Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[petej0]

Jesus fucking Christ you are missing the point entirely

first it's not about it being hard in general it's about giving the people running away for their lives even a second which can be the difference between life and death.

You were arguing that "And your average shooter isn't in any kind of armed forces" meaning that there is something special about the armed forces training that your average shooter doesnt have and my point was that there isnt. All it takes is practice, something anyone is capable of doing if they really wanted to cause mayhem.

My point isnt to argue about any of that. It was strictly to counter your training argument. If you want to change the conversation go ahead. It is entirely situational though. Look at pulse nightclub or VT, hell look at the Parkland shooting. How many times did they reload? If you are going to argue that 30 dead is better than 35, ok, you can have that small moral victory. In the grand scheme of things, it didnt solve anything.

second welcome to society where you get inconvenienced because of stupid dumbasses.

Like I said, I doubt many people would actually care which is why a few states were able to get their high capacity bans passed. You may hear some grumblings from supporters, but it would boil down to ineffectiveness rather than, "muh rights" Like I said, I prefer the smaller 20 rounds magazine because of easier capability to carry, handle and store. I have a few 30 rounders but I dont use them, they just sit collecting dust.

Third guess what the current supply on ban will be harder to get and you can control what comes into the country.

War on drugs says hello. Also, if they can 3d print firearms, I would imagine it not being hard to 3d print a large capacity magazine.

[Draco-Onis]

You were arguing that "And your average shooter isn't in any kind of armed forces" meaning that there is something special about the armed forces training that your average shooter doesnt have and my point was that there isnt. All it takes is practice, something anyone is capable of doing if they really wanted to cause mayhem.

My point isnt to argue about any of that. It was strictly to counter your training argument. If you want to change the conversation go ahead. It is entirely situational though. Look at pulse nightclub or VT, hell look at the Parkland shooting. How many times did they reload? If you are going to argue that 30 dead is better than 35, ok, you can have that small moral victory. In the grand scheme of things, it didnt solve anything.

So your point is saving 5 lives isn't worth your inconvenience? since I have to spell it out for you the point is to throw as many inconveniences for the inexperienced shooter to buy time or for them to mess up.

Like I said, I doubt many people would actually care which is why a few states were able to get their high capacity bans passed. You may hear some grumblings from supporters, but it would boil down to ineffectiveness rather than, "muh rights" Like I said, I prefer the smaller 20 rounds magazine because of easier capability to carry, handle and store. I have a few 30 rounders but I dont use them, they just sit collecting dust.

Ok then so we agree.

war on drugs says hello. Also, if they can 3d print firearms, I would imagine it not being hard to 3d print a large capacity magazine.

Not everything is drugs people aren't addicted to bullets unless you know something I don't. You can also make your own booze, cigarettes and a number of things at home guess what most people are incredibly lazy heck a lot of us eat out and food is not hard to make.

[PhaelixWW]

Guessing she does all her legislation research from 80's "B" movies with actions heroes running around with a "Ma Deuce"

My first thought was the "Annihilator 2000".



- - - Updated - - -

first it's not about it being hard in general it's about giving the people running away for their lives even a second which can be the difference between life and death.

If you're in the line of fire, then that extra second won't really benefit you. If you're out of the line of fire with a clear exit, then you don't need that second. If you're under cover in the line of fire, that extra second is almost useless because you can't process that someone is reloading, get out of cover, and do anything meaningful in a second.

In fact, I'd venture to say that more people have been saved by the shooter fumbling with a "high capacity magazine" or having it jam, than would be saved by the extra seconds during reloads.

Also, creating a law that you're instantly putting up to a quarter of the population in violation of would ultimately lead to more crime and victimization than you're "saving" people from, and there's not even a remote guarantee that some nefarious-minded individual won't be able to find one of the likely billions of "high-capacity magazines" before choosing to shoot up a random gun-free place.

[zenkai]

Not everything is drugs people aren't addicted to bullets unless you know something I don't. You can also make your own booze, cigarettes and a number of things at home guess what most people are incredibly lazy heck a lot of us eat out and food is not hard to make.

