about the subject than she actually did.

That really doesn't matter in the argument she was making. If she was arguing ballistics or energy transfer of a bullet, that is one thing, but she was speaking about the propellent used in a cartridge, and instead of cartridge she said bullet.

[Ransom]

The .40 has more snap in the recoil than a 9mm does. It isn't as pleasant to shoot and it is no more effective than a 9mm. If you are comfortable with a 9mm, that is what you should consider as your defensive gun.

I tend to agree. I own both an FNH .40 and a 9mm SW Shield. The 2.0 Shield is, in my opinion, perfect for carry. For women in their purse or strapped to their thigh. Lightweight. Easy to use. Excellent safety. And of course....many argue Walther, Ruger, Glock......I've fired em all.......but Horace and Daniel make a fine weapon that founded this nation....thus SW reliability comes with your shield.

[Mister D]

If you ever have a reason to be in northern New Mexico, drop me a line. We'll go out and let you surprise yourself a bit.

Will do, sir!

[Chris]

That really doesn't matter in the argument she was making. If she was arguing ballistics or energy transfer of a bullet, that is one thing, but she was speaking about the propellent used in a cartridge, and instead of cartridge she said bullet.


That's just it, it did matter. I suppose some accept any old slop of vague words and imagined ideas as an argument, but that has no applicability to the real world.

[jimmyz]

If we can secure airplanes in flight we can secure schools. I would recommend Restricted campus access, metal detectors, security personnel carrying rifles and teachers wishing to take and pass an extensive firearms training course to be licensed to carry concealed in class.

[Safety]

That's just it, it did matter. I suppose some accept any old slop of vague words and imagined ideas as an argument, but that has no applicability to the real world.

You are speaking for the sake of speaking, I just said that the terminology that she used did not matter to the argument she was making. It's like someone saying motherboard when talking about a computer.

[Chris]

You are speaking for the sake of speaking, I just said that the terminology that she used did not matter to the argument she was making. It's like someone saying motherboard when talking about a computer.

No, I am speaking in response to your wacky argument. Motherboard/computer just as sloppy.

[Chris]

Father suspected in fatal shooting of 14-year-old, SAPD says (https://www.ksat.com/news/police-investigating-reported-shooting-at-east-side-home)


By the OP argument we should prevent all fathers from owning guns, hell, play it safe, prevent all parents.

[Safety]

No, I am speaking in response to your wacky argument. Motherboard/computer just as sloppy.

It's ok to just stop digging when the hole is deep enough. You're stumped on a rebuttal because any admittance to what is obvious will constitute admitting to hypocrisy. You know it, I know it, the board knows it. There is no logical case to be made why an equation used in one argument and is considered valid, should be rendered invalid when used in the same manner in a different argument.

[Chris]

It's ok to just stop digging when the hole is deep enough. You're stumped on a rebuttal because any admittance to what is obvious will constitute admitting to hypocrisy. You know it, I know it, the board knows it. There is no logical case to be made why an equation used in one argument and is considered valid, should be rendered invalid when used in the same manner in a different argument.

You've only shown Who's case of sloppy language. It's one thing to generalize from a single case, but to declare tu quoque hypocrisy about only one is stretching it a bit. If I'm stumped it's because you make not a lick of sense.

[Safety]

Father suspected in fatal shooting of 14-year-old, SAPD says (https://www.ksat.com/news/police-investigating-reported-shooting-at-east-side-home)


By the OP argument we should prevent all fathers from owning guns, hell, play it safe, prevent all parents.



McManus said it appears the 43-year-old man fired, or tried to fire, a number of weapons. It appeared, however, his teenage son was hit only one time.

“A shotgun, looks like an AR, pistol, ammunition. A variety of weapons,” he said. “There were a lot of shell casings. There were jammed weapons. There were live rounds on the floor.”

Seems to be that if the father didn't have the guns, the teen would be alive. Kinda hard to have an accidental stabbing.

[nathanbforrest45]

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/)
The gun didn't injure the student, falling debris from the ceiling did. Lets ban ceiling tiles.


Most likely the first of many if we attempt to arm educators.

The gun didn't injure the student, falling debris from the ceiling did. Lets ban ceiling tiles.

[Safety]

You've only shown Who's case of sloppy language. It's one thing to generalize from a single case, but to declare tu quoque hypocrisy about only one is stretching it a bit. If I'm stumped it's because you make not a lick of sense.

Still digging.

The fact of the matter is that Bo-4 mentioned semantics being used in these types of arguments, you denied that, I provided proof of such, and now you are doing mental gymnastics to argue something that is indefensible.

[Ravens Fan]

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/)

Most likely the first of many if we attempt to arm educators.

Isn't this a bit like saying that because the school resource officer in Parkland cowered outside, we shouldn't have cops at schools?

The reserve officer (councilman and teacher) in your story certainly did not follow protocol, and should be disciplined. However, that does not speak to the programs that have yet to even be instituted. How many accidents have happened in districts where they have implemented programs that allow teachers, or other school employees to carry on campus?

[nathanbforrest45]

So, how many shootings the the 1984 assault weapons ban lead to?

What? There have been no school or other mass shooting committed with an assault weapon, ever.

[nathanbforrest45]

I am gonna hafta question you "logic" here. The point of the OP is that the solution is most likely worse than the problem, in other words having more guns in schools will lead to more shootings not less.

Please tell me how, in your opinion, that is what happened with the 1984 assault weapons ban. Did it lead to more shootings instead of less? If so, by what mechanism?

"defina an assault weapon" is nothing more than an attempt to derail the conversation. Please stop.
Asking you to define an assault weapon is an attempt to determine if you have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

[The Xl]

Very pro gun, but I was hesitant at arming teachers because of shit like this.

[Bo-4]

Still digging.

The fact of the matter is that @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297) mentioned semantics being used in these types of arguments, you denied that, I provided proof of such, and now you are doing mental gymnastics to argue something that is indefensible.

Can't win for losing against these guys. And if you escape their semantical quicksand, they find a way to move the goalpost.

[Chris]

Seems to be that if the father didn't have the guns, the teen would be alive. Kinda hard to have an accidental stabbing.

Another fine example of liberal logic.

[Chris]

Can't win for losing against these guys. And if you escape their semantical quicksand, they find a way to move the goalpost.

