Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Keep focusing on what something was designed to do, arguing design disregarding the end users intent and what incentives afford them their ways to carry out these evil acts. You set yourself up for that one.
Using your logic. Dynamite should be readily available as it wasn't designed or intended to kill. Nor should it be regulated against.
Well, I'm not the one who brought up cartridge sizes as a measure of "power." That was you.
I'm talking about the mass killing power of the weapon, not the size of the bullet.
Also I was assuming by "AR-15 cartridge" you were referring to a .223, not the round the military uses. I don't know which is more common.
i don't expect it to work magic overnight, it's going to be an extremely long process.
i don't actually want gov't to go around confiscating guns, but i don't feel like the pro-gun people are coming up with any viable solutions. "Guns make us safer" is not an argument that I buy.
Umm, it wasn't me who brought up cartridge size other than I explained a bit how that is actually measured by scientific method. I was actually trying to be nice. The size comparison schtick was another poster. Not me. Go back and look. If you would, ...please.
"Mass killing power of the weapon." Are you measuring that just looking at factors like rate of fire and magazine capacity? If that is your criteria, again "mass killing power (ability?) has little to do with those factors. An individual with a standard three round hunting rifle has the ability to inflict far more "(mass) "killing power" than an individual with an AR 15. As an aside there is negligible difference twixt the 223 and the 5.56. Same with the 308/7.62 NATO.
These mass shooters usually open up spraying aimlessly (literally) from the hip. The Vegas shooter is the only one I can think of that put himself in a elevated spot behind ay "fortification" and actually used a rifle like a AR. We were never really told specifically what he used beyond that it was indeed that platform of rifle.
Consider the TX Tower shooter who killed 17 people (the last victim died in 2001 from wound complications very, very sad) and seriously wounded 30 others. He used a common hunting rifle. This goes to the aimed vs area fire I mentioned in the post you snipped from. I didn't mention it as an aside.
These mass shooter nut jobs methods use the area fire method. And the ensuing fervor following these shootings sees people all wound up about the ABILITY (not the "power") of the weapons they use to put out copious amounts of ammunition in a short amount of time.
The ...disagreement (better described as a misunderstanding) when these gun threads get started is rooted in in the terminology and people who know and understand firearms tech vs those who don't. (sigh) Much is lost in useless insults and rhetoric.
This blasting mag dumps from the hip is what we shooters call "spray and pray." The thought that if enough bullets are fire one or two will score actual hits. It's a tactic we see used heavily in LE involved shootings as well. All the time.
Picture a human outline on a wall drawn from bullet strikes and the suspect unwounded and taken into custody with a confused look on his face. The actual capabilities of any give firearm I can bring to mind has been vastly exaggerated in many peoples minds. Movies and TV shows depict the most silly things and this is where far to many people are getting their "knowledge" of firearms. People flying 10 feet backwards from being hit by a 9mm mouse gun, cars exploding from the gas tanks being hit by a shotgun, an assault rifle on full auto dropping ten threats fired from the hip and scoring direct lethal strikes on every target.
The type of firearm does NOT dictate lethal capability. The shooter does. Even the vaunted Mini gun that can lay down 3500 rounds a minute actually misses far more than it hits. So if everybody can get on the same page about what the capabilities of the firearm in question here (seemingly to be specifically the AR15) actually are that would help a bit.
Realize that both the military and LE as well have fallen prey to the area fire over aimed fire sickness that these "mass shooters" also employ. It may sound strange and hard to understand but this method inflicts far less casualties than an actual marksman could inflict with a LOT less ammunition.
Pray these nut jobs don't realize that and pray also that armed citizens and LE do. There will be no slow but sure reduction in the umber of firearms here. Another factor being our Southern neighbor that is pretty much governed by vicious and heavily armed criminal organizations. Who also control large swaths of our large urban areas and operate there with impunity.
Other countries that have chimed in here and that are held up as examples don't have the heavily armed criminal armies to contend with we do. If they did they would have a better understanding of why so many Americans are resisting moves to disarm us so vehemently. They may get it better as all these ME "refugees" they just let in take over more territory and get entrenched.
I agree with one thing the disarmament advocates keep saying ad nauseum. "This isn't the Wild West." Truly,it's not. It's much, much worse. When outlaws in the Wild West tried to take over a town the way gangs have taken over neighborhoods today the townsfolk got together and shot them to doll rags.
Sometimes folks figured they may not have law but by God they would have order. Now there's law everywhere but order is nonexistent. And the law can't do a thing about it. In any given case of criminal violence the law is conspicuously absent. Whether that be a gag drive by or a woman being attacked in a dark, deserted parking lot. One situation requires AR 15s, or better yet M1 Garands or M1As. The other need a 9mm or 380. But if the law has stripped the right to personal arms all that we get is victims.