His point was making something illegal doesn't fix it.

[petej0]

So your point is saving 5 lives isn't worth your inconvenience?

I am not being inconvenienced, you typical gun owner isnt being inconvenienced either (mostly because they already have 30 rounders or know where to get them). We are saying it wont have a measurable effect that you want. There is no way to know that John Doe survived because the shooter reloaded or because the shooter missed etc.. Your mass shooter isnt going to be inconvenienced either. You think they are saying to themselves "Darn, I really wanted those 30 rounders. Now I cant kill a lot of people." No they will just go out and buy the 20 rounders or 10 rounders (whatever is easiest) and start shooting. Their goal isnt to kill 20 or 25 people, their goal is to kill as many as they can. If that means they have to reload 4 times instead of 3 so be it.

I again, implore you to visit a gun range and see how fast reloading can occur.

since I have to spell it out for you the point is to throw as many inconveniences for the inexperienced shooter to buy time or for them to mess up.

The only thing that separates an experienced shooter from an inexperienced shooter is experience. Something ANY shooter can get by going to a range. There isnt anything special about the military that makes them any more experienced shooting than someone who goes to the range regularly or even semi regularly. As someone who has been in the Army, I can tell you first hand, there is no difference between military training and getting a trainer to work with you at the range for a few lessons and then just practicing after that.

Not everything is drugs people aren't addicted to bullets unless you know something I don't. You can also make your own booze, cigarettes and a number of things at home guess what most people are incredibly lazy heck a lot of us eat out and food is not hard to make.

My point is, drugs find their way into the US. I know quite a few people I can go to if I want pot. I have two friends I can go to if I want to get my hands on heroin (and they could possibly get me crack/cocaine too). Even if it wasnt as easy to get a 30 round magazine and they bought a few 20 rounds. mass murder is mass murder. Are you really going to sit back and claim a small victory after 30 people died and say "Well it could have been worse" Tell that to the family of the 30 killed.

[Draco-Onis]

I am not being inconvenienced, you typical gun owner isnt being inconvenienced either (mostly because they already have 30 rounders or know where to get them). We are saying it wont have a measurable effect that you want. There is no way to know that John Doe survived because the shooter reloaded or because the shooter missed etc.. Your mass shooter isnt going to be inconvenienced either. You think they are saying to themselves "Darn, I really wanted those 30 rounders. Now I cant kill a lot of people." No they will just go out and buy the 20 rounders or 10 rounders (whatever is easiest) and start shooting. Their goal isnt to kill 20 or 25 people, their goal is to kill as many as they can. If that means they have to reload 4 times instead of 3 so be it.

I again, implore you to visit a gun range and see how fast reloading can occur.

We are talking circles around each other I have made my point several times every fraction of a second counts if you aren't inconvenienced then why are you arguing so vehemently against it?

The only thing that separates an experienced shooter from an inexperienced shooter is experience.

That sentence means nothing most mass shooters are not experienced especially in the guns they suddenly acquire to do the deed.

My point is, drugs find their way into the US. I know quite a few people I can go to if I want pot. I have two friends I can go to if I want to get my hands on heroin (and they could possibly get me crack/cocaine too). Even if it wasnt as easy to get a 30 round magazine and they bought a few 20 rounds. mass murder is mass murder. Are you really going to sit back and claim a small victory after 30 people died and say "Well it could have been worse" Tell that to the family of the 30 killed.

Bullets aren't crack cocaine and we aren't getting rid of them just changing it to something you say doesn't bother and yes saving even one life matters for something you say doesn't bother you. If that life was a relative of yours maybe you might give more of a shit.

- - - Updated - - -

His point was making something illegal doesn't fix it.

By that logic let's have no laws because laws are supposed to make things go away permanently now

[petej0]

We are talking circles around each other I have made my point several times every fraction of a second counts if you aren't inconvenienced then why are you arguing so vehemently against it?

