Yet another shooting thread

[Elixir]

My point is that if the goal is maximum deaths a gun isn't the right choice.

Then your point is misplaced. The goal isn’t max death, it’s max CONTROL over other people’s life and death. Indiscriminate killing is very unfulfilling. It’s all about the power to choose who lives and who dies.

 

[Rhea]

My point is that if the goal is maximum deaths a gun isn't the right choice.

Then your point is misplaced. The goal isn’t max death, it’s max CONTROL over other people’s life and death. Indiscriminate killing is very unfulfilling. It’s all about the power to choose who lives and who dies.

Which is why a ban on AR-style weapons that combine high capacity of ammunition with relative ease of firing said rounds rapidly is a viable, workable and efective option.

That and the fact that NO ONE needs one of those for any legitimate civilian purpose. For any legitimate activity, there is a better solution than an AR.

 

[Tigers!]

Part of the goal for these cowards is they can turn the weapon on themselves at a moment’s notice. Crawling under a rolling Uhaul, not so much.

Whilst I am not a fan of encouraging or facilitating suicide I will make an exception for those who have a gun and want to commit suicide. Blow your own brains out first. If you survive we might let you shoot other people.

Alternatively why don't you just make it harder to get guns? An extreme radical proposition I know. (I know what you are thinking - stupid foreigners trying to tell us how to ruin our lives).

 

[Derec]

Which is why a ban on AR-style weapons that combine high capacity of ammunition with relative ease of firing said rounds rapidly is a viable, workable and efective option.

For what exactly? For libs feeling good about themselves, maybe. For reducing deaths, no, it would be far from efective[sic]. Even among mass shootings, so-called "assault weapons" are a minority. And among all shootings, they are a small percentage. Why do you Dems keep obsessing over AR15s and the like? Far more people get killed with Glocks and similar handguns.

That and the fact that NO ONE needs one of those for any legitimate civilian purpose. For any legitimate activity, there is a better solution than an AR.

Including murder, apparently. So why exactly being so gung-ho on banning them? I think it has to do with visceral hatred by the left of the type of person who buys these rifles - white, cis-male, straight, conservative. Even if vast majority of them just use them on the range.

 

[Derec]

And yet, he didn’t use a Glock. Something that is less expensive and easier to hide. He didn’t choose that. why?

I don't know. I can't read minds. He was not quite sane though.

My guess, Glocks don’t have enough magazine capacity to suit him.

There are high capacity magazines that fit handguns like the Glock. Also, it's not that hard to reload a fresh mag. But if neither option appeals to him, having an extra loaded handgun or two is another option.
Seriously, nothing he did would have been impossible if so-called "assault weapons ban" was in effect.

Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him.

And if he could not get an AR15 he would have stayed home? I doubt it.
He more likely would have used handguns. Columbine happened during the ban btw. Didn't stop it.

Well there you go then. A restriction on AR15s will mean fewer lethally vindictive rage fests with specific targets re likely to occur in the US. Sign me up.

Very doubtful. Even today, fewer people get killed with rifles of any type (so-called "assault weapons" being but a subset of all rifles) than "hands, fists and feet".

This monomaniacal obsession with AR15s by the doctrinaire Left is neither productive nor healthy.

 

[Derec]

All of these items have a main purpose. Only one is to kill. Can you guess which one? Would you outlaw civilian possession of a device who's main purpose is to kill? I would.

2nd Amendment exists. Until you repeal it, or get a SCOTUS willing to reinterpret it, there will be no banning civilian possession of firearms.
We could ban civilian possession of anvils for anybody not a blacksmith.

 

[Derec]

We're fucked when the trained shooters start targeting people. Is the reason we need to allow certain weapons to be available in the hands of Americans is trained gunman could always kill more with less? And that heavy vans would kill more people?

"Hands, fists and feet" kill more people than rifles. Real talk.

There are no more effective gun control measures.

You really don't think there are "more effective gun control measures" than banning a class of firearm responsible for a small minority of gun homicides just because a certain political segment irrationally hates that class of firearm?
How about gun licensing and registration? Or laws regarding guns and mentally ill?
Army decided Maine shooting gunman Robert Card shouldn't have a weapon after erratic behavior in July
Maybe he should have had firearms removed from his possession. Handguns and long guns both.