If that woman in the parking lot is your wife or that neighborhood is where you live, what would you choose?
Keep focusing on what something was designed to do, arguing design disregarding the end users intent and what incentives afford them their ways to carry out these evil acts. You set yourself up for that one.
Using your logic. Dynamite should be readily available as it wasn't designed or intended to kill. Nor should it be regulated against.
What are you talking about? Plenty of things that have a function in society are regulated. Such as cars, trucks, food, airplanes, etc. Who said they shouldn't be regulated? Certainly not me.
You're arguing that, if we restrict guns, we should also restrict cars and food. Its a dumb false equivalency because guns are inherently different than cars and food for (what should be, but apparently aren't) obvious reasons. I never proposed a "if its not designed to kill, it shouldn't be regulated standard" because that would be almost as stupid as the argument you're making.
Regulation is a balance of societal benefit with potential danger. Society cannot function without food or cars, so we accept the risk that they will be misused and used carelessly by hedging that risk with regulation in an admittedly imperfect way. That's the balance that has to be struck. Society, on the other hand, can absolutely function without guns, as many other countries have proven.
You think guns are the same as food and cars. That's the twisted logic you are using.
Nope. I'm focused on deaths. What kills more. Focus attention on what kills and why.
Change what kills and why.
Like...
Auto accidents. We can change that rate tomorrow. Require people to attend training or give a waiver for those who can run a stock car or race car on a road course to be able to handle driving in inclement weather. If you can keep a stock car sideways on a dirt oval without hitting the wall and while passing someone (done it many times) your chances of wrecking in a snow storm are next to 0.
My opinion on auto accidents relevant to snow and inclement weather- Not to ban the vehicle or limit the vehicles in any way shape or form. Increase the drivers skills and abilities.
Another contributor to auto accidents-distracted driving. Have blue tooth enabled on your phone in a newer vehicle? Block inbound text messages via PCM to BCM to APIM. As long as the engine is running no text messages shall be received.
Older vehicles being the loophole. However. One could require service providers to use the GPS tracking of the phone to immobilize text messages once the vehicle is above say 5 or 10mph.
Drunk driving. Don't hold bartenders or bars accountable or liable for the actions of one irresponsible fool. Don't trade liberty for security by mandating breathalyzer in vehicles. Get caught drinking and driving? Permanent loss of driving priveleges.
Encourage bars to report potential drunk drivers. Encourage law enforcement to look for drunks more often near bars...
Nope. I'm focused on deaths. What kills more. Focus attention on what kills and why.
Change what kills and why.
Like...
Auto accidents. We can change that rate tomorrow. Require people to attend training or give a waiver for those who can run a stock car or race car on a road course to be able to handle driving in inclement weather. If you can keep a stock car sideways on a dirt oval without hitting the wall and while passing someone (done it many times) your chances of wrecking in a snow storm are next to 0.
So you want people to have more training before they drive cars? Sounds fine to me. Has nothing to do with guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
My opinion on auto accidents relevant to snow and inclement weather- Not to ban the vehicle or limit the vehicles in any way shape or form. Increase the drivers skills and abilities.
Other than during non-weather related emergencies, cars are not banned from roads. But this has nothing to do with guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Another contributor to auto accidents-distracted driving. Have blue tooth enabled on your phone in a newer vehicle? Block inbound text messages via PCM to BCM to APIM. As long as the engine is running no text messages shall be received.
Texting and driving is already banned in many states. If the legislature wants to tinker with technology to further that ban, I'm fine with that. But this has nothing to do with guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
Drunk driving. Don't hold bartenders or bars accountable or liable for the actions of one irresponsible fool. Don't trade liberty for security by mandating breathalyzer in vehicles. Get caught drinking and driving? Permanent loss of driving privileges. Encourage bars to report potential drunk drivers. Encourage law enforcement to look for drunks more often near bars...
To some degree some States already do much of this. It has nothing to do with guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87
How is any of the above twisted logic?
Again, you are equating guns to cars. Its moronic for the reasons I, and many others, have already told you multiple times.
What are you talking about? Plenty of things that have a function in society are regulated. Such as cars, trucks, food, airplanes, etc. Who said they shouldn't be regulated? Certainly not me.
You're arguing that, if we restrict guns, we should also restrict cars and food. Its a dumb false equivalency because guns are inherently different than cars and food for (what should be, but apparently aren't) obvious reasons. I never proposed a "if its not designed to kill, it shouldn't be regulated standard" because that would be almost as stupid as the argument you're making.
Regulation is a balance of societal benefit with potential danger. Society cannot function without food or cars, so we accept the risk that they will be misused and used carelessly by hedging that risk with regulation in an admittedly imperfect way. That's the balance that has to be struck. Society, on the other hand, can absolutely function without guns, as many other countries have proven.
