Yet another shooting thread

[Derec]

Yes. Even were that dubious claim true he acts as if lowering murder rates by 5% is a bad thing.

Much more likely it would lower murder rates by ~0% because an aspiring killed can just use a firearm that is not subject to the ban.

 

[Derec]

I think you are grossly oversimplifying the situation.
For example, you seem to be implying that someone who is against some guns must be against all guns.

But why are you against these particular guns?

 

[Derec]

“The issue” isn’t guns, it’s the harm they cause.

Exactly. And the harm is caused by the purpose the gun is put to, not whether it is an AR15 vs. a Winchester .308 vs. a Glock 17.

Anything that mitigates all those effects, is worth the effort

What would effectively mitigate these efforts is to focus on people, not on particular styles of guns certain politicians dislike for emotional reasons.

 

[Derec]

Sone oeople

Huh?

think you put your effort on the low hanging fruit first and work your way up.

But it's not really good fruit, as it won't bring much if any benefit, and it is not low-hanging either, as passing another ban won't be easy and would cost a lot of political capital.
Real low-hanging fruit would be to better enforce existing laws. For example, why is Myon Burrell released after being arrested twice on gun and drug charges, esp. when he has a prior conviction for murder of a child?

 

[laughing dog]

Sone oeople

Huh?

think you put your effort on the low hanging fruit first and work your way up.

But it's not really good fruit, as it won't bring much if any benefit, and it is not low-hanging either, as passing another ban won't be easy and would cost a lot of political capital.

Maybe. Maybe the low hanging fruit is mire comprehensive background checks. But reducing murders is a benefit.

Real low-hanging fruit would be to better enforce existing laws. For example, why is Myon Burrell released after being arrested twice on gun and drug charges, esp. when he has a prior conviction for murder of a child?

Ride your hobby horse over to whomever made the decision and ask them. After they andwer, ask them how that would have stopped the slaughters in Newtown, Conn. or Uvalde, TX or Buffalo, NY, or Pittsburg, PA, or Parkland, FL, or Thomas Crooks. Then report back your fondings.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I think you are grossly oversimplifying the situation.
For example, you seem to be implying that someone who is against some guns must be against all guns.

But why are you against these particular guns?

Here’s my opinion on the matter of gun control:

Guns are intrinsically dangerous items. The American people have proven that they cannot act responsibility with them. The constitution states that the people have a right to bear arms so if we assume that the reason for this, despite the language of the constitution itself, is for personal use and protection then banning guns outright is not in consideration. However, as with other delineated rights in The constitution, it is reasonable to regulate this right . My opinion is that at a minimum all guns should be subject to registration, and gun owners should require licenses and background checks for purchasing.

Guns come in many shapes sizes and characteristics, so it is fair to regulate them based on these. As handguns are more likely to have more potential uses than high powered, high rate of fire weapons I believe that, assuming as you do that there is a finite amount of action that can be taken on gun control (a somewhat dubious claim), then it is more sensible to use that effort on the more dangerous, less useful guns.

My preference would be to see regulations based on these characteristics across all guns, thus naturally leading to heavier regulations on those guns that are really only useful for mass killings.

It has not been demonstrated by anyone here that the first choice of mass shooters is also an effective self defense weapon at home or on the street.

Though we may not be able to end all the killings that happen with handguns, it is still useful to reduce those than happen with the guns that have no other intrinsic value to the average citizen than killings. Fewer gun deaths are, in my opinion, a worthy goal, even if we can’t get rid of them all or even a large fraction.

 

[Derec]

Maybe. Maybe the low hanging fruit is mire comprehensive background checks.

That one is also relatively low, and sweet.
Banning so-called "assault weapons", the favorite idée fixe of Democrats, is high up and insipid.

But reducing murders is a benefit.

Indeed it would be. Emphasis on "would".

Ride your hobby horse over to whomever made the decision and ask them.

It would be the left-wing judges of Hennepin County, MN. I doubt they would return my calls. And he was only released because the invertebrate governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, caved to the 2020 insurrectionists.

After they andwer, ask them how that would have stopped the slaughters in Newtown, Conn. or Uvalde, TX or Buffalo, NY, or Pittsburg, PA, or Parkland, FL, or Thomas Crooks.