Our streets are saturated with excessively dangerous guns.

True. And many are in possession of people who should not be having them.
How is banning certain rifles from law-abiding citizens going to fix the problem of millions of handguns in the hands of bangers? Dems love to palaver about "assault weapons" but what about all those handguns in the inner cities?

 

[Shadowy Man]

there really is no point in trying to stop some murders if we won’t be stopping all or even most murder. Seems like too much of a bother.

In fact, such a small fraction of people die of murder it’s a wonder we even report on it at all.

 

[TV and credit cards]

All of these items have a main purpose. Only one is to kill. Can you guess which one? Would you outlaw civilian possession of a device who's main purpose is to kill? I would.

2nd Amendment exists. Until you repeal it, or get a SCOTUS willing to reinterpret it, there will be no banning civilian possession of firearms.

As it should be. As I've stated here or in some other gun thread.

Civilian guns and ammo should be stored in state armories. Ammo should be purchased only through state armories. Guns should only be checked out to licensed hunters or for practice at the state firing range that has a range master who has complete control over the people at the range and can remove anyone for unsafe practices.

And the threat of imprisonment will deter most but not all violations of these laws. Just like with all the rest of our enforced laws.

 

[barbos]

Far more people get killed with Glocks and similar handguns.

Ban all guns, fine with me, but handguns tend to be used in smaller mass shootings where victims are not really random. Classical mass shootings with higher number of completely random victims are usually with assault rifles.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And yet, he didn’t use a Glock. Something that is less expensive and easier to hide. He didn’t choose that. why?

I don't know. I can't read minds. He was not quite sane though.

My guess, Glocks don’t have enough magazine capacity to suit him.

There are high capacity magazines that fit handguns like the Glock. Also, it's not that hard to reload a fresh mag. But if neither option appeals to him, having an extra loaded handgun or two is another option.
Seriously, nothing he did would have been impossible if so-called "assault weapons ban" was in effect.

Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him.

And if he could not get an AR15 he would have stayed home? I doubt it.
He more likely would have used handguns. Columbine happened during the ban btw. Didn't stop it.

Well there you go then. A restriction on AR15s will mean fewer lethally vindictive rage fests with specific targets re likely to occur in the US. Sign me up.

Very doubtful. Even today, fewer people get killed with rifles of any type (so-called "assault weapons" being but a subset of all rifles) than "hands, fists and feet".

This monomaniacal obsession with AR15s by the doctrinaire Left is neither productive nor healthy.

There is something you seem to be missing Derec. This isn't some sort of singular aim by the left-wing (or people that want to prevent mass violence). It is this is the only type of weapon that we think we have a chance in hell at regulating better. We are quite aware of all of the types of guns used to commit violence. The trouble is, we know that there is almost no chance to actually pass legislation to limit their access to something that'd be a bit more reasonable. So after a while, we gave up, and moved on to weapons used to murder lots of people in a single instance.

So your objections here to this are ridiculous.

Liberal: We need to limit access to guns! The violence caused by their use is awful and we need to limit gun related crimes and deaths.
Gun Nuts: 2nd Amendment! FREEDUM!!!
Liberal: Okay, what about just really really dangerous ones that have no viable use in civilian life?
Gun Nuts: You know those types of guns only cause a small percentage of the total number of gun related deaths. Why don't you care about those other guns?

 

[ZiprHead]

And yet, he didn’t use a Glock. Something that is less expensive and easier to hide. He didn’t choose that. why?

I don't know. I can't read minds. He was not quite sane though.

My guess, Glocks don’t have enough magazine capacity to suit him.

There are high capacity magazines that fit handguns like the Glock. Also, it's not that hard to reload a fresh mag. But if neither option appeals to him, having an extra loaded handgun or two is another option.
Seriously, nothing he did would have been impossible if so-called "assault weapons ban" was in effect.

Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him.

And if he could not get an AR15 he would have stayed home? I doubt it.
He more likely would have used handguns. Columbine happened during the ban btw. Didn't stop it.

Well there you go then. A restriction on AR15s will mean fewer lethally vindictive rage fests with specific targets re likely to occur in the US. Sign me up.

Very doubtful. Even today, fewer people get killed with rifles of any type (so-called "assault weapons" being but a subset of all rifles) than "hands, fists and feet".