Still waiting for an example of semantics, bo.

Why is it when you all fail, you all step back and declare victory? Shallow.

[Safety]

Another fine example of liberal logic.

I thought you were the self-appointed arbiter of logic, you don't seem to like it now?

[Safety]

Can't win for losing against these guys. And if you escape their semantical quicksand, they find a way to move the goalpost.

Or argue, argue, argue, and argue semantics, by saying they don't argue semantics.

[Bo-4]

Or argue, argue, argue, and argue semantics, by saying they don't argue semantics.

Give them 5 examples - they'll claim those didn't work and demand a 6th :D

[Safety]

Give them 5 examples - they'll claim those didn't work and demand a 6th :D

Wash, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat...

[nathanbforrest45]

Don't fall for this crap. They want us to acknowledge these were "assault weapons" and that will make it harder (in their minds at least) to defend against an assault weapon ban.

Send money to the NRA, they can defend against these globalist much better than we can.

[Cannons Front]

So, how many shootings the the 1984 assault weapons ban lead to?
U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004
There were 50 school shootings during that time period, not saying the ban led to them but it did not stop them. Those 50 in 10 years equal the number of shootings the previous 15 years, and twice the number of school shootings in the 70's, and match the number of shootings from 1930-1969


So maybe the factors at play here are more than just a type of gun.

[Bo-4]

Don't fall for this crap. They want us to acknowledge these were "assault weapons" and that will make it harder (in their minds at least) to defend against an assault weapon ban.

Send money to the NRA, they can defend against these globalist much better than we can.

Pass - But you go right ahead

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTlnpLjR8XcWnrgtuSBqbFBcwrTEAaLi fepR6IgO42LJ-NWrs4_0A

[Grokmaster]

So, how many shootings the the 1984 assault weapons ban lead to?

How many did it prevent?

[Grokmaster]

Gun-trained teacher accidentally discharges firearm in Calif. classroom, injuring student (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/)

Most likely the first of many if we attempt to arm educators.

As opposed to:


23004

[nathanbforrest45]

Pass - But you go right ahead

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTlnpLjR8XcWnrgtuSBqbFBcwrTEAaLi fepR6IgO42LJ-NWrs4_0A

Already do.

[nathanbforrest45]

Should every teacher be armed in the classroom? No of course not, not every teacher should even be in a classroom. I am sure this teacher will be removed from the classroom. However, you cannot set policy by one incident. The gun banners jump on any random act and treat it as if anyone who comes near a gun will immediately pick it up and start shooting students. And no matter what arguments you may present that its not the gun but the gunner that should be controlled they will continue to push for disarmament of the American people

What would cause a person to pick up a firearm and kill dozens of his fellow students or just random strangers? Was it because a gun was staring him in the face, telling him to KILL KILL KILL or is there some other factors involved. Before we destroy a bedrock right we have enjoyed for our entire history shouldn't we have some understanding of why these things happen. To my thinking taking away the gun from someone who is twisted enough to kill mass numbers of people will stop nothing. Determining why this happens will at least tell us who is the next mass murderer.

[MisterVeritis]

If we can secure airplanes in flight we can secure schools. I would recommend Restricted campus access, metal detectors, security personnel carrying rifles and teachers wishing to take and pass an extensive firearms training course to be licensed to carry concealed in class.
Mass school shootings is a minor problem that deserves a minor solution. We can begin by repealing every law requiring that schools be gun free zones. We can encourage teachers and staff to train and receive concealed carry permits. We can add additional measures as warranted by each individual school district.

[MisterVeritis]

Very pro gun, but I was hesitant at arming teachers because of shit like this.
Does the right to keep and bear arms have an exception clause for people who work in schools?

Has someone proposed that we arm teachers? Or do we want teachers to arm themselves? Either choice belongs to the local school board.

[Cletus]

What would cause a person to pick up a firearm and kill dozens of his fellow students or just random strangers? Was it because a gun was staring him in the face, telling him to KILL KILL KILL or is there some other factors involved.
It is interesting that you mention that. On my desk, right in front of me is a Smith and Wesson Model 625 Mountain Gun. I just put a new set of grips on it and through that whole process, it never said a word to me. Now that I think of it, none of my other guns have ever spoken to me, either.

Am I doing something wrong?

[MisterVeritis]

U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004
There were 50 school shootings during that time period, not saying the ban led to them but it did not stop them. Those 50 in 10 years equal the number of shootings the previous 15 years, and twice the number of school shootings in the 70's, and match the number of shootings from 1930-1969


So maybe the factors at play here are more than just a type of gun.
Well, at one time we locked up crazy people. I think it was the ACLU who convinced a court that locking up crazy people was not acceptable.

[Crepitus]

Hmmm, still better than 17 DEAD CHILDREN. I mean, at least thinking people realize this.

How many dead children after a years worth of misfires?

[Cletus]

How many dead children after a years worth of misfires?

Based on the record so far... ZERO.

[nathanbforrest45]

It is interesting that you mention that. On my desk, right in front of me is a Smith and Wesson Model 625 Mountain Gun. I just put a new set of grips on it and through that whole process, it never said a word to me. Now that I think of it, none of my other guns have ever spoken to me, either.

Am I doing something wrong?
Maybe you are using the wrong ammunition in it and it feels that you don't care and would ignore it anyway.

I have a Walter PPK 22 that I used the wrong bullets in and it got mad at me and wouldn't eject about half of them. It was in a snit and wouldn't tell me it was the wrong ammo however.

[Crepitus]

Did it prevent any? Did they decrease because of the ban?

No deflecting, answer the question.

[Crepitus]

Thanks for confirming you want to ban semi-auto shotguns. Presumably semi-rifles too for the same reason. There have been more than a few LW anti-gunners who disclaim their ultimate goal is to ban guns or even semi-auto guns, but you've confirmed it again. Thanks!

You weren't paying attention.

[Tahuyaman]

No deflecting, answer the question.


Your question was effing stupid. There is no answer for that type of idiocy.

[Chris]

No deflecting, answer the question.

Question was answered the first time you asked. Answer's not going to change no matter how many times you ask it.

[Chris]

Your question was effing stupid. There is no answer for that type of idiocy.


But he thinks he's got a bullet-proof gotcha.

