Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[FusedMass]

I get it that you're allergic to facts or whatever, but it hasn't even been 2 months since Sandy Hook.

Oh wow I was a month off. Let's make a big deal out of it.

[Dhurn]

Oh wow I was a month off. Let's make a big deal out of it.

I just thought for someone who spends as much time posting about this shit as you do, you might know the date when things actually happened.

[FusedMass]

I just thought for someone who spends as much time posting about this shit as you do, you might know the date when things actually happened.

You still beating the dead horse?

[Spectral]

Oh wow I was a month off. Let's make a big deal out of it.

I think the part that's worth making a big deal of is that your response to this seems really emotional. It doesn't make any sense to talk about how terribly dangerous "assault weapons" are when the preponderance of evidence is that almost no one uses them as a murder weapon. In the cases where they are used as murder weapons, I see little reason to believe that there wouldn't be a large substitution effect if "assault weapons" weren't around, as handguns are very nearly as effective. If we could magically poof away all assault weapons (edit - all rifles together, actually), there were a bit under 400 murders with them last year; if the substitution effect was 80% (probably a lowball estimate), we're talking about saving 80 lives, total. That's in a magical poofing scenario. In the real world, we're talking about a law that saves almost no one that would cost significant amounts of money to enforce.

But hey, it makes people that are emotional about the matter feel like something got done.

[Minimaw]

Oh wow I was a month off. Let's make a big deal out of it.

As someone mentioned before, he did not use the AR that he stole from his mom, but rather 4 handguns. So, do you still believe that he killed the children and adults with the AR?

[FusedMass]

As someone mentioned before, he did not use the AR that he stole from his mom, but rather 4 handguns. So, do you still believe that he killed the children and adults with the AR?

As the New York Times Mentioned

But the AR-15 style rifle — the most popular rifle in America, according to gun dealers — was also the weapon of choice for Adam Lanza, who the police said used one made by Bushmaster on Friday to kill 20 young children and six adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in a massacre that has horrified the nation.

The increasing appearance of the rifle in rampage killings — an AR-15 was used by James E. Holmes, who is accused of opening fire and killing 12 people in a movie theater in Colorado in July, police officials say, and by Jacob Roberts, who shot and killed two people and then took his own life in a shopping mall last week near Portland, Ore. — has rekindled the debate about its availability and its appeal to killers bent on mass slaughter.

It has also starkly highlighted the chasm between those who favor tighter regulations for firearms and those who believe that guns like the AR-15 are widely misunderstood and wrongly blamed for the actions of a few individuals.

Gun control advocates contend that semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15, the civilian version of the military’s M-16 and M-4, are a logical choice for anyone whose goal is to kill a lot of people in a short time because of their ability to rapidly fire multiple high-velocity rounds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us...anted=all&_r=0

[Svifnymr]

As someone mentioned before, he did not use the AR that he stole from his mom, but rather 4 handguns. So, do you still believe that he killed the children and adults with the AR?

The story evolved, they settled on the AR15 and 2 handguns being on him. The medical examiner said "all were killed with the rifle", though he was not clear if he meant the 7 he had examined or all of them. He also couldn't specify the caliber.

[FusedMass]

The story evolved, they settled on the AR15 and 2 handguns being on him. The medical examiner said "all were killed with the rifle", though he was not clear if he meant the 7 he had examined or all of them. He also couldn't specify the caliber.

All of them were killed with the AR-15 how very interesting.

[GreatOak]

All of them were killed with the AR-15 how very interesting.

I believe Spectral brought up a good point. Why don't you address him instead of dodging the hard questions?

[Svifnymr]

All of them were killed with the AR-15 how very interesting.

Yeah, that's what he said, though clipping that particular part out ignores the other information, so it's a bit propaganda-like. The only other times I've heard ballistics mentioned, they refer to the caliber of the bullet. He didn't say the caliber, but said "the rifle", even when someone else asked him for clarification since the rifle was said to be in the trunk, he just says he used the rifle.

And again, he only personally examined 7 of the victims at the time, they hadn't finished examining all of the victims at that point, nor even started on the shooter. Assumedly the shooter used a handgun on himself rather than a rifle, which would exclude "everyone" being shot with the rifle. I haven't seen anything that said whether he shot the handguns or not. Or why he wore a bullet proof vest into a gun free zone and shot himself long before the police arrived.