Because we all recognize the slippery slope that is being played. Today its the 30 rounders, in 4 years it will be the 20 rounders, then the 10 rounders. Then it will be "Who needs more than five?"

So here is my question, to what end? What is your goal?

That sentence means nothing most mass shooters are not experienced especially in the guns they suddenly acquire to do the deed.

How can you even know this?

Bullets aren't crack cocaine and we aren't getting rid of them just changing it to something you say doesn't bother and yes saving even one life matters for something you say doesn't bother you. If that life was a relative of yours maybe you might give more of a shit.

I dont know what you are trying to convey here. My point is a ban shouldnt be the silver bullet you look for here.

[Draco-Onis]

Because we all recognize the slippery slope that is being played. Today its the 30 rounders, in 4 years it will be the 20 rounders, then the 10 rounders. Then it will be "Who needs more than five?"

So here is my question, to what end? What is your goal?

Oh that is a load of horseshit slippery slope isn't an argument things change and evolve that statement is an argument for the status quo stating nothing is wrong with how things are going currently. You can just say I think gun laws are perfect and want nothing to change that's more honest than this slippery slope bullshit.

[Bodonius]

We shouldnt allow criminals to buy guns and killing people should be illegal. ;-)

[Daelak]

again did they round up peoples personal arms and hold them? or were these arms for those that didn't already have them an had never used them....

How well do you think it would have gone over if they rounded up people personal arms and held them, (aside from being stupid, lost that and everyone would have been disarmed at once). and I'm sure in the bigger battles people looked toward veterans for guidance (and again training for those shopkeepers and such that never fired a weapon) , not as much in the gorilla warfare front where the hunters had a edge.

No where does it say though they are the only ones allowed (professional trained), it just states the people, and last I checked that covers everyone, for the millita to work it just states The people should not be barred access to firearms.

and by your logic if I get some drinking buddies together we're the community and we can have our own armory....

Personal arms had extremely short shelf lives in battle. This is exactly the reason for the existence of the armory and the training around it. These armories around the colonies were one of the only reasons militias held firm; they had a constant supply of munitions, rifles, cannons, fatigues for the well regulated militias. A well regulated militia is a trained and well stocked militia. You cannot have a proper militia without training and a stocked armory.

[Roxinius]

Oh that is a load of horseshit slippery slope isn't an argument things change and evolve that statement is an argument for the status quo stating nothing is wrong with how things are going currently. You can just say I think gun laws are perfect and want nothing to change that's more honest than this slippery slope bullshit.

its not bullshit its thre truth and you fucking know it gun owners are tired of giving inches and watching democrats try and take miles.

[Daelak]

That is not a universal thing. Parkland used 10 round magazines due to the way they fit in his bag. Other shootings have likewise used smaller magazines. Drum magazines are generally unreliable and not used by many.

Also, he said the M14 machinegun fired faster than a semi-auto and your reply was that the M16 machinegun fired faster, which is pointless to compare since we're not debating machineguns.

All semi-auto's fire the same rate.

And if you look at the duration, the parkland shooter had a lower rate of fire than compared to Las Vegas and Dayton, El Paso.

- - - Updated - - -

Handguns can have large magazines too. They use whatever firearm they can get. The AR isnt any more special than a normal hunting rifle with a 20 round magazine (or even a 30 round magazine). If you ban AR's you think mass shootings will stop? No, they will just choose another weapon? Why, because there isnt anything special about the AR, it fires just as fast as any other semi-auto.

Magazine size restriction is moot when you have two or three handguns capable of holding 15 rounds each. You cant be so fixated on just AR's because you miss everything else that is out there. All the other possibilities. It would be the equivalent of trying to reduce car accidents caused by speeding by banning sports cars.

Then why do they prefer to use the AR and its variants? Let's see your proposal play out, since we already accept the several hundred or so instances of mass shootings per year.

[Draco-Onis]

its not bullshit its thre truth and you fucking know it gun owners are tired of giving inches and watching democrats try and take miles.