[Cletus]

Maybe you are using the wrong ammunition in it and it feels that you don't care and would ignore it anyway.

I have a Walter PPK 22 that I used the wrong bullets in and it got mad at me and wouldn't eject about half of them. It was in a snit and wouldn't tell me it was the wrong ammo however.

They get like that, don't they?

[Tahuyaman]

But he thinks he's got a bullet-proof gotcha.


What does that tell you?

[Chris]

What does that tell you?

He's trolling.

[Tahuyaman]

He's trolling.

As usual.

[Crepitus]

Isn't this a bit like saying that because the school resource officer in Parkland cowered outside, we shouldn't have cops at schools?

The reserve officer (councilman and teacher) in your story certainly did not follow protocol, and should be disciplined. However, that does not speak to the programs that have yet to even be instituted. How many accidents have happened in districts where they have implemented programs that allow teachers, or other school employees to carry on campus?

The more people in school with access to guns the more accidental will happen.

[Crepitus]

What? There have been no school or other mass shooting committed with an assault weapon, ever.

I'm not gonna play your stupid semantics game.

[Crepitus]

Asking you to define an assault weapon is an attempt to determine if you have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

I'm not gonna play your stupid semantics game.

[Crepitus]

U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004
There were 50 school shootings during that time period, not saying the ban led to them but it did not stop them. Those 50 in 10 years equal the number of shootings the previous 15 years, and twice the number of school shootings in the 70's, and match the number of shootings from 1930-1969


So maybe the factors at play here are more than just a type of gun.

Links

[Cletus]

The more people in school with access to guns the more accidental will happen.

I get so tired of hearing that bullshit. To date, not one teacher who was part of an armed teacher program had had a negligent discharge or injured a student in any way with a firearm.

Saying that more people with access to guns will result in more accidents is like saying more people taking baths will result in more drownings or more people driving cars to school will result in more motor vehicle accidents. It is stupid.

[Crepitus]

Your question was effing stupid. There is no answer for that type of idiocy.

So you can't..

Not terribly unexpected.

[Chris]

The more people in school with access to guns the more accidental will happen.

That's nice. It seems to make common sense. But things can be counterintuitive. Do you have any data to base your generalization on?

[Tahuyaman]

So you can't..

Not terribly unexpected.

It was possibly the stupidest question ever asked here.

[Chris]

So you can't..

Not terribly unexpected.


Deep into the you-can't-answer-my-question game, ignoring answer already given. My, ain't this a whole lot of fun.

[Mister D]

I get so tired of hearing that bull$#@!. To date, not one teacher who was part of an armed teacher program had had a negligent discharge or injured a student in any way with a firearm.

Saying that more people with access to guns will result in more accidents is like saying more people taking baths will result in more drownings or more people driving cars to school will result in more motor vehicle accidents. It is stupid.

Spot on. It's kind of a stupid argument. More cars on the road, more accidents. Right?

[Cannons Front]

Links

https://www.ranker.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres
https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest...shootings...history.../ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lists...school-shootings.../340108002/
[/URL]
[URL="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjdh-Cvge3ZAhXKzVMKHekQBVgQFghSMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.euronews.com%2F2018%2F02%2F15 %2Famerica-s-history-of-school-shootings&usg=AOvVaw21FGon57_kEJ0ziTlKFFAS"]America's history of school shootings | Euronews (https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+school+shootings+in+the+us&ie=&oe=#)


There are a few, if those are not good enough look for yourself, School shooting go back to the 1700's the numbers have gone up ever since.

[Max Rockatansky]

You weren't paying attention.
Are you denying you asserted banning semi-auto shotguns?:

My shotgun is a semi-automatic, should we ban that?Definitely. That's one of the least sporting hunting guns ever invented. Learn to shoot better.

[Dr. Who]

I am gonna hafta question you "logic" here. The point of the OP is that the solution is most likely worse than the problem, in other words having more guns in schools will lead to more shootings not less.

Please tell me how, in your opinion, that is what happened with the 1984 assault weapons ban. Did it lead to more shootings instead of less? If so, by what mechanism?

"defina an assault weapon" is nothing more than an attempt to derail the conversation. Please stop.
Given the lack of response, I'll post an answer:

The ban’s success in reducing crimes was mixed, according to the UPenn study. The share of overall gun crimes involving assault weapons in cities tracked by the study did decline by 17%, to 72% after the ban took effect. The drop in assault weapon-based crime, however, was offset by a rise in the use of other guns that were equipped with large capacity magazines and had been grandfathered in under the ban.

“Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of [large capacity magazines] in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” the study noted. “However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban [assault weapons] and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future.”

A 2011 Washington Post analysis found that the assault weapons ban did appear to have an effect in Virginia, where the number of guns with high-capacity magazines seized by police dropped during the 10-year ban period to a low of 10% of all recovered weapons in 2004. This rebounded once the ban was repealed.

When it comes to mass shootings, analyses have also suggested that the assault weapons ban could have had a larger effect. A study published by the Princeton Election Consortium in 2012 found that the assault weapons ban period was overall “peaceful by U.S. standards” in terms of mass shootings. A total of 16 mass shootings took place from 1995 to 2004 in the U.S., with an average of 20.9 people shot in mass shootings each year, as compared with 27 mass shootings from 2005-2012 and an average of 54.8 people shot each year.
https://mic.com/articles/188159/what-happened-the-last-time-the-us-banned-some-semiautomatic-guns#.ghn1o7Adf

Logic works again - less weapons that are suitable for killing many people at a time easily reduced such killings and high capacity mags contribute to rampage killings. Of course, logic and Constitutional "rainman" syndrome are mutually exclusive concepts. 10 minutes to Wapner!

[Mister D]

For the year 2016, handguns were used almost 20 times more often than rifles in the commission of a homicide. I knew that disparity was huge but I was a little surprised that shotguns were used only a slightly more often than rifles.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

[Peter1469]

Generalizing from a single case?


If you actually read the story, it was an accidental discharge, into the ceiling, and a fragment richocheted and hit a kids neck. An unfortunate accident.




Shootings continued during the ban, already said that.



So you want to ban something you cannot define.
Mass shootings are down from them.

