The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Smitty]

I mean, I guess one compromise I could see is that there are reports that the El Paso shooter fired 41 times in 30 seconds or something.

What that means is, he fucking jammed on the trigger wildly back and forth to spray bullets without aiming. Maybe it was at a condensed crowd or something (like the Vegas shooter did with a bump stock).

I'm not sure you could legislate this, but I could see something limiting the effective trigger pull time so that these rifles can't have the triggers hammered in succession for rapid spray and pray fire. But that would have to be a design feature that the manufacturers create. Maybe requiring more pressure to pull the trigger if it's within one second of a previous trigger pull, something like that.

But that's not going to stop their use in mass shootings.

 

[boozeman]

And, what is the real issue? I'll hang up and listen.

The real issue is that something needs to be implemented to address the type of weapons that are being used in these attacks...not preaching to someone that they don't know the difference.

 

[Cotton]

The real issue is that something needs to be implemented to address the type of weapons that are being used in these attacks...not preaching to someone that they don't know the difference.

And, how would you address them? I'm seriously asking.

 

[jsmith6919]

The real issue is that something needs to be implemented to address the type of weapons that are being used in these attacks...not preaching to someone that they don't know the difference.

So what are you proposing? An ar ban? Confiscation?

 

[boozeman]

So what are you proposing? An ar ban? Confiscation?

Can't do that. What if feral hogs are coming after our kids?

 

[Rev]

Can't do that. What if feral hogs are coming after our kids?

Some places that very well could be true. I know that in Ruidoso New Mexico they occasionally have mountain lions on the school steps in the morning.

Now need a real idea.

 

[jsmith6919]

Can't do that. What if feral hogs are coming after our kids?

So just snark then. Back to square 1.

 

[Cotton]

Now need a real idea.

Yep.

 

[Smitty]

The real issue is that something needs to be implemented to address the type of weapons that are being used in these attacks...not preaching to someone that they don't know the difference.

Why is that the real issue?

What you are not getting is, discussing "differences" between weapons, ie, their actual capabilities, is a very relevant, in fact necessary, conversation about talking what you are going to limit.

Because this is a country based on laws, and right now, the law is (sorry if you don't want to hear it) that semi automatic handguns cannot be banned. There is an explicit Supreme Court case issued like just over a decade ago on this topic.

So if your solution to the problem of mass shootings is to ban a weapon that functions exactly like a semi automatic handgun, and when in reality, semi automatic hand guns are both (1) responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings already, and also (2) capable of replicating the damage done in mass shootings where a semi automatic rifle is used instead, then what is the point?

Aren't you just shifting the weapon that will be used to a weapon that already explicitly cannot be banned? Wouldn't mass shootings like Columbine indicate that access to ARs isn't the problem, but instead, that criminals will find access to legal weapons? Doesn't the fact that these shootings didn't happen as frequently during periods of high gun ownership in the 50's-80's indicate that the problem isn't access to weapons but something else? Sure, taking away all weapons will prevent people from having weapons to commit these crimes, but, uh, see above, you cannot take away all weapons, period. The Supreme Court just said you can't take away semi automatic handguns, end of story.

So the debate about the capabilities of the weapon is very important. Because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of whether a policy can be implemented that will have any real effect, or whether it will just make you feel better about taking away certain guns with no real decrease in violence achieved.

 

[Texas Ace]

I won't pretend to be a weapons expert, but again I have a simple question.

If these "Assault" rifles aren't what people are making them out to be and they fire the same type of ammunition and at the same rate of fire as X, Y, and Z weapon, then why aren't these guys like El Paso, Dayton, Vegas, Stoneman Douglas, etc. using handguns?

Why do they keep preferring the types of weapons they do as opposed to handguns?

Are they just misinformed and uneducated bozos too? Is that it?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I won't pretend to be a weapons expert, but again I have a simple question.

If these "Assault" rifles aren't what people are making them out to be and they fire the same type of ammunition and at the same rate of fire as X, Y, and Z weapon, then why aren't these guys like El Paso, Dayton, Vegas, Stoneman Douglas, etc. using handguns?

Why do they keep preferring the types of weapons they do as opposed to handguns?

Are they just misinformed and uneducated bozos too? Is that it?

I'm not a gun guy, but my guess is partly because they buy into their pseudo-Rambo fantasies and an assault-type rifle fits that image.