But that is bullshit because the opposite has been happening, it works both ways too let you have this then all of the sudden everyone has nukes you don't want everyone to have nukes right?

[Daelak]

100% bullshit i have many handguns that can take 20 round mags and i onw on that uses 30 round mags hell they make drum mags for glocks

Then lets see how quick these underemployed, socially awkward mass shooters do when they don't have semi-auto rifles and people are fleeing away from them by firing handguns. Guaranteed lower casualties and injuries.

- - - Updated - - -

The rate of fire from a .30-06 M1 is the same as an AR-15 in 5.56/.223, because the rate of fire is the same in all semiautomatic weapons.

- - - Updated - - -



Magazine changes are an inconsequential factor in rate of fire. It might matter, if someone was facing return fire, but your entire worldview is that nobody should ever be equipped to meet force with force until it's far too late.

It is not inconsequential when innocents are fleeing a mass shooting whose entire duration can be tens of seconds minutes until its over.

- - - Updated - - -

Many moons ago when I was in the Navy, our sub crew had to qualify on 45acp M1911 annually. Out of the 100 or so that shot to qualify maybe 5 had their own guns and shot more than once a year for qualification. One part of this was to start with an empty gun with 3 7 round magazines. We had to load, fire, reload, etc in 12 seconds. Changing magazines is not hard nor does it take nearly as long as most people think. I'll admit the target was like 2'x3' at 10 feet and hard to miss but human bodies are even bigger.

Magazine sizes make little to no difference to the number of rounds fired in a set time period.

An inexperienced, nervous, teen, twenty-something with no military experience is not comparable. Those seconds are a matter of life and death for these people.

[Saucexorzski]

An inexperienced, nervous, teen, twenty-something with no military experience is not comparable. Those seconds are a matter of life and death for these people.

man, i'm surprised that we have data that states all shooters are like this.

[zenkai]

By that logic let's have no laws because laws are supposed to make things go away permanently now

That's not the logic, the logic is then only criminals will have access. Sorry you couldn't figure that out

[Draco-Onis]

That's not the logic, the logic is then only criminals will have access. Sorry you couldn't figure that out

What are you even talking about? where did I call for a ban on guns? and that's also a stupid statement but bad guys will break the law is a call to do nothing.

[Daelak]

You're just making shit up out of whole cloth again, stating things as fact without any support whatsoever. The provision for the militias was not the 2nd Amendment, it was the Militia Clauses of the Constitution, which listed the government's responsibilities to, and power to call up, the Militias of the country. And if they'd meant the 2nd Amendment to be a community right (whatever the fuck that might be), with community armories, they would have said so. And, lol, an occupying force isn't going to give a shit about our Constitution.

The militia clauses are the genesis of the language of the 2nd amendment, because after the revolutionary war, local, state, and federal governments all knew intimately, since they paid for the experience in blood, at how critical it was to have local militias be trained and stocked. Again, they didn't need to expound on what a prepared and effective militia was, since it was self evident from all the founders who fought in the revolution.

This statement is so absurd as to be laughable. The original Articles of the Constitution concerns themselves with the security of the country. The Bill of Rights concerns itself with the security of the people. That's historical, immutable fact. Any attempt by you to pretend otherwise is just utterly false.

This is contradictory, the people are the country, and vice versa. The constitution is the expression of the people. The militia clauses gave limited authority over community militias, which eventually became defunct after the creation of the national military, and the militia acts in the early 1900's, where state and local resources can be federalized for indefinite period, which obviously nullifies the point of the 2A.

What, you mean the militias provided for by Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 of the US Constitution? Yes, precisely. The militias would have existed and the British would have been repelled just fine without the 2nd Amendment. As, you know, they actually were, since the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until 8 years after the cessation of fighting.

The militias weren't provided by the government, they were the baseline defense for the colonies that existed decades before the revolutionary war. The reason its even in the Bill of Rights is ultimate expression of the most effective strategy to stave off a tyrannical government and foreign invasion, until the aftermath of the War of 1812.