[Chris]

Given the lack of response, I'll post an answer:

The ban’s success in reducing crimes was mixed, according to the UPenn study. The share of overall gun crimes involving assault weapons in cities tracked by the study did decline by 17%, to 72% after the ban took effect. The drop in assault weapon-based crime, however, was offset by a rise in the use of other guns that were equipped with large capacity magazines and had been grandfathered in under the ban.

“Because the ban has not yet reduced the use of [large capacity magazines] in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” the study noted. “However, the ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban [assault weapons] and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future.”

A 2011 Washington Post analysis found that the assault weapons ban did appear to have an effect in Virginia, where the number of guns with high-capacity magazines seized by police dropped during the 10-year ban period to a low of 10% of all recovered weapons in 2004. This rebounded once the ban was repealed.

When it comes to mass shootings, analyses have also suggested that the assault weapons ban could have had a larger effect. A study published by the Princeton Election Consortium in 2012 found that the assault weapons ban period was overall “peaceful by U.S. standards” in terms of mass shootings. A total of 16 mass shootings took place from 1995 to 2004 in the U.S., with an average of 20.9 people shot in mass shootings each year, as compared with 27 mass shootings from 2005-2012 and an average of 54.8 people shot each year.
https://mic.com/articles/188159/what-happened-the-last-time-the-us-banned-some-semiautomatic-guns#.ghn1o7Adf

Logic works again - less weapons that are suitable for killing many people at a time easily reduced such killings and high capacity mags contribute to rampage killings. Of course, logic and Constitutional "rainman" syndrome are mutually exclusive concepts. 10 minutes to Wapner!

BS,crep was answered: You can't generalize from a single event.

Besides the event was accidental, so if anything it begs for greater caution.

I see you wander way off topic about assault weapons. The accident involved a hand gun.

A simple declaration of less is better is not logic. Logic requires an argument and that requires more data than a single event provides.

Liberal logic, pfft.

[Peter1469]

Definitely. That's one of the least sporting hunting guns ever invented. Learn to shoot better.

Would you hunt ducks with a rifle?

[Peter1469]

Everyone should care about ghastly wounds, the ease of concealment over a standard rife, and the ARs appeal to crazy people hellbent on carnage.
What would you say the ratio is of AR owners who do and don't use the AR in a crime? 1:500,000?

[Dr. Who]

BS,crep was answered: You can't generalize from a single event.

Besides the event was accidental, so if anything it begs for greater caution.

I see you wander way off topic about assault weapons. The accident involved a hand gun.

A simple declaration of less is better is not logic. Logic requires an argument and that requires more data than a single event provides.

Liberal logic, pfft.
I was responding to a specific question as to whether the assault ban decreased rampage killings. Clearly, the topic had already meandered as gun topics are wont to do. What was the purpose of your response? Did it contribute to the topic? Do you have any counterpoints to the quoted study?

[Chris]

I was responding to a specific question as to whether the assault ban decreased rampage killings. Clearly, the topic had already meandered as gun topics are wont to do. What was the purpose of your response? Did it contribute to the topic? Do you have any counterpoints to the quoted study?

Same thing, what evidence do you have the ban stopped anything? Murders and mass shootings continued. The study finds correlation is all.

[Chris]

Mass shootings are down from them.

According to the UPenn study they may be a correlation, but they found nothing to conclude causation.

[Peter1469]

According to the UPenn study they may be a correlation, but they found nothing to conclude causation.
Probably just part of the general trend of less crime.

[Ethereal]

So, how many shootings the the 1984 assault weapons ban lead to?

Governments have murdered millions of people throughout history. Clearly, governments are too dangerous to exist.

[Dr. Who]

According to the UPenn study they may be a correlation, but they found nothing to conclude causation.
Mere coincidence then.

[Crepitus]

Would you hunt ducks with a rifle?

No. I hunt ducks with an over/under Mossberg. If you need a semiauto shotgun you need to practice more.

[Peter1469]

No. I hunt ducks with an over/under Mossberg. If you need a semiauto shotgun you need to practice more.

I think it is a matter of preference.

[Dr. Who]

According to the UPenn study they may be a correlation, but they found nothing to conclude causation.

Which coincidentally suddenly changed for the worse when those weapons were unbanned.

That's a bit like saying "when I stopped drinking 4 cans of Coke a day, I lost weight" "When I went back to drinking 4 cans of Coke a day, I gained weight" However there is nothing to conclude causation.

[Chris]

Here's the problem with the UPenn study, it fails to account for all the data.

From 20+ years of FBI data – “Assault Rifles” pose little threat to public safety (http://knowledgeglue.com/20-years-of-fbi-data-assault-rifles-pose-little-threat-to-public-safety/):

https://i.snag.gy/XwCLO2.jpg

If you trendlined the drop in murder rates during the ban you will see a mere drop of maybe 1%. It's not that much. Moreover, the trend continued to drop maybe another 1% after the ban and purchase of so-called assault weapons skyrocketted. There is not even a correlation as the UPenn study suggests.


Then, if you want to look at just mass shootings, you see the numbers were dropping before the ban, rose again after the ban--source: Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter? (http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/)

https://i.snag.gy/X8PFbc.jpg

How the UPenn study even found correlation is beyond credibility.


And yet liberals cite the UPenn study.

[Chris]

Which coincidentally suddenly changed for the worse when those weapons were unbanned.

That's a bit like saying "when I stopped drinking 4 cans of Coke a day, I lost weight" "When I went back to drinking 4 cans of Coke a day, I gained weight" However there is nothing to conclude causation.


I just showed that to be total BS.

[Dr. Who]

I just showed that to be total BS.
No, you didn't.

[Chris]

No, you didn't.

Denial.

[Dr. Who]

Denial.
Ditto.

[jimmyz]

No. I hunt ducks with an over/under Mossberg. If you need a semiauto shotgun you need to practice more.

Does Liberty allow for want? Or does an official government agency declare what your need will be?

[Dr. Who]

No. I hunt ducks with an over/under Mossberg. If you need a semiauto shotgun you need to practice more.
I guess some don't care if the remaining duck is still edible.

[Crepitus]

I guess some don't care if the remaining duck is still edible.

Lol, I hate picking shot outta ducks but I hate picking it outta my teeth even more!

[Cletus]

I guess some don't care if the remaining duck is still edible.

That is a great statement. It clearly demonstrates your ignorance.

