-
Features
Yet another shooting thread
- Thread starter marc
- Start date
thebeave
Veteran Member
Sounds good, but I think all that will do is increase profits of people who make this:
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,766
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Akron had a mass shooting. 1 dead, a couple dozen hurt. Hurt as in hit by gunfire. There is nothing on the shooter(s). There was a large party, police broke it up. Party got back together again around 11 PM or midnight, and then what appears to be a drive-by occurred.
As to Tigers! question, the NRA became a political organization, rather than a firearm owners organization in the mid to late 1970s. They got more and more political and then appeared to become nothing less than the gun manufacturer lobby. 40 years of their propaganda has done wonders with how Americans feel about firearms. It is more important to some people than access to clean drinking water.
As to Tigers! question, the NRA became a political organization, rather than a firearm owners organization in the mid to late 1970s. They got more and more political and then appeared to become nothing less than the gun manufacturer lobby. 40 years of their propaganda has done wonders with how Americans feel about firearms. It is more important to some people than access to clean drinking water.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
There’s no amendment in the constitution guaranteeing the right to clean water.
He has two points which are being ignored.DerecIn the words of Matthew McConaughey, "those are rookie numbers in this racket".
Shootings of this magnitude happen all the time.
There are several disparate definitions of mass shootings.
[I know it's Al Jazeera, but they do make a good-looking infographic]
As you can see, number of mass shootings varies by a factor of >100 just depending on the definition one uses. One of the more dishonest arguing tactics is to conflate these definitions.
I do not understand why the concept of restricting the availability of guns is so anathema to you.
If guns are harder to get then the incidents of mass shooting (regardless of the type of gun) will decrease. Why is a reduction in the number of mass shootings and therefore the victims such a no-no?
First, rifles are very low in the overall crime statistics. The focus on rifles strongly suggests the motive is something other than preventing murder.
Second, as you say "restricting the availability of guns"--if that's to have any hope of helping it would require basically disarming the civilians. Yet few of you will admit that you're actually after a gun ban.
Exactly. All identify-the-gun approaches do nothing about criminal guns. And the vast majority of guns used in crime are criminal guns. It's rare for the person who used the gun to have been possessing it legally in the first place.
If you want a distinctive marking for a gun I would suggest IR-band retroreflectors. They need not have any unusual visual characteristics but could be used by automated systems to determine that there was an exposed gun. But a piece of tape would block them.
Thinking about it, this might actually be a useful system. Not to identify guns but to identify realistic replicas to indicate to the police that it's probably not a real gun.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
so you at least seem to agree that it is the police’s responsibility to first determine if a gun is real before firing on the holder, yes?
Maybe I’m misreading you.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,792
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Rifles, especially the AR type of weapon, may be rare in the over all crime stats but they are way on top of the lethality scale. That's why it's the preferred weapon of of people looking for extreme carnage. See Las Vegas concert shooting.He has two points which are being ignored.DerecIn the words of Matthew McConaughey, "those are rookie numbers in this racket".
Shootings of this magnitude happen all the time.
There are several disparate definitions of mass shootings.
[I know it's Al Jazeera, but they do make a good-looking infographic]
As you can see, number of mass shootings varies by a factor of >100 just depending on the definition one uses. One of the more dishonest arguing tactics is to conflate these definitions.
I do not understand why the concept of restricting the availability of guns is so anathema to you.
If guns are harder to get then the incidents of mass shooting (regardless of the type of gun) will decrease. Why is a reduction in the number of mass shootings and therefore the victims such a no-no?
First, rifles are very low in the overall crime statistics. The focus on rifles strongly suggests the motive is something other than preventing murder.
I will admit it.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,728
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
OK. So, what motives might there be, and why would those motives be bad?
What, in brief, would be the harm caused by outlawing rifles that are designed to look like military weapons (as opposed to rifles that are actually suited to hunting game)? What would be the harm of outlawing rifle ownership for any purposes other than hunting or target shooting?
Why does a person who lives in a city, who has never seen a deer in his life, and who isn't a member of a sporting rifle club, need a weapon that looks like a military rifle, and (more importantly) how does his need outweigh even a tiny number of shooting sprees by the owners of such weapons?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,728
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Disarming civillians is NOT a "gun ban". UK citizens are "disarmed" - which is a GOOD thing - Yet they can legally own and use a wide range of guns, including shotguns, rifles, and (with significant restrictions) pistols, if they can show a reason why they would want these guns, such as sporting competitions, hunting, or gamekeeping; And can show that they have a secure place to store their guns and ammunition when they are not in use.