As bb pointed out, the Virginia shooter killed something like 33 with handguns, so it's definitely possible to do the same damage with them.

I usually stay out of gun discussions, though, because it's one debate where I do see both sides.

 

[bbgun]

I usually stay out of gun discussions, though, because it's one debate where I do see both sides.

Get off the fence, asshole!

 

[Cotton]

I won't pretend to be a weapons expert, but again I have a simple question.

If these "Assault" rifles aren't what people are making them out to be and they fire the same type of ammunition and at the same rate of fire as X, Y, and Z weapon, then why aren't these guys like El Paso, Dayton, Vegas, Stoneman Douglas, etc. using handguns?

Why do they keep preferring the types of weapons they do as opposed to handguns?

Are they just misinformed and uneducated bozos too? Is that it?

Because AR-15s are cheaper to buy than most rifles. They are also very reliable.

 

[boozeman]

Why is that the real issue?

What you are not getting is, discussing "differences" between weapons, ie, their actual capabilities, is a very relevant, in fact necessary, conversation about talking what you are going to limit.

Because this is a country based on laws, and right now, the law is (sorry if you don't want to hear it) that semi automatic handguns cannot be banned. There is an explicit Supreme Court case issued like just over a decade ago on this topic.

So if your solution to the problem of mass shootings is to ban a weapon that functions exactly like a semi automatic handgun, and when in reality, semi automatic hand guns are both (1) responsible for the vast majority of mass shootings already, and also (2) capable of replicating the damage done in mass shootings where a semi automatic rifle is used instead, then what is the point?

Aren't you just shifting the weapon that will be used to a weapon that already explicitly cannot be banned? Wouldn't mass shootings like Columbine indicate that access to ARs isn't the problem, but instead, that criminals will find access to legal weapons? Doesn't the fact that these shootings didn't happen as frequently during periods of high gun ownership in the 50's-80's indicate that the problem isn't access to weapons but something else? Sure, taking away all weapons will prevent people from having weapons to commit these crimes, but, uh, see above, you cannot take away all weapons, period. The Supreme Court just said you can't take away semi automatic handguns, end of story.

So the debate about the capabilities of the weapon is very important. Because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of whether a policy can be implemented that will have any real effect, or whether it will just make you feel better about taking away certain guns with no real decrease in violence achieved.

Did I say anything about a ban? That is a consideration but this is a situation that requires intellect.

Not a damn single gun nut (and there a shit ton of them in this country) would ever accept any sort of ban.

To me, it is a waste of time to even suggest that.

But the application process should be as close to a body cavity search as possible.

The real problem with that is it offends privacy and even gets the point where it becomes legal if you involve mental health. Which is funny because that is what the whole deflection is now, which is that they are crazy and then you have HIPAA issues. It is a ruse that is thrown out there to throw the general public off the track.

I don't pretend to have a real solution.

But there needs to be some escalation somehow. Extend the waiting time to where it demands one hell of a determined buyer, deeper and more punitive criminal checks etc.

 

[Cotton]

Extend the waiting time to where it demands one hell of a determined buyer, etc.

So, make 99% of Americans wait an ungodly amount of time to buy a weapon because of the 1% of wackos. Makes perfect sense.

Also, HIPAA has jack shit to do with bringing mental health into the equation. Anyone diagnosed with issues would have their records 100% sealed and private. But, I will admit, the problem with mental health is tricky because of the ambiguous nature of it. What do you consider to bad of a mental illness to restrict a gun purchase? Bipolar? Schizo? Depression?

But, mental health is absolutely a huge part of the problem, and I am proposing we spend big dollars on identifying and helping the mental ill in this country. (Oh, and if the FBI would do their job that would be great,too.)

 

[boozeman]

]So, make 99% of Americans wait an ungodly amount of time to buy a weapon because of the 1% of wackos. Makes perfect sense.

If that is what it takes to make an impact, yes. So you believe it should be convenient to get a fire arm that for the majority of the time should be a luxury purchase?

If there is a simple home invasion, a hand gun and/or arsenal of shotguns should be more than enough to defend yourself.

But then again, I guess there is the paranoia that is fueling the need for more.

And if you want to shoot them thar feral pigs, a wait is justified.