A hit from a semiautomatic shotgun is no more destructive than a hit from an over/under, side by side, single shot or pump shotgun.

[jimmyz]

Lol, I hate picking shot outta ducks but I hate picking it outta my teeth even more!

A law abiding person such as yourself will never be downrange of shot.

[Dr. Who]

That is a great statement. It clearly demonstrates your ignorance.

A hit from a semiautomatic shotgun is no more destructive than a hit from an over/under, side by side, single shot or pump shotgun.
I'm referring to a duck hit by multiple bullets. Please don't tell me that bullets don't destroy more tissue than birdshot.

[Crepitus]

That is a great statement. It clearly demonstrates your ignorance.

A hit from a semiautomatic shotgun is no more destructive than a hit from an over/under, side by side, single shot or pump shotgun.

Yeah, but 3 is.

[Crepitus]

A law abiding person such as yourself will never be downrange of shot.

Lol, you've never been peppered by spent shot?

Then you have never been duck hunting.

[Safety]

Lol, you've never been peppered by spent shot?

Then you have never been duck hunting.

Just don’t go with Dick Cheney.

[Crepitus]

Just don’t go with Dick Cheney.

Lol, that shot wasn't quite spent!

[silvereyes]

Lol, you've never been peppered by spent shot?

Then you have never been duck hunting.
These

Just don’t go with Dick Cheney.
Sound

Lol, that shot wasn't quite spent!
Dirty.

LOLOLOLOLOL

[Cannons Front]

Which coincidentally suddenly changed for the worse when those weapons were unbanned.
That's a bit like saying "when I stopped drinking 4 cans of Coke a day, I lost weight" "When I went back to drinking 4 cans of Coke a day, I gained weight" However there is nothing to conclude causation.

School shooting numbers increased during the ban, as I pointed out they have always increased each decade is higher than the last. Now they have increased since the ban was lifted, which continues the trend that has not ever stopped. So again the cause does not trace back to a type of gun.
Also lets look at these numbers; "Weapon types used in mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2017Semi Auto Hand Guns 99
Rifles all types 43
Shotguns 29
Revolvers 23

So Semi auto hand guns outnumber all other weapons combined. So banning one type of weapon does what?

[Dr. Who]

School shooting numbers increased during the ban, as I pointed out they have always increased each decade is higher than the last. Now they have increased since the ban was lifted, which continues the trend that has not ever stopped. So again the cause does not trace back to a type of gun.
Also lets look at these numbers; "Weapon types used in mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2017

Semi Auto Hand Guns 99
Rifles all types 43
Shotguns 29
Revolvers 23

So Semi auto hand guns outnumber all other weapons combined. So banning one type of weapon does what?

If you check, the numbers of those killed in shootings with semi-auto rifles are generally higher. Perhaps it's because they are more lethal to begin with:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/semi-automatic-guns-dangerous_us_59d92bbfe4b072637c44756d

Re: the AR-15:


It shoots a .223 Caliber or 5.56 mm round at roughly 3,300 feet per second, which is about three times the muzzle velocity of a typical Glock pistol.

The AR-15's effective firing range is also more than 1,300 feet at the least, whereas a typical Glock's firing range is just over 160 feet.

Chipman, the senior policy analyst at Giffords and former ATF special agent, told Business Insider that the AR-15 is so powerful that they weren't allowed to carry it during indoor raids because the rounds travel so fast that they could penetrate a victim, then a wall, then a bystander through that room.


http://www.businessinsider.com/ar-15-semi-automatic-history-why-used-mass-shootings-2018-2#and-even-then-the-ar-15-was-incredibly-lethal-3

[Chris]

If you check, the numbers of those killed in shootings with semi-auto rifles are generally higher. Perhaps it's because they are more lethal to begin with:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/semi-automatic-guns-dangerous_us_59d92bbfe4b072637c44756d

Re: the AR-15:



If you check, the numbers of those killed in shootings with semi-auto rifles are generally higher.

No, Cannons Front presents data that refutes that.

It was also debunked a couple pages ago, post 189. I'll repeat it so you can deny it again:


Here's the problem with the UPenn study, it fails to account for all the data.

From 20+ years of FBI data – “Assault Rifles” pose little threat to public safety (http://knowledgeglue.com/20-years-of-fbi-data-assault-rifles-pose-little-threat-to-public-safety/):

https://i.snag.gy/XwCLO2.jpg

If you trendlined the drop in murder rates during the ban you will see a mere drop of maybe 1%. It's not that much. Moreover, the trend continued to drop maybe another 1% after the ban and purchase of so-called assault weapons skyrocketted. There is not even a correlation as the UPenn study suggests.


Then, if you want to look at just mass shootings, you see the numbers were dropping before the ban, rose again after the ban--source: ]url=http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/]Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?[/url]

https://i.snag.gy/X8PFbc.jpg

How the UPenn study even found correlation is beyond credibility.


And yet liberals cite the UPenn study.


So, deny it, because you cannot refute the numbers.

[Dr. Who]

That is a great statement. It clearly demonstrates your ignorance.

A hit from a semiautomatic shotgun is no more destructive than a hit from an over/under, side by side, single shot or pump shotgun.
Whatever - YouTube is full of idiots with semi-auto weapons and they just like to fire their weapons a lot. Why shoot once, when you can shoot twice, or five times? Why would you hunt with a semi-auto anything? Semi-autos are for extermination, not hunting.

[Dr. Who]

No, @Cannons Front (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2202) presents data that refutes that.

It was also debunked a couple pages ago, post 189. I'll repeat it so you can deny it again:




So, deny it, because you cannot refute the numbers.
See that spike after 2010 in your graphic referencing targets i.e. numbers of people killed. Is it coincidental that the market was being flooded with AR-15s because everyone was afraid guns would be banned under Obama? One out of every five guns sold in America is an AR-15 and they are more lethal than handguns. One semi-auto rifle round can kill more than one person, if they are crowded together and do more damage to the body than a standard handgun round (i.e. not using special ordinance intended to do maximum damage, like hollow points). Those rifle rounds can go through a body, then a wall and still kill a person on the other side. The shooter doesn't have to be particularly accurate to kill and maim a lot of people.