Your spelling is more atrocious than usual. Are you on your phone or is something wrong?
As to your hobby-horse of only focusing on high-profile shootings that were covered in the media excessively, they amount to a very small percentage of all homicide victims.
That's why your examples cover a long timeline. Uvalde 22, Newtown 12, Buffalo 2022 again, Pittsburg 2018, Parkland 2018 again.
Thomas Crooks didn't even do a mass shooting and he used the wrong weapon for the job anyway.
While we should examine tactics to reduce the chances of them happening, they should not be the primary focus of gun policies. Not to mention that handguns and other weapons not covered by proposed bans are quite adequate for most mass shootings - see Virginia Tech, where 32 were killed and 17 wounded using nothing but two pistols. Or Columbine, which occurred while the ban was in effect.

Then report back your fondings.

My what?

 

[laughing dog]

Maybe. Maybe the low hanging fruit is mire comprehensive background checks.

That one is also relatively low, and sweet.
Banning so-called "assault weapons", the favorite idée fixe of Democrats, is high up and insipid.

But reducing murders is a benefit.

Indeed it would be. Emphasis on "would".

Ride your hobby horse over to whomever made the decision and ask them.

It would be the left-wing judges of Hennepin County, MN. I doubt they would return my calls. And he was only released because the invertebrate governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, caved to the 2020 insurrectionists.

In other words, as usual, you have nothing but pointless insults.

After they andwer, ask them how that would have stopped the slaughters in Newtown, Conn. or Uvalde, TX or Buffalo, NY, or Pittsburg, PA, or Parkland, FL, or Thomas Crooks.

Your spelling is more atrocious than usual. Are you on your phone or is something wrong?

Phone.

As to your hobby-horse of only focusing on high-profile shootings that were covered in the media excessively, they amount to a very small percentage of all homicide victims.

Tell that to the parents and families of those victims.

That's why your examples cover a long timeline. Uvalde 22, Newtown 12, Buffalo 2022 again, Pittsburg 2018, Parkland 2018 again.
Thomas Crooks didn't even do a mass shooting and he used the wrong weapon for the job anyway.

6 years is not a long timeline. My obvious point - that you have "missed" - is that these were not done by people with criminal records. So enforcing existing laws would not have stopped any of them.

While we should examine tactics to reduce the chances of them happening, they should not be the primary focus of gun policies.

Low hanging fruit.

 

[Derec]

Guns are intrinsically dangerous items. The American people have proven that they cannot act responsibility with them.

First part is true. Second part is a gross generalization, and a bigoted one at that. Many people cannot act responsibly with firearms, American or not. Others can. Same with cars or kitchen items like knives and stoves. Hell, there are adults I would not trust with scissors.

The constitution states that the people have a right to bear arms so if we assume that the reason for this, despite the language of the constitution itself, is for personal use and protection then banning guns outright is not in consideration. However, as with other delineated rights in The constitution, it is reasonable to regulate this right . My opinion is that at a minimum all guns should be subject to registration, and gun owners should require licenses and background checks for purchasing.

So far, so good.

Guns come in many shapes sizes and characteristics, so it is fair to regulate them based on these. As handguns are more likely to have more potential uses than high powered, high rate of fire weapons I believe that, assuming as you do that there is a finite amount of action that can be taken on gun control (a somewhat dubious claim), then it is more sensible to use that effort on the more dangerous, less useful guns.

Handguns are more useful than long guns for committing crimes such as murder or armed robbery due to them being easier to conceal and wield. Long guns are also useful for hunting.

My preference would be to see regulations based on these characteristics across all guns, thus naturally leading to heavier regulations on those guns that are really only useful for mass killings.

Statistics do not bear that out, which is my overall point. Many people own these types of firearms, and yet they are very rarely used to kill people. Unlike handguns or knives.

It has not been demonstrated by anyone here that the first choice of mass shooters is also an effective self defense weapon at home or on the street.

It is not less effective than a handgun, I am sure.

Though we may not be able to end all the killings that happen with handguns, it is still useful to reduce those than happen with the guns that have no other intrinsic value to the average citizen than killings. Fewer gun deaths are, in my opinion, a worthy goal, even if we can’t get rid of them all or even a large fraction.

Getting rid of so-called "assault weapons" would likely not reduce the murder rate at all, as would-be killers can always use different weapons.

 

[Derec]

In other words, as usual, you have nothing but pointless insults.

It's not an insult, but a statement of fact. Walz has no spine. I know a lot of Democrats have been Walz-pilled lately, but it is true.

Tell that to the parents and families of those victims.

