posted by like_thatlol ok, quite the revisionist on what went down, but whatever makes you feel better.
I promise you I did not pretend not to know something. I used the term assault weapon not being aware of it being the hot button that it is. It distracted from what I was intending to say.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI think this is deflection. Maybe there are people who want all guns banned. There are also people who want fully automatic weapons readily available. Neither of those are but the extremes. If one side automatically shuts down the discussion by saying, "I don't care what you say, you just want to take all out guns away." and the other says, "I don't care what you say, you just want to arm every citizen with WMD's", you can never get anywhere.
Elected officials in the government have (recently) proposed bills that ban all guns.
No elected offices in the government have proposed bills that would make fully automatic weapons available to civilians.
So you may want to look at what you think is "extreme" on the left vs main stream belief on the left (just most won't admit it in public).
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieThis is semantics. Whatever you want to call high capacity semi automatic guns. I understand that automatic weapons are banned. I wasn't pretending anything.
It's not semantics, its changing the verbiage/definitions to make the weapons sound scarier, period.
AR-15s are semi-automatic rifles. That is the correct name for them, not assault rifles, assault weapons, assault style rifles, etc. They fall under the same category as MOST new hunting rifles, semi-automatic rifles.
posted by like_thatDeflection is a tactic of deception. I will debate you all day if you truly say all guns should be banned, but don't give me this bullshit that you aren't saying you don't want all guns banned. Again, this is why nobody has ever given me an honest answer on what they would propose after a "semiautomatic" ban was in placed and didn't work.
I don't want all guns banned. I am pointing out that not every person on the one side of the debate is of that persuasion either. Just like everyone who is supportive of gun rights is not a lunatic survivalist. By casting everyone on the opposite side of wherever you happen to stand in these categories, it results is name calling and nothing happening.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI don't want all guns banned. I am pointing out that not every person on the one side of the debate is of that persuasion either. Just like everyone who is supportive of gun rights is not a lunatic survivalist. By casting everyone on the opposite side of wherever you happen to stand in these categories, it results is name calling and nothing happening.
Answer the question then, when these types of semi-automatic rifles are banned (as they were for a period of about 10 years) and NOTHING changes crime wise (gun crime went up in that 10 year period), what will you suggest next?
posted by jmogAnswer the question then, when these types of semi-automatic rifles are banned (as they were for a period of about 10 years) and NOTHING changes crime wise (gun crime went up in that 10 year period), what will you suggest next?
I don't know. I would see if your premise had in fact come true first. I can see how this would have little-to-no effect on everyday gun crime. I would want to see how and if it affects the number and severity of mass shootings.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI don't know. I would see if your premise had in fact come true first. I can see how this would have little-to-no effect on everyday gun crime. I would want to see how and if it affects the number and severity of mass shootings.
Thanks for proving my point. This was a long winded way of avoiding the question. It's on par with everyone else that faces the same question.
I'll help you, since there is already data. Banning semi-autos already didn't do anything to decrease gun crime. So, what is the next step?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI don't know. I would see if your premise had in fact come true first. I can see how this would have little-to-no effect on everyday gun crime. I would want to see how and if it affects the number and severity of mass shootings.
1. It has already been tried and failed, as I said.
2. The majority of mass shootings are done by hand guns, not semi-automatic rifles. The statistic I saw was that 11 of the 19 mass shootings this year (maybe that 19 was part of last year, don't remember) was committed by semi-automatic hand guns, not rifles or AR-15s.
posted by jmogAnswer the question then, when these types of semi-automatic rifles are banned (as they were for a period of about 10 years) and NOTHING changes crime wise (gun crime went up in that 10 year period), what will you suggest next?
Well, when one of 6M AR-15's already out there is used despite the ban....the the obvious next step will be confiscation.
Once guns are illegal, it's not at all difficult to imagine people saying "hey...if guns are illegal to purchase, then how can it be legal to still own one?"
posted by like_thatThanks for proving my point. This was a long winded way of avoiding the question. It's on par with everyone else that faces the same question.
I'll help you, since there is already data. Banning semi-autos already didn't do anything to decrease gun crime. So, what is the next step?
Let me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI'm just trying to point out how inflexible either side of this debate is. That's why nothing ever changes and the same things are brought up over and over again.
Then drop it, and instead start focusing on the real problems driving shootings.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieLet me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?
Possibly. However, there are many other options that these murderers could have used and they would have been just as effective.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieLet me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?
Only Vegas was an AR more beneficial than a pistol. And even there, he could have used a more hunting like rifle and with the time they said he had, easily shoot as many bullets with extended mags or just more loaded guns.
Anyone else find it extremely odd we still don't know much about Vegas? And how they stopped covering it after a few days and the dems didn't try for the gun grab then?
posted by iclfan2Only Vegas was an AR more beneficial than a pistol. And even there, he could have used a more hunting like rifle and with the time they said he had, easily shoot as many bullets with extended mags or just more loaded guns.
Anyone else find it extremely odd we still don't know much about Vegas? And how they stopped covering it after a few days and the dems didn't try for the gun grab then?
Fair enough on your answer. I respect that opinion.
posted by QuakerOats
Then drop it, and instead start focusing on the real problems driving shootings.
What are the real problems in your estimation?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieWhat are the real problems in your estimation?
$$$ says it all comes back to the Demmycrats.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieLet me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?
Virginia Tech. 9mm and .22 handguns. 32 dead.
posted by justincredibleVirginia Tech. 9mm and .22 handguns. 32 dead.
But the new meme floating around is that the AR-15 bullets kill people deader.
posted by gutBut the new meme floating around is that the AR-15 bullets kill people deader.
Well, they are faster so it's harder to dodge them.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieWhat are the real problems in your estimation?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieLet me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?
Vegas was the only one that using an AR was an advantage over a couple pistols with multiple clips. In close quarters hand guns are much easier to maneuver and aim. Long rifles are better for hitting targets farther away.
posted by iclfan2Only Vegas was an AR more beneficial than a pistol. And even there, he could have used a more hunting like rifle and with the time they said he had, easily shoot as many bullets with extended mags or just more loaded guns.
Anyone else find it extremely odd we still don't know much about Vegas? And how they stopped covering it after a few days and the dems didn't try for the gun grab then?
The only reason an AR was used for Vegas was because he wanted to spray with a bump stock rather than be accurate.
If he wanted to be more accurate (and probably have a higher hit count) he would have used a longer hunting rifle like you mentioned (and multiple rifles).
In truth AR-15s are best suited for mid range sport shooting (target, competitions, etc).
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieWhat are the real problems in your estimation?
Shitty parenting and families. It all starts at home. The prevalence of 1 parent households mixed with parents who don't have an active interest in their kids lives.
posted by queencitybuckeye
I hope schools stick with it and suspend kids that walk out.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieLet me ask you this: do you think the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Florida, Newton would have been different if the shooter didn't have the types of weapons that are being debated?
My response pretty much echos the sentiments of the other posters who responded to this, so I won't repeat it other than the fact you're cherry picking a small percentage of death crimes to try and make a point. I am still waiting to see what your answer is to my question. What will be the next step if/when it fails? Are you going to deflect for another few pages?