[Chris]

See that spike after 2010 in your graphic referencing targets i.e. numbers of people killed. Is it coincidental that the market was being flooded with AR-15s because everyone was afraid guns would be banned under Obama? One out of every five guns sold in America is an AR-15 and they are more lethal than handguns. One semi-auto rifle round can kill more than one person, if they are crowded together and do more damage to the body than a standard handgun round (i.e. not using special ordinance intended to do maximum damage, like hollow points). Those rifle rounds can go through a body, then a wall and still kill a person on the other side. The shooter doesn't have to be particularly accurate to kill and maim a lot of people.


So your counterargument is to dismiss decades of data and point to one data point and say see ahah gotcha!

Others will look and say but that in-ban data point is higher than every other data point pre-ban and post-ban but one.

And others will look at total murders with assault weapons and say the ban had no effect at all.

But you will grip your single data point and generalize from it.

[Mister D]

See that spike after 2010 in your graphic referencing targets i.e. numbers of people killed. Is it coincidental that the market was being flooded with AR-15s because everyone was afraid guns would be banned under Obama? One out of every five guns sold in America is an AR-15 and they are more lethal than handguns. One semi-auto rifle round can kill more than one person, if they are crowded together and do more damage to the body than a standard handgun round (i.e. not using special ordinance intended to do maximum damage, like hollow points). Those rifle rounds can go through a body, then a wall and still kill a person on the other side. The shooter doesn't have to be particularly accurate to kill and maim a lot of people.

You have to love this. People like Dr. Who mocked this as an irrational fear and here they are insisting we ban AR-15s. lol

Moreover, if she is correct that 1 in 5 guns sold is an AR-15 the extremely low rate at which they are used in crimes of any sort is all the more remarkable.

[Dr. Who]

You have to love this. People like Dr. Who mocked this as an irrational fear and here they are insisting we ban AR-15s. lol

Moreover, if she is correct that 1 in 5 guns sold is an AR-15 the extremely low rate at which they are used in crimes of any sort is all the more remarkable.

They are kind of hard to conceal, unlike handguns. Wearing long trench coats might trigger suspicion

[MisterVeritis]

See that spike after 2010 in your graphic referencing targets i.e. numbers of people killed. Is it coincidental that the market was being flooded with AR-15s because everyone was afraid guns would be banned under Obama? One out of every five guns sold in America is an AR-15 and they are more lethal than handguns. One semi-auto rifle round can kill more than one person, if they are crowded together and do more damage to the body than a standard handgun round (i.e. not using special ordinance intended to do maximum damage, like hollow points). Those rifle rounds can go through a body, then a wall and still kill a person on the other side. The shooter doesn't have to be particularly accurate to kill and maim a lot of people.
I intend to buy another weapon, an AR-15 platform. I will match the ammunition to my goal.

[Dr. Who]

I intend to buy another weapon, an AR-15 platform. I will match the ammunition to my goal.
Make your own day.

[Peter1469]

If you check, the numbers of those killed in shootings with semi-auto rifles are generally higher. Perhaps it's because they are more lethal to begin with:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/semi-automatic-guns-dangerous_us_59d92bbfe4b072637c44756d

Re: the AR-15:
Most hunting rifles are much more lethal. The .223 round is under powered imo. The military picked it because you can carry more of it.

[Peter1469]

As I asked elsewhere, what is the ratio of criminal activity with AR platforms to legal activity?

1:500,000? I say likely higher. What say you?

[jimmyz]

They are kind of hard to conceal, unlike handguns. Wearing long trench coats might trigger suspicion


https://youtu.be/2PtJSrUK1zI

[MisterVeritis]

Make your own day.
I plan to. I have a lot of time on the M-16. I hated carrying it. I preferred the .45 ACP. But I liked shooting it. I continue to recommend it for home defense because it is easily pointed while under duress.

[Dr. Who]

As I asked elsewhere, what is the ratio of criminal activity with AR platforms to legal activity?

1:500,000? I say likely higher. What say you?
I don't think it's the weapon of choice in the average criminal situation because it's too hard to conceal. It's an ideal weapon for a mass killer who only has to get it to his target location one time.

[Cletus]

Re: the AR-15:Chipman, the senior policy analyst at Giffords and former ATF special agent, told Business Insider that the AR-15 is so powerful that they weren't allowed to carry it during indoor raids because the rounds travel so fast that they could penetrate a victim, then a wall, then a bystander through that room.
He doesn't know what he is talking about. Entry teams use ARs all the time, largely because of the fact that over penetration is NOT an issue with them. That is one of the reasons so many teams stopped using 9mm subguns.

[Dr. Who]

I plan to. I have a lot of time on the M-16. I hated carrying it. I preferred the .45 ACP. But I liked shooting it. I continue to recommend it for home defense because it is easily pointed while under duress.
I don't have a problem with that, so long as you live in a house that isn't attached to anyone else's premises. Now, if you live in a condo, it could be problematic. Killing an intruder and your sleeping neighbor at the same time would put you in hot water.

[MisterVeritis]

I don't have a problem with that, so long as you live in a house that isn't attached to anyone else's premises. Now, if you live in a condo, it could be problematic. Killing an intruder and your sleeping neighbor at the same time would put you in hot water.
That is where matching ammunition to one's goal, or purpose, is so important. I tell people every round they fire has at least three lawyers attached. Those lawyers have it as their mission to ruin you.

[Peter1469]

I don't think it's the weapon of choice in the average criminal situation because it's too hard to conceal. It's an ideal weapon for a mass killer who only has to get it to his target location one time.

Which is a blip on the radar or gun violence.

[Mister D]

Which is a blip on the radar or gun violence.
Right. Considering the scale of the problem the reaction is downright hysterical.

[Dr. Who]

Which is a blip on the radar or gun violence.

People are most horrified by innocent people being killed. When it's criminal on criminal, there is a tendency to think - live by the sword, die by the sword. When it's domestic violence, people think everyone has choices and choose to stay with violent nut jobs. However when innocent kids are killed accidentally at home or in schools or when people start being afraid to go places where there are large numbers of people confined in one space, because they are ideal targets for mass killers, then the actual cumulative body count becomes less relevant than the psychological fear factor.

