Whitehouse: Trump not going to Ban AR's

[zorkuus]

I think you guys should just throw out every politician that takes money from the NRA by force. Nothing else is going to change things.

[Vankrys]

AGAIN, it was not an assault rifle that was used. Don't speak about anyone "educating" themselves when you don't even know the very basics of the topic.

what? we are talking about parkland high school shooting. The shooter used an AR-15. This is not an assault rifle?

[Edge-]

The ARs you see in civilian hands are knockoffs that look a lot like an M-16 (a huge reason why they're so popular, they look almost exactly like what the military uses) but are only capable of firing a single round down range every time the trigger is pressed (like your typical semi-automatic hunting rifle). They aren't a "spray and pray" weapon, they only look like one.

Um...do you want to maybe...rephrase that?

[Vankrys]

I'll spare you snark this time since I think you're genuinely not sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire

Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.

An M-16 is a military assault rifle capable of burst firing. The AR-15s you see in civilian hands are knockoffs that look a lot like an M-16 (a huge reason why they're so popular, they look almost exactly like what the military uses) but are only capable of firing a single round down range every time the trigger is pressed (like your typical semi-automatic hunting rifle). They aren't a "spray and pray" weapon, they only look like one.

There is technically an AR-15 that qualifies as an assault rifle, but these were precursors to the M-16 and aren't what we're seeing in civilian hands.

So this is the new defense of gun enthusiasts. AR-15 is not an assault rifle therefore it should not be banned.

It doesn't matter. Such weapons should not be in the hand of civilians. Period.

[Vankrys]

Do you think hunting rifles should be banned? Shotguns? They are both very capable of killing a human being and we have plenty of proof of that.

Well, no here's why.

It's about the rate of fire and mag capacity mainly. A bolt action hunting rifle, or a pump action shotgun have their uses and their limit. Those weapon are fine for hunting, self defense, ball trap or target practice.

An AR-15, even semi auto version is way too efficient to maw through crowd of people. Yes all those weapon are capable of killing and be involved in a massacre, but statistically, the AR-15 will raise the body count.

According to what i read, you can go as high as 45 round per minute with a semi auto AR-15, higher with a bump stock. I can't fathom why anyone would need such rate of fire, outside of mass shooting of course.

hundgun, shotgun, bolt/lever action long gun, ok for me. Not Assault like weapon, even the semi auto version.


I am not against having the AR-15, hell even full auto weapon be available to public to rent and shoot in a range, provided those weapon never leave the range.

[Breccia]

How are these improvements? You haven't reduced the violence, you've just made it go next door.

Obviously the solution is to have armed guards literally everywhere.

Man, Gen. Kelly's going to be overworked.

[Edge-]

Obviously the solution is to have armed guards literally everywhere.

Man, Gen. Kelly's going to be overworked.

Depending on how long he sticks around. Rumblings that McMcaster and Kelly are in the doghouse right now.

[Vankrys]

Depending on how long he sticks around. Rumblings that McMcaster and Kelly are in the doghouse right now.

Kelly should really educate Trump on weapons and military tactics. There is a hundred reasons why arming teachers is not only inefficient to stop mass shooting but also potentially dangerous outside of mass shooting scenarios.

When Trump made the remark that john kelly could have somehow stop alone the florida shooter with a simple handgun and of course no body armor, that's just not realistic. Kelly should know that, he's a general, he must have some notion of rules of engagement.

[Breccia]

Kelly should really educate Trump on weapons

He literally taught that subject for years. While I remain skeptical of a 67-year-old man, regardless of training, responding to a school shooting, he's clearly one of the leading US experts in the theory of weapons and their handling.

[Spectral]

How are these improvements? You haven't reduced the violence, you've just made it go next door.

This is one of my core complaints about many security implementations - stacking up a ton of soft targets in a slightly different spot isn't actually an improvement in anyone's safety. At a bare minimum, this needs to be taken more seriously in weighting whether a measure is worth it or not. All that seems to generally be considered is a static assessment of whether the interior area is safer.