Tell them what exactly? I am not somebody opposed to reasonable reforms. I am just saying the obsession of Democrats with so-called "assault weapons" would not have prevented these tragedies.
Why don't you go to the (orders of magnitude more numerous) families of victims of handgun crime and tell them why their loved ones are not as important as those other ones because they were not shot with an AR15.

6 years is not a long timeline.

Newtown was 12 years ago. And it is a long timeline when there are tens of thousands of murders per year and yet you keep focusing on a handful of high profile cases.

My obvious point - that you have "missed" - is that these were not done by people with criminal records. So enforcing existing laws would not have stopped any of them.

Yes, it is difficult to stop such people. Maybe the best approach is better mental health.
But it is not a reason to ban an entire class of weapons for law-abiding people. Especially when would-be shooters can easily adapt and use something else. Even if you could somehow ban "assault weapons" again, they could use handguns like Seung-Hui Cho. Or used a more diverse set weapons not covered by the ban like Klebold and Harris, who used a 9mm handgun, two shotguns and a 9mm carbine. And before you object that Columbine was so long ago, I use them as an example of a high-profile mass shooting that occurred while the so-called "assault weapons" ban was in effect.

Low hanging fruit.

Again, the "fruit" in question is neither low-hanging nor tasty.

 

[laughing dog]

In other words, as usual, you have nothing but pointless insults.

It's not an insult, but a statement of fact. Walz has no spine. I know a lot of Democrats have been Walz-pilled lately, but it is true.

if Gov. Walz had no spine, it is a fact he would be dead. But he is alive, which means your “fact” is not a fact.

Tell them what exactly?

Because the killers of their loved ones used a low frequency occurring homicides, it isn’t worth dealing with it.

I am not somebody opposed to reasonable reforms. I am just saying the obsession of Democrats with so-called "assault weapons" would not have prevented these tragedies.

You know this because….?

Why don't you go to the (orders of magnitude more numerous) families of victims of handgun crime and tell them why their loved ones are not as important as those other ones because they were not shot with an AR15.

Why would I lie to them?

Newtown was 12 years ago. And it is a long timeline when there are tens of thousands of murders per year and yet you keep focusing on a handful of high profile cases.

It is a tragic farce that nothing has been done.

Yes, it is difficult to stop such people. Not a reason to ban an entire class of weapons from law-abiding people.....

Sure it is. Just like it is okay to ban bazookas or atomic weapons.

Again, the "fruit" in question is neither low-hanging nor tasty.

We disagree.

 

[Derec]

if Gov. Walz had no spine, it is a fact he would be dead. But he is alive, which means your “fact” is not a fact.

Thank you, Commodore Oblivious.

spine·less
/ˈspīnləs/
adjective
1.
having no spine or backbone; invertebrate.
2.
lacking resolution; weak and purposeless.
"a spineless coward"

I was using definition 1 as a metaphor for definition 2.
You do know what a metaphor is, right?

Because the killers of their loved ones used a low frequency occurring homicides, it isn’t worth dealing with it.

I did not say that. I said that it does not justify the amount of attention it gets. Especially since the proposed solution (banning so-called "assault weapons") would be both a heavy-handed government intrusion and quite ineffective given the ease with which these weapons can be substituted by an aspiring mass shooter.

You know this because….?

The fact that similar shootings have been accomplished without using so-called "assault weapons". The only one which could not have been pulled off with some handguns was Las Vegas (2017) due to its longer range, and even there the shooter could have used a rifle not covered by the ban.

Why don't you go to the (orders of magnitude more numerous) families of victims of handgun crime and tell them why their loved ones are not as important as those other ones because they were not shot with an AR15.

Why would I lie to them?

Your attitude amounts to that, whether you intend it or not.

It is a tragic farce that nothing has been done.

Agree 100%. And yet, the big reason why nothing has been done is not just the obstinance of Republicans, but also the misguided priorities of Democrats. "Hell yes, we are going to take your AR15, your AK47", to quote β, is neither good politics nor good policy.

Sure it is. Just like it is okay to ban bazookas or atomic weapons.

AR15s and similar rifles are much closer in capabilities to handguns and non-assaulty rifles than they are to these weapons. AR15s can easily be replaced with handguns for short range applications, and with other rifles for intermediate range uses. RPGs and (even more ridiculously) nukes cannot.

We disagree.

Obviously.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Handguns are more useful than long guns for committing crimes such as murder or armed robbery due to them being easier to conceal and wield.

But they are also more useful for self and home defense.

Long guns are also useful for hunting.

