Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?

Which part WERE accomplished with Glock 19’s? But sure, ban those fuckers as well.

Showing your real position--ban all them piece by piece.

You keep saying that, as though it were a bad thing.

Most of the people on your side deny it because they know it wouldn't be accepted by most people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is your "concrete" point isn't--you act like we can cleanly divide guns into AR-15 and other.

Quibble quibble

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

We tried it. The gun makers simply made cosmetic changes so their products no longer met the definition. Why should we not expect the same result from trying it again?

By the industry and putting adequate laws in place. And fuck the NRA. Any legitimacy they once enjoyed has long since been squandered by their corruption —just like the GOP.

You're ignoring my point--there is no appreciable difference between many AR-15 type guns and many light hunting rifles other than the cosmetics. You can't make a law that bans one and not the other--an "assault weapons" ban is an exercise in futility because of this.

 

[bilby]

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?

Which part WERE accomplished with Glock 19’s? But sure, ban those fuckers as well.

Showing your real position--ban all them piece by piece.

You keep saying that, as though it were a bad thing.

Most of the people on your side deny it because they know it wouldn't be accepted by most people.

I don't have a side, and severe restrictions on firearms ownership IS ALREADY accepted by most people. Only about 5% of humans don't yet accept such limitations, almost all of them in the United States of America.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And fuck the NRA.

How many mass shooters are NRA members? What percentage of the gun homicide offenders in Chicago are card carrying members? This absurd fixation on the NRA seems like an effort to deflect from bad policy and inconvenient facts.

The NRA enabled each and every single one of them, your sophistry notwithstanding.

How? By setting low to no bail? By pressuing politicians and police to take a kid-glove approach to crime?

Except that's not what's happening.

No-bail is exposing a problem that already existed: the lack of an effective system for punishing low-level criminals. Bail had become the de-facto punishment system for such crimes--and note that there is no determination of guilt or innocence in it. Some states have realized that bail isn't a just system, but getting rid of it exposed the fact there wasn't anything else, either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A sufficiently sweeping ban will stop most mass shooters but that's all you'll do about crime.

And that would be a worthy goal. I already said I’m not Compelled by the argument that if you can’t stop all crime there’s no point in stopping any crime.

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

Again a false dichotomy. It’s not all guns or no guns. If there are people who want to use guns for legitimate self-defense they won’t be bothered by common sense gun laws.

And I’d like to see the statistics of AR-15s used in self defense versus those used in mass shootings. Do you have that information or are you speaking what you’d like to be true?

You have no reasonable way to sort out the mass shooters from the self defense people. Both will appear law-abiding.

And just because AR-15 type guns appeal to people who want to make a statement doesn't mean that they're necessary.

So you still don't have any statistics to back up your bullshit claims?

Got it.

Most mass shootings aren't done with AR-15 type weapons. Thus it's obviously not a requirement.

 

[Toni]

The problem is your "concrete" point isn't--you act like we can cleanly divide guns into AR-15 and other.

Quibble quibble

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

We tried it. The gun makers simply made cosmetic changes so their products no longer met the definition. Why should we not expect the same result from trying it again?

By the industry and putting adequate laws in place. And fuck the NRA. Any legitimacy they once enjoyed has long since been squandered by their corruption —just like the GOP.

You're ignoring my point--there is no appreciable difference between many AR-15 type guns and many light hunting rifles other than the cosmetics. You can't make a law that bans one and not the other--an "assault weapons" ban is an exercise in futility because of this.

Then better laws can and should be written to allow hunting weapons and precious few beyond that use.

 

[Toni]

A sufficiently sweeping ban will stop most mass shooters but that's all you'll do about crime.

And that would be a worthy goal. I already said I’m not Compelled by the argument that if you can’t stop all crime there’s no point in stopping any crime.

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

Again a false dichotomy. It’s not all guns or no guns. If there are people who want to use guns for legitimate self-defense they won’t be bothered by common sense gun laws.

And I’d like to see the statistics of AR-15s used in self defense versus those used in mass shootings. Do you have that information or are you speaking what you’d like to be true?

You have no reasonable way to sort out the mass shooters from the self defense people. Both will appear law-abiding.

And just because AR-15 type guns appeal to people who want to make a statement doesn't mean that they're necessary.

So you still don't have any statistics to back up your bullshit claims?