[Spectral]

Kelly should really educate Trump on weapons and military tactics. There is a hundred reasons why arming teachers is not only inefficient to stop mass shooting but also potentially dangerous outside of mass shooting scenarios.

When Trump made the remark that john kelly could have somehow stop alone the florida shooter with a simple handgun and of course no body armor, that's just not realistic. Kelly should know that, he's a general, he must have some notion of rules of engagement.

I was fascinated with this little mock-up that a group did in Texas. TLDR:

A pro-gun rights group in Texas re-enacted the Charlie Hebdo attacks with paintball rounds, in an attempt to see whether an “armed civilian” could have stopped the two gunmen who attacked the Paris office of the satirical magazine, killing 12. The civilian “died” in almost every scenario except immediate flight from the scene.

The best case scenario is basically being able to buy a little time for others to flee by laying down suppressing fire. Realistically, a surprised person with a handgun is no match for an aggressor with a rifle and good tactical positioning.

[Vankrys]

For what it's worth, handguns are typically semi-automatic as well. They're popular home-defense weapons for the reasons listed above, and because they aren't as unwieldy in tight quarters like a long rifle or shotgun may be.

exactly man.

Handgun are actually ideal because they are short range (i mean accuracy wise). In a self defense scenario, you want to prioritize fleeing. If the attacker is too far to be hit reliably with a handgun, it probably mean you have a good chance to escape.

Beside, grabbing an AR-15 if you see or hear someone in your home seems out of place, probably faster to grab a pistol. Pistols are easier to handle in close quarter situation like a house.

Finally, like for everything in life, you have to evaluate the balance risk vs benefit. It's true for drugs, and it should be true for guns. The risks of an AR-15 outweigh too much the benefit in my opinion.

Again, i point out that i am not against recreational shooting an AR-15, in a controlled environment. Just not for civilian ownership.

[Breccia]

I'd imagine that would look even worse in an "open carry" situation where the armed civilian would likely just be the first target.

Also, shot by first responders. Or each other.

[Spectral]

I don't know the specifics of the experiment, but I'd imagine that would look even worse in an "open carry" situation where the armed civilian would likely just be the first target.

Also, shot by first responders. Or each other.

Right. People have watched too much stupid shit on movies and really think a John Wick outcome is likely. The reality of civilians with handguns trying to defend against a mass shooter is that they're very unlikely to perform admirably. It's not impossible, but it's not going to be the most common outcome. The tactical advantage and weaponry advantage that any competent attacker will have is overwhelming.

More to the point, we should be asking what's so sick about our society that it's even a conversation that would happen.

[Thekri]

Kelly should really educate Trump on weapons and military tactics. There is a hundred reasons why arming teachers is not only inefficient to stop mass shooting but also potentially dangerous outside of mass shooting scenarios.

When Trump made the remark that john kelly could have somehow stop alone the florida shooter with a simple handgun and of course no body armor, that's just not realistic. Kelly should know that, he's a general, he must have some notion of rules of engagement.

Well, Kelly probably could actually. However, there are not an unlimited supply of people with Kelly's experience, and basically none of those that do want to stand around a school all day for years. Trump's idea that Kelly is somehow the same as your average history teacher isn't exactly accurate.

[Dacien]

I think you guys should just throw out every politician that takes money from the NRA by force. Nothing else is going to change things.

The constituents that voted them in would simply vote in new politicians that pledge to support gun rights.

[szechuan]

Well, Kelly probably could actually. However, there are not an unlimited supply of people with Kelly's experience, and basically none of those that do want to stand around a school all day for years. Trump's idea that Kelly is somehow the same as your average history teacher isn't exactly accurate.

Kelly's probably going to leave trump soon anyways.

[Thekri]

Kelly's probably going to leave trump soon anyways.

Well based on his comments about the causes of the American Civil War, I would prefer he didn't become a history teacher. I value someone's ability to actually teach history over their capability for killing students.

[Breccia]

Let's add to the opposition: Gov. Rick Snyder said more guns is not the answer.

"Pfft, what librul pussy socialist state is he from?"

Detroit. Well, Michigan I guess, but basically Detroit.

"Okay, but he's probably a -- "

Registered Republican, yes.