No I didn’t understand your comment bc Baltimore is a shit hole. You still haven’t commented on the fact you are full aware of less policing and people getting bail that shouldn’t. So why add new laws if you just let people go anyway. OK, add a wait period and make them be 21, but if they get it elsewhere, what is the punishment? A slap on the wrist? And what about the border, just forget that it kills way more people than guns through drugs? How do you pick and choose what you care about?

posted by iclfan2

No I didn’t understand your comment bc Baltimore is a shit hole. You still haven’t commented on the fact you are full aware of less policing and people getting bail that shouldn’t. So why add new laws if you just let people go anyway. OK, add a wait period and make them be 21, but if they get it elsewhere, what is the punishment? A slap on the wrist? And what about the border, just forget that it kills way more people than guns through drugs? How do you pick and choose what you care about?

You are lumping a lot of issues in together as an excuse. The sensible solution is to chop up the problems into different policy solutions bucket, making it more likely to actually achieve a workable policy. 

Policing, drug policy, bail reform, gun purchasing, and the border are all big topics on their own. 

You should just watch We Own This City just for Jon Bernthal as Wayne Jenkins. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

How about a 10-15 day waiting period for non handguns? 

posted by superman
Cool. How about a 10-15 day waiting for the media to publish anything in electronic format? How about a 10-15 day waiting before you're allowed to speak out in Public while I do a background check on you? How about we let cops lock you up  without cause before you due process? 

So, you are perfectly fine with someone just walking up, buying a high powered rifle and then that same day mowing down people? 

You don't think having someone wait a few days would not help at all? Is that such a huge inconvenience for people? 

Also, are you really comparing all these to gun sales? You are making a pen is mightier than the sword argument ha. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

So, you are perfectly fine with someone just walking up, buying a high powered rifle and then that same day mowing down people? 

The problem is the "what is seen, what is not seen" issue. A waiting period may have the desired effect in some cases (what is seen). However, how many people in imminent danger would be harmed by having to wait to get the means to defend their life (what is not seen)?

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Apparently you didn't understood my comment. The Baltimore task force was corrupt as hell and now they are sitting in federal prison. Just watch We Own This City. 

How about a 10-15 day waiting period for non handguns? Would it have stopped this guy, unknown. But, it may have deterred him or limited the damage. He still may have shot up the place, but only with a handgun.

Having someone wait a period of time before purchasing a deadly weapon that can kill many seems like a reasonable idea. We used to have something like that back in the day. 

So he would have shot the doctors 10 days later than he did. ?!?! 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

So, you are perfectly fine with someone just walking up, buying a high powered rifle and then that same day mowing down people? 

How moronic.

Be better.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

So, you are perfectly fine with someone just walking up, buying a high powered rifle and then that same day mowing down people? 

You don't think having someone wait a few days would not help at all? Is that such a huge inconvenience for people? 

Also, are you really comparing all these to gun sales? You are making a pen is mightier than the sword argument ha. 

You ruin your whole argument with your first paragraph. The “so you are ok with someone mowing people down” just makes you look like an ass.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=780625fa299a

older article, but relevant points can be gleaned

posted by queencitybuckeye

The problem is the "what is seen, what is not seen" issue. A waiting period may have the desired effect in some cases (what is seen). However, how many people in imminent danger would be harmed by having to wait to get the means to defend their life (what is not seen)?

You can still buy a hand gun without a waiting period in my example, to protect yourself. 

posted by jmog

You ruin your whole argument with your first paragraph. The “so you are ok with someone mowing people down” just makes you look like an ass.

Oh OK. I'm sorry if I find something wrong with someone can easily buy a high powered rifle with little to no restrictions or waiting period. 

posted by QuakerOats

So he would have shot the doctors 10 days later than he did. ?!?! 

We don't know that for sure. But, just making it that much harder for an angry person to buy a high powered rifle may have. 

I don't see how this is a controversial thing. High powered rifles should be in another classification that shotguns, hand guns. Putting restrictions on them is one easy step of many that could be used to help slow these events. 

https://fee.org/articles/are-ar-15-rifles-a-public-safety-threat-heres-what-the-data-say/

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Oh OK. I'm sorry if I find something wrong with someone can easily buy a high powered rifle with little to no restrictions or waiting period. 

There is little practical difference vs. being able to buy a semi-auto handgun and a few mags.  You seem fixated on the "weapon of war" bullshit, when reality is what kind of gun they have makes little difference once they get into a school.  I mean, a 9mm will explode the lung, which sounds pretty awful.

I think the only case where the "weapon of war" made an actual difference was the Vegas shooter, where the distance involved makes the rifle far more effective.

I don't think a 3-day waiting period is a big deal, but I also don't think it's going to make any difference at all with these mass shooters.  But I don't see the logic behind waiting until you're 21 to buy a handgun, but you can buy a rifle at 18.

Didn't know Canada had a problem with mass shootings, and didn't even know they had guns.  Their gun laws are very strict, but apparently a similar problem with mass shooters (just not schools).  I didn't vet the stats, but WSJ article said 85% of guns used in crimes in Canada are illegally imported from the US.  The lesson here is sweeping gun bans will only serve to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens (but this should be obvious if you look at the success of the war on drugs).

posted by queencitybuckeye

https://fee.org/articles/are-ar-15-rifles-a-public-safety-threat-heres-what-the-data-say/

As Dick Cheney used to say about certain aspects of war, some things are low probability, high impact. 

Yes, hand guns and knifes account for more total deaths, but in terms of higher impact events, high powered riffles produce more damage and more deaths per event. 

I get it guys, but what is the same weapon used in all of these high public mass shootings...a high powered rifle. 

They are different and I don't see how basically having zero restrictions on them makes any sense. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I get it guys, but what is the same weapon used in all of these high public mass shootings...a high powered rifle.