Not all long guns are the same though, right? What size ammunition, fire rate and magazine capacities are useful for hunting? Are machine guns useful for hunting? How about bump stocks?

My preference would be to see regulations based on these characteristics across all guns, thus naturally leading to heavier regulations on those guns that are really only useful for mass killings.

Statistics do not bear that out, which is my overall point. Many people own these types of firearms,

But what do they use them for that can’t be as well or better performed than other types?

and yet they are very rarely used to kill people.

Being rarely used is not by itself a good rationale for not regulating them.

It has not been demonstrated by anyone here that the first choice of mass shooters is also an effective self defense weapon at home or on the street.

It is not less effective than a handgun, I am sure.

you think a handgun would have been just as effective in the Las Vegas mass murder, or Uvalde?

Getting rid of so-called "assault weapons" would likely not reduce the murder rate at all, as would-be killers can always use different weapons.

you don’t really know the impact it would have. And let them find other weapons. They don’t seem to want other weapons. Under my philosophy other weapons that would be available will be lower power, have less rate of fire and smaller magazines. It’s hard to believe in mass shooting situations that would have no impact ar all on death rate. But I guess I could be wrong.

 

[Derec]

Disagree--I think it's about the camel's nose.

I do not think that quite explains it. The hostility toward so-called "assault weapons" tends to be quite emotional, visceral. There is more afoot here than just a "camel's nose" tactic.

 

[Elixir]

As to your hobby-horse of only focusing on high-profile shootings that were covered in the media excessively, they amount to a very small percentage of all homicide victims.

I think the vast majority homicide victims belong to a group or groups that represent very small percentages of all homicide victims. In fact most gun homicide victims belong to groups that represent but a fraction of all gun homicide victims.
To be perfectly objective, if one looks closely enough, every single case where a person kills another person with a gun, is unique in some way, and can therefore be dismissed as a one-off.
Fuck it we need more guns.

 

[Gospel]

That scene always cracks me up, not because of the knife part, but because nobody in the hood would be wearing a Michael Jackson jacket while trying to rob someone. Even back during the height of his career.

So, seeing how wise you are in the ways of sartorial preferences of robbers, what is the preferred mugging outfit these days?

Well, with all the attention you seem to give to black criminals, I’m sure you’ve already developed quite a comprehensive style guide of your own biases to assist with that.

 

[ZiprHead]

The fact that similar shootings have been accomplished without using so-called "assault weapons". The only one which could not have been pulled off with some handguns was Las Vegas (2017) due to its longer range, and even there the shooter could have used a rifle not covered by the ban.

All those mass shootings could have been done with other weapons, yes. But they weren't. If you want a high kill volume quickly, there are few better weapons than AR style rifles. And there is the mental "Bad Ass" factor of such weapons. It gives people balls of steel lead. Just possessing any firearm causes similar wreckless. attitudes.

The relaxation of open and concealed carry laws has brought us this:

According to a Trace analysis of Gun Violence Archive (GVA) data, the number of road rage shootings in the United States has increased by 449% from 2014 to 2023, from 83 to 456 incidents. In 2023, on average, someone was shot in a road rage incident every 18 hours, up from once every four days in 2014. In total, 3,095 people were shot in road rage incidents from 2014 to 2023, and 777 of those people were killed.

 

[laughing dog]

It is a tragic farce that nothing has been done.

Agree 100%. And yet, the big reason why nothing has been done is not just the obstinance of Republicans,

I agree. It is because of people who feel like you and LP who put forth vapid visceral emotional defenses of pointless weapons. AR-15s and the like are military grade weapons that are unnecessary for private individuals to have or use.

 

[steve_bank]

Around the area teen shootings are rising.

Recently in my neighborhood during the summer Chinatown parade three teens one 13 wee walkng around waving guns, onee modified for full auto,

O surveillance video three teens ambushed another teen getting off a bus. It was a scene right out of violent movie.

A running gun fight broke out between teens at a shopping mall.

Multiple people shot when teens ad young adults gather are becoming commonplace.

Street racing, a neighborhood street is taken over by racers. and a crowd. Gunfire breakout. Carts and homes shot.

Mass shootings by a lone gunman is not the biggest problem.

 

[Tigers!]

Newtown was 12 years ago. And it is a long timeline when there are tens of thousands of murders per year and yet you keep focusing on a handful of high profile cases.

It is a tragic farce that nothing has been done.

If the Democrats have a majority in certain states why could they not implement some sort of gun control whilst they have the opportunity? It might not be much but there needs to be a start somewhere.