I myself have owned and used both shotguns and rifles in the UK, and even made a shotgun myself when I worked for a gunsmith there before I moved to Australia. I am able to assure you from personal experience that guns are not banned in the UK.
The one thing that is banned is the use of "defence" as a justification for being issued a licence or permit.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,766
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
That's okay, you don't freely admit that Sandy Hook was just the price that gets paid when it comes to the firearm protections you seek.He has two points which are being ignored.DerecIn the words of Matthew McConaughey, "those are rookie numbers in this racket".
Shootings of this magnitude happen all the time.
There are several disparate definitions of mass shootings.
[I know it's Al Jazeera, but they do make a good-looking infographic]
As you can see, number of mass shootings varies by a factor of >100 just depending on the definition one uses. One of the more dishonest arguing tactics is to conflate these definitions.
I do not understand why the concept of restricting the availability of guns is so anathema to you.
If guns are harder to get then the incidents of mass shooting (regardless of the type of gun) will decrease. Why is a reduction in the number of mass shootings and therefore the victims such a no-no?
First, rifles are very low in the overall crime statistics. The focus on rifles strongly suggests the motive is something other than preventing murder.
Second, as you say "restricting the availability of guns"--if that's to have any hope of helping it would require basically disarming the civilians. Yet few of you will admit that you're actually after a gun ban.
Elixir
Made in America
No, Loren. The bulk of gun deaths are suicides and domestic disputes. But the ones that people fear, are the impersonal wiping out of lives. Suicides alone account for 56% of gun deaths. Tragic as that is, most people don’t live in fear that they might kill themselves.
They (I) do fear catching a bullet at the grocery store, concert or on the highway, fired by a crazy person just out there doing the random killing thing that crazy people do. That crazy person is using a .223 long gun in almost every case.
So yeah, banning assault l-type rifles isn’t going to make a huge dent in the overall body count but it will make people feel better, i.e. improve the social climate. I think that change would be significant.
thebeave
Veteran Member
The timing on this picture is rather unfortunate and gives it new meaning. Today marks the 8th anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub (an LBGTQ club).
Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando: Remembering the victims of June 12, 2016
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,766
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
We've had almost enough 10+ dead victims shootings in America (29), we could pretty much dedicate a whole month to it. We could call it National Semi-Automatic Remembrance Month. This will make it easier so we just have to remember one month, instead of so many dates.
Derec
Contributor
Note that this was an Islamic terrorist attack perpetrated by an Afghan who swore fealty to ISIS.The timing on this picture is rather unfortunate and gives it new meaning. Today marks the 8th anniversary of the Pulse Nightclub (an LBGTQ club).
Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando: Remembering the victims of June 12, 2016
Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, official says
Why is Orlando Sentinel ignoring that fact?
Tigers!
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 4,510
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
With the amount of gun related deaths occurring in the US, including the tragic number of suicides, restricting the availability of guns should be nos. 1, 2, 3 of your hit parade.He has two points which are being ignored.DerecIn the words of Matthew McConaughey, "those are rookie numbers in this racket".
Shootings of this magnitude happen all the time.
There are several disparate definitions of mass shootings.
[I know it's Al Jazeera, but they do make a good-looking infographic]
As you can see, number of mass shootings varies by a factor of >100 just depending on the definition one uses. One of the more dishonest arguing tactics is to conflate these definitions.
I do not understand why the concept of restricting the availability of guns is so anathema to you.
If guns are harder to get then the incidents of mass shooting (regardless of the type of gun) will decrease. Why is a reduction in the number of mass shootings and therefore the victims such a no-no?
First, rifles are very low in the overall crime statistics. The focus on rifles strongly suggests the motive is something other than preventing murder.
Second, as you say "restricting the availability of guns"--if that's to have any hope of helping it would require basically disarming the civilians. Yet few of you will admit that you're actually after a gun ban.
I believe they should be attempting to ascertain whether a gun is real. In practice they often can't--I'm suggesting a system that might be viable to help with said identification.
Doesn't change the fact that despite their lethality the numbers are very low. The danger posed by something is probability * consequences.
You're in the minority. Put it to the ballot and you would almost certainly lose. Catching that car would be even worse than the Republicans catching the abortion car.
Because I understand that many small events can add up to more than one big one.
Wave a magic wand, all mass shootings go away but all self-defense shootings go away. Oops, the outcome is almost certainly worse.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
that’s a strawman many of us are not arguing. I know a couple of posters here are recommending total gun bans but not all of us are.
There are ways to regulate guns that would lessen the impact of mass shooters without significantly impacting self-defense.
This need not be an all or nothing scenario despite your attempt to paint it as such.