[Peter1469]

People are most horrified by innocent people being killed. When it's criminal on criminal, there is a tendency to think - live by the sword, die by the sword. When it's domestic violence, people think everyone has choices and choose to stay with violent nut jobs. However when innocent kids are killed accidentally at home or in schools or when people start being afraid to go places where there are large numbers of people confined in one space, because they are ideal targets for mass killers, then the actual cumulative body count becomes less relevant than the psychological fear factor.
I get that.

Pay attention to bullying and anti-depressant over prescribing.

99% or more of AR platform owners don't misuse them. You don't base bans on issues that occur less and 1% of the effected population.

[Chris]

I get that.

Pay attention to bullying and anti-depressant over prescribing.

99% or more of AR platform owners don't misuse them. You don't base bans on issues that occur less and 1% of the effected population.

Seems to me many liberals do. Seem the exception makes the rule. Take the incident of the high-school teacher accidentally shooting a round in the ceiling ricocheting and kicking the neck of a student. Single case generalized to not allowing arming teachers.

[Dr. Who]

I get that.

Pay attention to bullying and anti-depressant over prescribing.

99% or more of AR platform owners don't misuse them. You don't base bans on issues that occur less and 1% of the effected population.

Actually, in terms of products available for mass consumption/purchase it takes very little to have a product banned. That is really what people are accustomed to. If a product has a propensity to be fatal, it is banned or recalled. Now no one is going to try to suggest that guns are safe products. They are only as safe as their owners, but when one particular weapon is being chosen above all others for mass murder, the obvious question is why this weapon is being chosen? If the conclusion is that it is more attractive to nut jobs and is capable of killing more people than a handgun, the most likely conclusion is that it's usefulness in other respects does not outweigh its potential for mass fatalities. In some respects, it's the equivalent of an attractive nuisance.


Perhaps if a certain organization wasn't hyping the sale of such weapons, people might feel differently but the crazy on both sides is adding to the problem.

[Peter1469]

Actually, in terms of products available for mass consumption/purchase it takes very little to have a product banned. That is really what people are accustomed to. If a product has a propensity to be fatal, it is banned or recalled. Now no one is going to try to suggest that guns are safe products. They are only as safe as their owners, but when one particular weapon is being chosen above all others for mass murder, the obvious question is why this weapon is being chosen? If the conclusion is that it is more attractive to nut jobs and is capable of killing more people than a handgun, the most likely conclusion is that it's usefulness in other respects does not outweigh its potential for mass fatalities. In some respects, it's the equivalent of an attractive nuisance.


Perhaps if a certain organization wasn't hyping the sale of such weapons, people might feel differently but the crazy on both sides is adding to the problem.
Sounds like a desire for a total ban.

As prosed, I say focus on the real issue. Criminals and people with mental issues.

[Dr. Who]

Sounds like a desire for a total ban.

As prosed, I say focus on the real issue. Criminals and people with mental issues.
You can't isolate it. Perhaps 10 years ago you could have, but not now. It has become the Hydra of Greek mythology.

[Chris]

You can't isolate it. Perhaps 10 years ago you could have, but not now. It has become the Hydra of Greek mythology.

So, total ban.

No one knows what the real issue is. SHould that, discovery of the issues, be the focus, rather than prejudices and presumptions to fit agendas?

[Dr. Who]

So, total ban.

No one knows what the real issue is. SHould that, discovery of the issues, be the focus, rather than prejudices and presumptions to fit agendas?
Did I say total ban? No, I didn't. I just suggested that the problem has many heads and is therefore much more complicated.

[Chris]

Sounds like a desire for a total ban.

As prosed, I say focus on the real issue. Criminals and people with mental issues.


You can't isolate it. Perhaps 10 years ago you could have, but not now. It has become the Hydra of Greek mythology.


So, total ban.

No one knows what the real issue is. SHould that, discovery of the issues, be the focus, rather than prejudices and presumptions to fit agendas?


Did I say total ban? No, I didn't. I just suggested that the problem has many heads and is therefore much more complicated.

Just reading from context.

[Safety]

I don't see anywhere where Dr. Who said total ban. But it's not like people don't blatantly lie here...

[MisterVeritis]

I don't see anywhere where @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) said total ban. But it's not like people don't blatantly lie here...
You are not very good at connecting the dots.

[Chris]

Anyway, returned to present more facts to refute liberal fantasies.

The Truth About Gun Violence (https://beinglibertarian.com/the-truth-about-gun-violence/)


...There’s a lot of misinformation out there about gun violence in general.

The popular narrative shared across most major media outlets is one where gun violence in the United States is at epidemic levels, and that there is a massive problem, in particular, with school shootings.

Outlets will spread information like this graph, produced by Everytown Research:

https://i.snag.gy/whPTpG.jpg

The first and most obvious problem here is that this chart is just flat out inaccurate.

Here is the actual ratio of homicides/100,000 people:

https://i.snag.gy/5WfJYr.jpg

...

https://i.snag.gy/MSU9mf.jpg

While it’s completely horrendous that it’s an issue we even have to deal with, the reality of the situation is that school shootings have actually decreased significantly since the 90’s. Everytown has some data they put together for the school shooting number as well, claiming that this year alone there had already been 18 school shootings.

Again, this turned out to be a situation where Everytown was being intentionally misleading with data in order to push the desired narrative across.

...

The biggest issue was of the guns that were banned in the 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t do a ton to curb violence from the weapons that were included in the ban; which were already a small percentage of deaths that were occurring due to rifles… which are a minute percentage of the gun violence accounted for in the United States. So, really, we’re talking about percentages of percentages.

The DOJ itself states, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

And then went on to say in the same report: “However, the decline in AW (assault weapons) use was offset throughout at least the late 1990’s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCM’s (large capacity magazines) in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports.”

Essentially, the ban had very little effect on the actual thing it had set out to solve from a statistic standpoint. And to make matters worse, when regulation was announced, the surge in purchases of the items that were going to be banned just ultimately led to far more of what we had set out to ban being owned across the country.

[Safety]

You are not very good at connecting the dots.

Show where she said "total ban". I'll wait.

Remember, you wanting people to connect the dots here, works the same in other instances where the topic is different.

[MisterVeritis]

Show where she said "total ban". I'll wait.

Remember, you wanting people to connect the dots here, works the same in other instances where the topic is different.
You are not very good at connecting the dots. Who says it's complicated. It isn't. Who, like nearly all leftists prefer that the citizens be disarmed. The only part that is complicated is finding enough sheep to pass a ban.