Also, HIPAA has jack shit to do with bringing mental health into the equation. Anyone diagnosed with issues would have their records 100% sealed and private. But, I will admit, the problem with mental health is tricky because of the ambiguous nature of it. What do you consider to bad of a mental illness to restrict a gun purchase? Bipolar? Schizo? Depression?

But, mental health is absolutely a huge part of the problem, and I am proposing we spend big dollars on identifying and helping the mental ill in this country. (Oh, and if the FBI would do their job that would be great,too.)

You clearly have no idea about privacy laws as they exist. I love ya like a brother, but you are really ignorant on the subject.

From what you say here is that you are basically advocating all kinds of violations of privacy that basically aligns you with what countries like China do.

Sound good?

Not to me.

 

[Cotton]

If that is what it takes to make an impact, yes. So you believe it should be convenient to get a fire arm that for the majority of the time should be a luxury purchase?

If there is a simple home invasion, a hand gun and/or arsenal of shotguns should be more than enough to defend yourself.

But then again, I guess there is the paranoia that is fueling the need for more.

And if you want to shoot them thar feral pigs, a wait is justified.

You lost me at luxury purchase.

You clearly have no idea about privacy laws as they exist. I love ya like a brother, but you are really ignorant on the subject.

From what you say here is that you are basically advocating all kinds of violations of privacy that basically aligns you with what countries like China do.

Sound good?

Not to me.

The federal government (FBI) has every right in the world to know about your mental medical history. They kinda do that stuff every day.

 

[boozeman]

You lost me at luxury purchase.

It would be a luxury purchase. Sorry I don't fear feral pigs, foreign invasion or a race war that would prompt me to get a firearm stronger than a hand gun or shotgun.

I would hope that I could do the job necessary with just that.

If you want something to go all yee haw with your buddies at the range, waiting a few more weeks is a small price to pay so I don't feel the need to spend hundreds of dollars on a fucking bullet proof backpack for my kid so they can go to school.

The federal government (FBI) has every right in the world to know about your mental medical history. They kinda do that stuff every day.

Oh, so are you in favor of the federal government and the FBI knowing all your shit? Well damn, that is one step away from a Communist regime.

 

[Cotton]

It would be a luxury purchase. Sorry I don't fear feral pigs, foreign invasion or a race war that would prompt me to get a firearm stronger than a hand gun or shotgun.

I would hope that I could do the job necessary with just that.

I have a good piece of land. If someone was 150 feet from by backdoor on my land and I needed to use extreme action against them a handgun or shotgun is mostly useless. So, there is that. Or, are you proposing I should let them get within range first?

Oh, so are you in favor of the federal government and the FBI knowing all your shit? Well damn, that is one step away from a Communist regime.

You don't think the FBI does criminal investigations daily that include the pulling of mental medical files daily? You are fooling yourself if you truly believe that.

 

[Smitty]

I won't pretend to be a weapons expert, but again I have a simple question.

If these "Assault" rifles aren't what people are making them out to be and they fire the same type of ammunition and at the same rate of fire as X, Y, and Z weapon, then why aren't these guys like El Paso, Dayton, Vegas, Stoneman Douglas, etc. using handguns?

Why do they keep preferring the types of weapons they do as opposed to handguns?

Are they just misinformed and uneducated bozos too? Is that it?

First of all, you are citing anecdotal evidence, not scientific. Please go find the data on what percentage of mass shootings use handguns. I almost guarantee you it is the vast majority.

Second, you are excluding many incidents in which handguns were used: Columbine and Virginia Tech, just off the top of my head.

There does seem to be a slight skewing towards ARs in many of these real high profile cases, but the answer to that, as Chocolate Lab says below, probably does have a lot to do with the Rambo fantasy role playing aspect. Combined with affordability..... I own an AR and I got it for $400. Try going to a gun store and seeing how much a good handgun costs. Hint: It’s more. ARs are the Honda Civics of guns. The parts are cheap, they can easily be swapped out, fixed and replaced.

Handguns also are a bit more complicated to own because, while you can open carry a handgun just the same as you can an AR, to conceal carry a handgun, you generally need a license with stricter requirements.

Finally, yes, largely, the media that is presenting the message to you, Texas Ace, is largely laughably uninformed about guns, period, and a brief skimming if you through this very thread will find instance upon instance where they have said thing a that are hilariously wrong. Things that, to a gun owner, would sound like, to you the football fan, some reporter saying “Ezekiel Elliott could lead the league in tackles this year! He’s a good football guy.”