No that's your interpretation of my argument, my argument is focusing on not infringing rights due to feeble emotions.
You still prove my point for me. Society did function without cars. Did it not? Or is all of history a lie now?
Odd the economy in that sense, and society in that sense. Is more valuable than human life.
You don't care how people may die at the hands of another. You dont. 35,092 vs 9,616 yet no outrage over automobile accidents.
Your premise isn't of preserving life. You continue to prove this by arguing
Cars weren't designed with the intent to kill.
Neither was dynamite. I argue using your logic, on the basis of design/designers intent, stating simply if you seek to ban on the basis of designers intent, not end users intent, which you repeatedly skip over. Then you are in agreement that dynamite should be available to the public as dynamite was not designed to kill or maim.
I argue food medicine etc every other way you can die that eclipses what you hold firearms responsible for. And I'm the lunatic?
You just wrote off 35,092 deaths for 2015 because you feel society can not function and the economy can not function without them.
So you want people to have more training before they drive cars? Sounds fine to me. Has nothing to do with guns.
Other than during non-weather related emergencies, cars are not banned from roads. But this has nothing to do with guns.
Texting and driving is already banned in many states. If the legislature wants to tinker with technology to further that ban, I'm fine with that. But this has nothing to do with guns.
To some degree some States already do much of this. It has nothing to do with guns.
Again, you are equating guns to cars. Its moronic for the reasons I, and many others, have already told you multiple times.
Precisely my point. The issues we see have nothing to do with guns but everything to do with the scumbags who use them to commit heinous acts.
You don't care how many die in automobile accidents. Only firearms.
I'm not equating cars to guns.
I'm pointing out cars are far more deadly than firearms.
Yet you focus solely on firearms. And I promise it's because car accident fatalities aren't as widespread reported.
You don't care how many die from car accidents. Sacrifice 35k or so a year. The economy and society needs it. You said so yourself.
Guns on the other hand? No... absolutely not. 9,616 deaths is just insane. 35,092 is fine, but firearms no way. Nope. Not at all.
Precisely my point. The issues we see have nothing to do with guns but everything to do with the scumbags who use them to commit heinous acts.
You don't care how many die in automobile accidents. Only firearms.
I'm not equating cars to guns.
I'm pointing out cars are far more deadly than firearms.
Yet you focus solely on firearms. And I promise it's because car accident fatalities aren't as widespread reported.
You don't care how many die from car accidents. Sacrifice 35k or so a year. The economy and society needs it. You said so yourself.
Guns on the other hand? No... absolutely not. 9,616 deaths is just insane. 35,092 is fine, but firearms no way. Nope. Not at all.
Oh, I see. You think that my concern about gun violence prevents me from being concerned about anything else. In your mind, my advocacy for increasing the safety of citizens when it comes to guns means I am precluded from advocating for any other safety measure. You think my concern about gun deaths renders me unconcerned about vehicular deaths or other deaths.
Let me make it easy for you. Some people, maybe not you, but some people have the mental capability to be concerned about more than one thing at a time. For those people, like me, being concerned about vehicular safety and gun violence are not mutually exclusive propositions.
And comparable to cars, my stance isn't that of a nanny feel good approach.
One of logic and common sense and focusing on end user via skills and abilities, not altering or changing the vehicle.
Say you waved your magic wand and made every firearm disappear in stores and owners homes etc, what do you ban next? The next implement/device that is used to carry out an attack? You still haven't addressed the incentive and intent of the human condition.
It's not a matter of I gotcha.
It's a matter of removing emotion, and using logic and common sense. You're forgetting the number 1 common denominator.
It isn't an AR15. It's the incentive and intent.
Gun free zones provide a safe environment for those to carry out acts of evil.
Ban them. They're ineffective and provide incentive to carry out evil heinous acts. At least until police arrive.
Intent? How do we curb intent? You have no issue utilizing your first amendment to protest the second. That's blatantly clear.
Here's a thought... How about utilize your 2nd Amendment rights? That most certainly would curb criminals looking to violate your life, your liberty, your pursuits of happiness. Push for a national stand your ground no duty to retreat.
Push for Harsher punishments following the commissioning of a firearm in criminal enterprise.
Strict Adherence to laws currently on the books. Get out on bail for a DV or any other crime that bars you from possessing a firearm, treat it the same as drugs are treated with a probation officer. Continual searches and follow ups with an officer in search of firearms. Found with a weapon in your possession or on your person or property, instant 30 years no questions asked no parole. No pardoning allowed for any firearm charges. Even presidential.
Let's start giving criminals and loons something to fear.
Just like the media gives you something to fear.
Let's see online forums inundated of dope dealers, gangbangers, rapists, carjackers, home invaders, the insane etc calling for the ban of firearms, scared out of their wits. How about it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