Do, pray, provide some kind of link, source, anything, that shows those words being written at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights? Surely there should be some documentation of this idea that they accidentally omitted a few words from the 2nd Amendment? Oh, wait, nevermind, you're just making shit up to suit your absurd argument again.

It was ubiquitous during this time period. Especially after seeing the immense success highly trained community militias with well funded and stocked armories against the largest standing army in Europe, if not the world, it would be a fool's errand to believe that 2nd amendment was alluding to roving unorganized bands of farmers and yeomen with their personal arms being able to protect the people and the country.

This is... I don't even... ffs, your historical inaccuracies hurt my brain.

The military was using semi-automatics LONG before the AR-15 was conceived. The military had been using the semi-automatic 1911s for 50 years, as well as the select-fire M1 Carbine and semi-automatic M1 Garand rifles for 20 years. The military chose to use a weaker weapon in the M16 (the military version of the AR-15, which is not, and never has been a military model) over the M1 Garand.

The M16 (AR15) was a more effective battlefield weapon for better suppression fire that was not achievable with all of those rifles you listed.

And yet it doesn't have a higher rate of fire or more effective suppression fire than the M1 Carbine, which had been in service for 20 years before the AR-15 was developed. You might know this if you actually bothered to learn actual facts instead of just making up ones to suit.



Not really, sorry. The M1 Carbine, M14, and M16 all had about a 750 RPM fire rate. The difference, though, was that the M1 Carbine fired a projectile twice as heavy as the M16 while the M14 fired a projectile three times as heavy. At the same rate.

Which made them ill suited for the last half century of fighting. This is exactly why mass shooters use this weapon.

The Springfield Armory was a FEDERAL armory, not some "community" armory. The site that the Springfield Armory sat on had previously been used as a hub for the state militia before it was co-opted by General Washington during the Revolutionary War for what would continue to be the first national armory.



Again, the Springfield Armory was a federal armory, created at the behest of George Washington in 1777. It is "maintained by the community" only inasmuch as federal taxes paid for it. The Springfield Armory was the model for a government-run facility, without which there would likely have been no United States.

It most definitely was a community armory, decades before and after federal martial. It was the model community militias and their minute men used to emulate all over the colonies. Funded by the wealthiest landowners in lieu of conscription, there was no substitute until the creation of the US military. And as time wore on, the whole point of the writing of the 2nd amendment was washed away, giving way to the most sophisticated and effective fighting force in human history.

And yet anything magazine-fed can take a high-capacity magazine, including handguns. But realistically, it doesn't take long to change out a magazine, and many of the worst shootings were perpetrated with the use of only standard-capacity magazines.

It would take just long enough to save more innocents, a proposal that every responsible gun owner should advocate for.

[Svifnymr]

And if you look at the duration, the parkland shooter had a lower rate of fire than compared to Las Vegas and Dayton, El Paso.

You don't know what his rate of fire was, because he killed a bunch of people and then left the school. Normal retort though, if someone points out that something wasn't used, just "oh, but what if he DID have them!!!". There's little published info on rates or accuracy or any of that sort of thing, which I prefer since we don't need to continue the contest any further.

Vegas guy I've mentioned before, fish in a barrel, his rate was actually pretty bad. You know they make belt-fed/ gatling guns, right?

Then why do they prefer to use the AR and its variants? Let's see your proposal play out, since we already accept the several hundred or so instances of mass shootings per year.

Because they don't? The news might like to report everything is an AR15 or variant, but the festival guy had an SKS, the El Paso had an AK, Dayton was an AR, and there have been a multitude of pistols and a few shotguns. Pulse Nightclub was a SIG. The SKS/ AK are even different rounds than the AR/SIG. The uptick in AR use is as much due to the news hyping up it's super power killing speed from emergency room doctors that have probably never seen a real rifle round.

[Daelak]

man, i'm surprised that we have data that states all shooters are like this.

Mass shooting statistics are fake news.