This monomaniacal obsession with AR15s by the doctrinaire Left is neither productive nor healthy.

No glock has the killing power of an AR.

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Published 2018)

Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

All of these items have a main purpose. Only one is to kill. Can you guess which one? Would you outlaw civilian possession of a device who's main purpose is to kill? I would.

2nd Amendment exists. Until you repeal it, or get a SCOTUS willing to reinterpret it, there will be no banning civilian possession of firearms.

As it should be. As I've stated here or in some other gun thread.

Civilian guns and ammo should be stored in state armories. Ammo should be purchased only through state armories. Guns should only be checked out to licensed hunters or for practice at the state firing range that has a range master who has complete control over the people at the range and can remove anyone for unsafe practices.

And the threat of imprisonment will deter most but not all violations of these laws. Just like with all the rest of our enforced laws.

Just make sellers of weapons legally liable for the actions taken with the weapons they sell.

The objection to this is that gun sellers would go out of business. Because apparently not blindly selling dangerous weapons to people is a bad business model for gun dealers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just make sellers of weapons legally liable for the actions taken with the weapons they sell.

Much as I like the idea that's not going to fly. The person who sells me a car isn't liable for a murder I commit with it. What I will agree to is licensing and testing for owners of firearms. And I don't include AR weapons in this bunch. Joe and Jane Blow have no need for assault weapons who's only purpose is to kill people in mass.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just make sellers of weapons legally liable for the actions taken with the weapons they sell.

Much as I like the idea that's not going to fly. The person who sells me a car isn't liable for a murder I commit with it. What I will agree to is licensing and testing for owners of firearms. And I don't include AR weapons in this bunch. Joe and Jane Blow have no need for assault weapons who's only purpose is to kill people in mass.

I wasn't intending to suggest this would ever happen. Just to point out the madness of people that would argue against it based on the business model and gun shop owners not being able to do business.

Your analogy with a car suffers from crimes committed specifically with cars being very rare. Oddly enough, it seems state governments make it harder to drive a car than to possess a gun.

 

[TomC]

Much as I like the idea that's not going to fly. The person who sells me a car isn't liable for a murder I commit with it.

Because your car isn't purpose built to kill. Guns are.

Honestly, I see the concept of liability as a good one. From the current possessor, to whoever they acquired it from, all the way back to the manufacturer.

If the shooter can't cover the damages, the liability for the damages goes to whoever they got it from, even if they stole it. All the way back to the manufacturer if need be.

Add the cost of liability insurance to gun ownership and you'd have a very different market and attitude towards gun safety.
Tom

 

[bilby]

The person who sells me a car isn't liable for a murder I commit with it.

No; But if someone sells a car, and its use, by a trained and licensed person, in accordance with its designed purpose, leads to people dying, then the manufacturer IS liable.

That's why you can't buy a new Ford Pinto anymore.

 

[Derec]

No glock has the killing power of an AR.

My point was not about firepower, but the fact that rifles of any kind are rarely used to kill people - less often than "hands, fists and feet". Unlike handguns, that kill many. So why are Dems so monomaniacally obsessed with certain "scary looking" rifles? Because illegal handguns are often used by their voters?

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Published 2018)

Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

www.nytimes.com

Wounds are a function of ballistics. Bullet size, powder load and barrel length. Any .223 rifle will have the firepower of an AR15 and cause similar wounds at the same range. And any .308 rifle will have the firepower and cause similar wounds to the AK47 at the same range.

Remington .223:

.308 Winchester:

It has nothing to do with being a scary "assault weapon" that Dems so desperately want to ban.

 

[Derec]

Honestly, I see the concept of liability as a good one. From the current possessor, to whoever they acquired it from, all the way back to the manufacturer.

That's stupid. You should not be able to hold a manufacturer of a legal product liable for the criminal misuse of their product.
Whether it be a car, a kitchen knife or a gun.

 

[TomC]

Honestly, I see the concept of liability as a good one. From the current possessor, to whoever they acquired it from, all the way back to the manufacturer.

That's stupid. You should not be able to hold a manufacturer of a legal product liable for the criminal misuse of their product.
Whether it be a car, a kitchen knife or a gun.

Shooting people is not a misuse of the product. It's the intended use of the product.

That's what makes guns different from heavily regulated cars. Much less kitchen knives. Guns are designed to kill.
Tom