By the way, if Who had actually been honest we would not have to connect the dots. Try to remember, we know the Left's motto is "How can we fool them today."

[Safety]

You are not very good at connecting the dots. Who says it's complicated. It isn't. Who, like nearly all leftists prefer that the citizens be disarmed. The only part that is complicated is finding enough sheep to pass a ban.

By the way, if Who had actually been honest we would not have to connect the dots. Try to remember, we know the Left's motto is "How can we fool them today."

So, you can't answer the question and decided to rant a little bit. Did she or did she not say "total ban" as what she was accused of above?

[MisterVeritis]

You are not very good at connecting the dots. Who says it's complicated. It isn't. Who, like nearly all leftists prefer that the citizens be disarmed. The only part that is complicated is finding enough sheep to pass a ban.

By the way, if Who had actually been honest we would not have to connect the dots. Try to remember, we know the Left's motto is "How can we fool them today."

So, you can't answer the question and decided to rant a little bit. Did she or did she not say "total ban" as what she was accused of above?
When did you first notice you had difficulty understanding what you read?

if Who had actually been honest we would not have to connect the dots.
Please try harder. (Sometimes I forget you are a very simple man)

[Ransom]

Actually, in terms of products available for mass consumption/purchase it takes very little to have a product banned. That is really what people are accustomed to. If a product has a propensity to be fatal, it is banned or recalled. Now no one is going to try to suggest that guns are safe products. They are only as safe as their owners, but when one particular weapon is being chosen above all others for mass murder, the obvious question is why this weapon is being chosen? If the conclusion is that it is more attractive to nut jobs and is capable of killing more people than a handgun, the most likely conclusion is that it's usefulness in other respects does not outweigh its potential for mass fatalities. In some respects, it's the equivalent of an attractive nuisance.

And yet the most heinous school shooting was at Va Tech. Where the Cho dude used two handguns I believe. Isn't that a slippery slope argument?


Perhaps if a certain organization wasn't hyping the sale of such weapons, people might feel differently but the crazy on both sides is adding to the problem.

You mean Hollywood of course?

[Dr. Who]

Most hunting rifles are much more lethal. The .223 round is under powered imo. The military picked it because you can carry more of it.

You can get big-bore AR cartridges. (https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/6/22/big-bore-ar-cartridges/) You lose some velocity and range.

[Cletus]

You can get big-bore AR cartridges. (https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/6/22/big-bore-ar-cartridges/) You lose some velocity and range.

You can, but very few do. They are not common or popular. In fact, the biggest market for them is government. The Army has purchased a number of .458 SOCOMs and the Coast Guard has bought a number of .50 Beowulf.

Please cite a single documented case of one of the aforementioned cartridges being used in the commission of a felony, specifically, a mass shooting.

[Safety]

You are not very good at connecting the dots. Who says it's complicated. It isn't. Who, like nearly all leftists prefer that the citizens be disarmed. The only part that is complicated is finding enough sheep to pass a ban.

By the way, if Who had actually been honest we would not have to connect the dots. Try to remember, we know the Left's motto is "How can we fool them today."

When did you first notice you had difficulty understanding what you read?

if Who had actually been honest we would not have to connect the dots.
Please try harder. (Sometimes I forget you are a very simple man)

Still can’t answer.

[Dr. Who]

You can, but very few do. They are not common or popular. In fact, the biggest market for them is government. The Army has purchased a number of .458 SOCOMs and the Coast Guard has bought a number of .50 Beowulf.

Please cite a single documented case of one of the aforementioned cartridges being used in the commission of a felony, specifically, a mass shooting.
That wasn't the point of my comment. Only that the AR is not limited to .223 cartridges i.e. if you want to shoot large hogs or bigger game. A .223 is quite sufficient to kill a human being because of the tumbling action when it enters the body. It might not work so well on an elk.

[Dr. Who]

You are not very good at connecting the dots. Who says it's complicated. It isn't. Who, like nearly all leftists prefer that the citizens be disarmed. The only part that is complicated is finding enough sheep to pass a ban.

By the way, if Who had actually been honest we would not have to connect the dots. Try to remember, we know the Left's motto is "How can we fool them today."
That's entirely untrue. What I dislike is this all or nothing attitude that people have, regardless of the fact that both sides have a right to their concerns. Rather than making unfortunate accusations, it would be nice if we could have a realistic dialogue that recognizes that there is probably a solution that honors the spirit of the 2nd Amendment without leaving the animals in charge of the zoo.

[Chris]

That's entirely untrue. What I dislike is this all or nothing attitude that people have, regardless of the fact that both sides have a right to their concerns. Rather than making unfortunate accusations, it would be nice if we could have a realistic dialogue that recognizes that there is probably a solution that honors the spirit of the 2nd Amendment without leaving the animals in charge of the zoo.

Having a right to concerns, whatever that is, and a right to voice them, generally speaking, doesn't mean all opinions are equal. That is sort of the postmodern spirit, to demand to be heard as if all opinions are equal, and then to silence other opinions as oppressive or hurting of feelings.

Realistic dialog ought to start from facts, no, and not imagination.

[Max Rockatansky]

That's entirely untrue. What I dislike is this all or nothing attitude that people have, regardless of the fact that both sides have a right to their concerns. Rather than making unfortunate accusations, it would be nice if we could have a realistic dialogue that recognizes that there is probably a solution that honors the spirit of the 2nd Amendment without leaving the animals in charge of the zoo.
Normally, yes, but in this case we're talking about those who support Constitutional rights and those who want to strip others of their Constitutional rights. Would any sensible person discuss innocent, law-abiding citizens and rapists or murderers with a comment about "a right to their concerns"? Of course not.

[Tahuyaman]

And yet the most heinous school shooting was at Va Tech. Where the Cho dude used two handguns I believe. Isn't that a slippery slope argument?



You mean Hollywood of course?

And the Columbine shooting happened during the federal assault weapons ban.

[Crepitus]

if Who had actually been honest we would not have to connect the dots.
Please try harder. (Sometimes I forget you are a very simple man)

This is irony of the highest degree. If you had understood what she said you would know there are no dots to connect. You are doing nothing more than interpreting what she said the way you want to hear it instead of how she meant it.