Got it.

Most mass shootings aren't done with AR-15 type weapons. Thus it's obviously not a requirement.

It's a starting point.

 

[Toni]

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?

Which part WERE accomplished with Glock 19’s? But sure, ban those fuckers as well.

Showing your real position--ban all them piece by piece.

You keep saying that, as though it were a bad thing.

Most of the people on your side deny it because they know it wouldn't be accepted by most people.

And your side just ignores the fact that guns are the leading cause of death of children in the US and shrug your shoulders, quibble about what is and is not considered a child and act like it's no big deal. And you have a powerful lobby backed by Russia on your side so.......

 

[Worldtraveller]

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

Since loren continues to be (intentionally?) obtuse...

This is the assertion you have made that you keep getting asked for some evidence.

Let's see it. Put up or stfu.

 

[Elixir]

The problem is your "concrete" point isn't--you act like we can cleanly divide guns into AR-15 and other.

Quibble quibble

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

We tried it. The gun makers simply made cosmetic changes so their products no longer met the definition. Why should we not expect the same result from trying it again?

By the industry and putting adequate laws in place. And fuck the NRA. Any legitimacy they once enjoyed has long since been squandered by their corruption —just like the GOP.

You're ignoring my point--there is no appreciable difference between many AR-15 type guns and many light hunting rifles other than the cosmetics. You can't make a law that bans one and not the other--an "assault weapons" ban is an exercise in futility because of this.

What kind of hunting (other than humans) requires semi-auto action and super high velocity rounds?

 

[bilby]

there is no appreciable difference between many AR-15 type guns and many light hunting rifles other than the cosmetics.

So you are saying that a ban on AR-15 type guns will have no detrimental effect whatsoever on people who want to own and use guns, and is therefore completely harmless?

Why the staunch opposition to it then?

You say it will have no effect - that the people who want these things can replace them readily with something of identical functionality, that's only cosmetically different.

Others say that it will have a beneficial effect on your society.

Given that testing which of these is correct cannot gave a significant negative outcome, but could have a significant positive outcome, the smart move is to collect high quality baseline data; Enact a temporary ban; And make that ban permanent if the post-ban data shows even the tiniest of benefits (because any benefit, however tiny, outweighs a purely cosmetic detriment).

To argue against a ban on AR-15 type guns from the position you have outlined, you would need to claim either that not one single life could be saved, nor death prevented; Or that the joy of owning a merely cosmetically enhanced rifle outweighs the value of a human life.

Neither claim seems to be anywhere close to plausible to me. The former could easily be tested (but you are apparently opposed to such testing on the grounds of a slippery slope fallacy, and general paranoia); The latter is morally bankrupt.

 

[Shadowy Man]

the joy of owning a merely cosmetically enhanced rifle outweighs the value of a human life.

This appears to be what they are telling us. I see no other rational reason. Maybe “FREEDOM!!1!”

ETA: what they will likely say is that any ban on any class of weapon, especially done capriciously or on purely cosmetic grounds, is just the first step in a slippery slope to a goal to ban all guns. If they give an inch the opposition will take the mile. So, not even a rational discourse on the characteristics of the variety of firearms can be undertaken. It’s bad enough that fully automatic weapons have been banned they can’t risk everything else.

 

[ZiprHead]

What kind of hunting (other than humans) requires semi-auto action and super high velocity rounds?

It skips the steps of butchering the kill and goes directly to hamburger.

 

[Elixir]

What kind of hunting (other than humans) requires semi-auto action and super high velocity rounds?

It skips the steps of butchering the kill and goes directly to hamburger.

Good point, given the millions of hours Americans spend daily, making burgers.

 

[Derec]

What kind of hunting (other than humans) requires semi-auto action and super high velocity rounds?

"Super high velocity"? Really? The velocity of an AR15s is comparable to other similar rifles.
Muzzle velocity is a function of the projectile mass, powder load and barrel length. It has nothing to do with being a scary "assault weapon".

Semiautomatic action is also quite common in hunting rifles.

It skips the steps of butchering the kill and goes directly to hamburger.

LMAO, but no.