No, you don't get it.  First off, that's a false statement.  Second, school shootings are 50, maybe 100 deaths per year.  Versus THOUSANDS killed by handguns every year.  There are probably more kids killed in cross fire from gang shootings in a year than by AR's in schools.

Why don't you take 30 seconds to actually look at the statistics, and then consider refining your arguments.  Handguns outnumber rifles about 22:1 in homicides.  Applying that ratio to include unknown guns, and rifles account for about 880 murders per year, or about half that of knives (we must outlaw sharp objects!!!!!).

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

posted by gut

No, you don't get it.  First off, that's a false statement.  Second, school shootings are 50, maybe 100 deaths per year.  Versus THOUSANDS killed by handguns every year.  There are probably more kids killed in cross fire from gang shootings in a year than by AR's in schools.

Why don't you take 30 seconds to actually look at the statistics, and then consider refining your arguments.  Handguns outnumber rifles about 22:1 in homicides.  Applying that ratio to include unknown guns, and rifles account for about 880 murders per year, or about half that of knives (we must outlaw sharp objects!!!!!).

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

You act like it is an either or. I am all for reducing both. 

I'm with you that handgun deaths are more in total. I also think that is a harder problem solve as it brings in a lot of other complicated issues. 

What I am referring to are these high profile mass killings that are occurring on a regular basis that have the high powered rifle involved. 

It seems like any restrictions or even discussions of restricting rifles is immediately shot down as oh no, can't do that. I'm trying to find some middle ground here. 

I'm not saying getting rid of them or taking them like crazy liberals, just trying to think of ideas of how they do not end up in the hands of people in mass shootings like we have seen recently. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Oh OK. I'm sorry if I find something wrong with someone can easily buy a high powered rifle with little to no restrictions or waiting period. 

That argument is fine.

The statement that if someone doesn’t agree with your argument means they are “ok with someone mowing people down…” is asinine and it ruins your argument.

You’re smarter than that.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

We don't know that for sure. But, just making it that much harder for an angry person to buy a high powered rifle may have. 

I don't see how this is a controversial thing. High powered rifles should be in another classification that shotguns, hand guns. Putting restrictions on them is one easy step of many that could be used to help slow these events. 

I can’t think of any of these mass shootings as someone who didn’t plan the whole thing out. They are not typically someone who just got pissed off and bought a gun that day to shoot up a school or church.

They plan them for weeks/months….

So what is a 5 day waiting period going to change, honest question.

It may make a dent in things like domestic violence homicides, but not mass shootings as they are nearly all planned out attacks.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

As Dick Cheney used to say about certain aspects of war, some things are low probability, high impact. 

Yes, hand guns and knifes account for more total deaths, but in terms of higher impact events, high powered riffles produce more damage and more deaths per event. 

I get it guys, but what is the same weapon used in all of these high public mass shootings...a high powered rifle. 

They are different and I don't see how basically having zero restrictions on them makes any sense. 

Your last paragraph proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

No restrictions?

Come on ptown, don’t be that ignorant.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

You act like it is an either or. I am all for reducing both. 

I'm with you that handgun deaths are more in total. I also think that is a harder problem solve as it brings in a lot of other complicated issues. 

What I am referring to are these high profile mass killings that are occurring on a regular basis that have the high powered rifle involved. 

It seems like any restrictions or even discussions of restricting rifles is immediately shot down as oh no, can't do that. I'm trying to find some middle ground here. 

I'm not saying getting rid of them or taking them like crazy liberals, just trying to think of ideas of how they do not end up in the hands of people in mass shootings like we have seen recently. 

AR-15s are not high powered rifles. The .223 round is not a high caliber round compared to most hunting rifles. The news has you convinced an AR is high powered weapon of war but it has never been a military weapon it is made to LOOK like military weapons.

It is commonly used for 2 reasons: they look “cool” and they are easy/lightweight to use. Even 4’11” 80 lb women can shoot them with ease due to how LOW the caliber is and how little recoil/kickback there is. That is why they are the most common rifle sold in the US now, ease of use and “looks”.

A .30-.30, 30-06, .270, 6.5 creedmore, etc are all far more popular hunting rounds and higher caliber/higher powered  

You really need to stop calling an AR, that fires .223 or 5.56 rounds, as high powered. Or regular hunting rifles would be like bazookas to you. 

Nearly every deer hunting rifle (let alone larger animals like elk, moose, etc) are higher powered rifles than an AR-15.

Not hearing a lot of solutions there jmog, just a lot of excuses and trying to make yourself sound smart. 

One cannot deny the AR style weapons are used in most high profile mass shootings. Putting a restriction or delay on how to purchase them is a sensible solution.

posted by jmog

Your last paragraph proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

No restrictions?

Come on ptown, don’t be that ignorant.

Did I say no restrictions? Read again

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Not hearing a lot of solutions there jmog, just a lot of excuses and trying to make yourself sound smart. 

One cannot deny the AR style weapons are used in most high profile mass shootings. Putting a restriction or delay on how to purchase them is a sensible solution.

You can’t start a post with “guess you are ok with someone mowing down children” then complain about others posts. That’s just asinine and you know it.

I explained exactly why it is the weapon of choice, I gave information about the rifle power, the round caliber, and ease of use of the weapon. You provide false information and hyperbolic BS like “you must like killing children”.

You didn’t backtrack or apologize for that dumbass comment.

You didn’t retract your “high powered” rhetoric once shown most hunting rifles are more “high powered”.

You didn’t answer the question what would a 5 day wait do to eliminate these shootings when they are basically all planned out and not spur of the moment rampages.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Did I say no restrictions? Read again

Basically no restrictions is your exact words. You have never bought a rifle if you think there are basically no restrictions.