Press coverage of the Newtown shooting was abysmal.

[FusedMass]

I believe Spectral brought up a good point. Why don't you address him instead of dodging the hard questions?

This thread is not about me personally. It's about AR-15

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Newt still does not have a answer. I thought it was very interesting he couldn't call them anything but semi automatic. I think Piers makes a great case. Ever since he offended some people and they went after him. He been promoting this gun topic case.

Because they aren't anything but semi-automatics. "Assault weapon" refers to ergonomics and aesthetics, not lethality.

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 09:56 PM ----------

You still beating the dead horse?

IRONIC THAT YOU WOULD SAY THAT lmao................

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 09:58 PM ----------

I believe Spectral brought up a good point. Why don't you address him instead of dodging the hard questions?

I don't think she has found an article to copy and paste about it yet.

[FusedMass]

Because they aren't anything but semi-automatics. "Assault weapon" refers to ergonomics and aesthetics, not lethality.

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 09:56 PM ----------



IRONIC THAT YOU WOULD SAY THAT lmao................

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 09:58 PM ----------



I don't think she has found an article to copy and paste about it yet.

I regret to inform you that I will be ignoring you for time being since that's the third time you made up lies about me copying and pasting and generally trying re-derail the whole thread with personal insults.

[Extrazero8]

This thread is not about me personally. It's about AR-15

Yes the AR15. A rifle that numbers in the millions yet is used in less than 1% of all homicides.

Don't worry too much. This legislation doesn't have much of a chance of passing. Guess they will have to find something else to ban so they can feel better about themselves.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I regret to inform you that I will be ignoring you for time being since that's the third time you made up lies about me copying and pasting and generally trying re-derail the whole thread with personal insults.

You literally just did it a few pages ago. I am not derailing anything. You ignore any arguments I say, just like you do everyone else.

"Assault weapons" refers to mostly "looks," so why are you so keen to judging a gun solely by its looks?

[Jaxi]

This thread is not about me personally. It's about AR-15

Fused look at it this way.

The gun is insanely popular in America, yet is used in a very low percentage of the crimes. However, since it seems to be a recent weapon of choice in mass shootings it gets demonized, labeled as a military class weapon, and targeted as the number one object of contempt. From an outside perspective, one could make the assumption that the anti-gun movement cares more about stopping the media spectacles rather than actually reducing gun violence.

[Spectral]

I'm going to repost something I posted at FusedMass on the last page, with a couple edits to make it less personal. I think it's worth addressing, but I can understand why things that come off as personal would make someone disinclined to address substance:

It doesn't make any sense to talk about how dangerous "assault weapons" are when the preponderance of evidence is that almost no one uses them as a murder weapon. In the cases where they are used as murder weapons, I see little reason to believe that there wouldn't be a large substitution effect if "assault weapons" weren't around, as handguns are very nearly as effective. If we could magically poof away all rifles, there were a bit under 400 murders with them last year; if the substitution effect was 80% (probably a lowball estimate), we're talking about saving 80 lives, total. That's in a magical poofing scenario, assuming that all of the rifle murders were with "assault weapons", and lowballing the substitution estimate. In the real world, we're talking about a law that saves almost no one that would cost significant amounts of money to enforce.

So, from a pure cost/benefit analysis, do you think this is way to spend resources? Keep in mind, it's not just direct costs, but enforcement costs, compliance costs, procedural costs, and more. We're likely talking something running into the 9 figure range to save very, very few lives, if any at all. I think it's hard to defend this as a cost effective approach to saving lives.

[Grizzly Willy]

If the discussion is about AR-15's, then it's not worth having. AR-15's don't warrant a ban at this time.

[Roxinius]

If the discussion is about AR-15's, then it's not worth having. AR-15's don't warrant a ban at this time.

you gotta realize man most anit gun people cant tell the difference from a semi auto weapon and an assault rifle i agree this ban is pretty stupid i own the 416 and mp5 clones made by Umarex in 22lr

[ugotownd]

I guess Piers and his incompetent research staff cant find anything.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ding-an-ar-15/

Person who defended his house with an AR. He needs to take his ass back across the water and stay there.

You should look at this site. These are the people that the antigun posters in the forum want us to disarm and have protect us. If anything we need to protect ourselves from them also.
http://www.policemisconduct.net/