 

[Elixir]

Super high velocity"? Really? The velocity of an AR15s is comparable to other similar rifles.
Muzzle velocity is a function of the projectile mass, powder load and barrel length. It has nothing to do with being a scary "assault weapon

Once again your ignorance is showing. AR and other large cartridge .223s have muzzle velocities in the 3300 fps range, whereas what used to be hunting rifles like 30-30 habe muzzle velocities closer to the 2300 fps range. Most important,
The wounds inflicted by AR and similar are on another order.
Your specious assertion that you could wreak similar damage with a Glock 19 is total bullshit.

 

[Derec]

In most countries, rifles and shotguns are fairly easy to obtain licenses for.
Handguns, however, are very highly restricted, mainly because they have very few uses that don't entail a human being as their target.

Do you not understand that the so-called "assault weapons" that the Dems want to ban (yet again) is about certain rifles, not handguns?

You are right that a ban on some kinds of rifles would have only a small effect

I do not think there would be any measurable effect.

(though you are wrong to dismiss it as futile - if you are killed by someone, your family and friends are unlikely to be consoled by the fact that he used a fairly unusual weapon).

The fault is with the murderer, not the type of gun. The would-be murderer can just select another type of firearm.

But your argument makes very clear that you should, if you are consistent, be lobbying for massive and immediate restrictions on handguns.

I think access should be regulated more. I disagree they should be banned outright. \
But in any case, handguns are by far the bigger problem. Which is why the Dems' monomaniacal obsession with "assault weapons" is so stupid.

Of course, you're not consistent; Instead you switch to a different tactic - claiming that restrictions on handguns are "politically impossible". Well, that's just another way of saying "I don't wanna!". It's not a compelling argument at all.

Depends on how far you want to take restrictions. Imposing severe restrictions, or even an outright ban, would be impossible politically, at least in the foreseeable future. 20 years from now? Who knows, but I doubt it.

Everything's "politically impossible", until it isn't. Telling Americans that they can't have handguns, is no more politically impossible than telling them that they can't have slaves was.

Aside from the fact that owning human beings does not compare well to owning a gun, did you not know that this required a bloody civil war? Still the most deadly war as far as all American dead are concerned, despite the fact that the US population in 1860s was 1/10th of what it is today.

 

[Derec]

Once again your ignorance is showing. AR and other large cartridge .223s have muzzle velocities in the 3300 fps range,

Your ignorance is showing. I said "comparable to other similar rifles". There are plenty non-assaulty .22 hunting rifles.

whereas what used to be hunting rifles like 30-30 habe muzzle velocities closer to the 2300 fps range.

The .30 is also a heavier bullet. But note I said "similar rifles". I also said "Muzzle velocity is a function of the projectile mass, powder load and barrel length". I.e. you have two rifles, a friendly looking hunting rifle and a "scary" AR15 with same barrel length firing the same cartridge and you get the same muzzle velocity.

Most important,
The wounds inflicted by AR and similar are on another order.

I never said rifles do not pack a lot more punch than a handgun. Handgun cartridges tend to have less powder and the short barrel length means the bullet does not accelerate as long.

Your specious assertion that you could wreak similar damage with a Glock 19 is total bullshit.

My assertion is not specious at all. I was simply saying that handgun like the Glock 19 are plenty powerful enough to kill people, especially at short range as is the case in school/workplace shootings.
Note also that vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, not rifles of any type.
If your loved one is killed with a Glock, are you really going to console yourself that they left a prettier x-ray on account of "only" ~1,200 fps muzzle velocity?

 

[Elixir]

You obviously don’t know any urban trauma docs, and you know jack shit about the differences in lethality or the extent of injury caused by various types of rounds and firearms.
Since it is unlikely that you will talk to any such qualified individuals about it, you should at least read the article I linked for your benefit. Do that and get back to me.

Meanwhile, if you and your … loved one are both hit in the same spot on the lower leg causing wounds like those depicted in the X-rays I posted, she dies and you survive, will you chalk it up to your superior survival skills? Say she was just weak?

 

[Derec]

I don’t think simply banning AR-15s alone will do a lot, to that I would agree. Which is why there needs to be a host of common sense gun regulations, which most people actually agree with. Except for Republican politicians who could make that actually happen.

I think demanding unreasonable gun restrictions actually makes passing sensible ones less likely.

Part of that could be the banning of classes of weapons defined by actual characteristics of the weapons and not looks or emotional attachments.

What characteristics would you ban?