Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[BigToast]

By definition, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not capable of automatic fire. It is a very simple delimiter.

Do you know that AR-15s have been readily available since the 1960s?

I thought that in the post that you quoted it was clear that I do not particularly care.

[Kellhound]

I thought that in the post that you quoted it was clear that I do not particularly care.

Actually, I am willing to bet you DO care, and you intentionally misuse the term to make AR-15s seem scarier. Or to be blunt, you use the term for its propaganda value.

[BigToast]

Actually, I am willing to bet you DO care, and you intentionally misuse the term to make AR-15s seem scarier. Or to be blunt, you use the term for its propaganda value.

No, I really don't care about the difference. The AR-15 is the mass shooter's gun of choice and that is scary enough. The AR-15s purpose is to kill as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible. While not being automatic, it seems to get the job done well and is "assault enough for me/the purposes of legislation."

[Roxinius]

No, I really don't care about the difference. The AR-15 is the mass shooter's gun of choice and that is scary enough. The AR-15s purpose is to kill as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible. While not being automatic, it seems to get the job done well and is "assault enough for me/the purposes of legislation."

Once again it kills between 400-500 a year must not be that effective and also maybe do some research because handgun are used far more frequently in mass shootings

[Coolthulhu]

Hi! I'm Swedish. No gun permit.
If I want to fire a gun I just go to a local live fire range and gunclub. And fire a gun. Bit of time constraints and such, probably need to show that they can trust me to do it outside of instructor supervision to make sure I don't shoot myself or someone else in the foot. Which, fair. But it's not like it's something that "CAN'T BE DONE BECAUSE GUNS AREN'T FREE!"
Same if I want to hunt. I can go hunting with an established hunting team, and as long as I've got a learners hunting permit etc I can fire a gun under a trained users supervision.

The only thing where Sweden has laws seriously restricting gun ownership and use is in the form of home and personal defense.

I don't see where you're going with this. I've never said I'm against training, I've actually said it should be mandatory (and it is here, unless you've served in the military, but qualified range officers are there to help refresh one's memory or explain the functioning of some unusual guns - because most guns work in the same way but some have their unique quirks, I've lost count of how many people I've seen trying to load a M3 and failing for instance). Also, you can own guns in Sweden.
You can even own an AR-15 or a clone thereof if you've been an IPSC shooter for at least a year but I've read that on a forum and not an official source so take that with a grain of salt (although it's a PS-centric forum so there's no reason the guy would've lied, he would've been called out).

Actually, I am willing to bet you DO care, and you intentionally misuse the term to make AR-15s seem scarier. Or to be blunt, you use the term for its propaganda value.

Precisely, so why do you guys even bother? I mean, I appreciate your patience, but he even admitted he doesn't even care. There's no reasoning with the likes of that Toast fellow, the only thing you'll get are opinions based on falsehoods and/or insults.

[Mayhem]

Once again it kills between 400-500 a year must not be that effective and also maybe do some research because handgun are used far more frequently in mass shootings

Out of the mass shootings with the most fatalities, ar-15 or ar-15 style firearms are mostly used so mass shooters seem to disagree with your opinion of effectiveness. You do however make a good point about better gun control regarding handguns. Any idea that might help reduce the number of mass shootings?

[Kellhound]

No, I really don't care about the difference. The AR-15 is the mass shooter's gun of choice and that is scary enough. The AR-15s purpose is to kill as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible. While not being automatic, it seems to get the job done well and is "assault enough for me/the purposes of legislation."

Actually, it was designed to fire a round significantly less powerful than the rifle it replaced. AR-15s are the most popular firearms in the US and have been for some time. The number sold vs the number used to commit a crime are low. Further, the attempts to legislate them are based on how they look, not how they function. Its all propaganda, and you know it.

- - - Updated - - -

Out of the mass shootings with the most fatalities, ar-15 or ar-15 style firearms are mostly used so mass shooters seem to disagree with your opinion of effectiveness. You do however make a good point about better gun control regarding handguns. Any idea that might help reduce the number of mass shootings?

The AR-15 has been readily available since the 1960s. Access to them is not what has driven the rise in the number of high casualty shootings.

[Mayhem]

The AR-15 has been readily available since the 1960s. Access to them is not what has driven the rise in the number of high casualty shootings.

I wasn't talking about a rise, I was talking about their effectiveness. Most mass-shootings probably aren't planned, the ones that are however seem to include an ar-15 or ar-15 style of firearm. The one with the most fatalities this year, ar-15.

[Kellhound]

I wasn't talking about a rise, I was talking about their effectiveness. Most mass-shootings probably aren't planned, the ones that are however seem to include an ar-15 or ar-15 style of firearm. The one with the most fatalities this year, ar-15.

When I was in school, the idea that another student would resort to shooting up the school was unheard of. Now it is a commonly accepted reality. Why?

AR-15s are not overly common guns used in crime. This despite being the most popular firearm in the US.

[Mayhem]

When I was in school, the idea that another student would resort to shooting up the school was unheard of. Now it is a commonly accepted reality. Why?

Because the ones in power don't try to fight the things that lead to school shootings but rather thoughts and prayers themselves out of responsibilities?

AR-15s are not overly common guns used in crime. This despite being the most popular firearm in the US.

Are you ignoring my post?

[Coolthulhu]

Out of the mass shootings with the most fatalities, ar-15 or ar-15 style firearms are mostly used so mass shooters seem to disagree with your opinion of effectiveness. You do however make a good point about better gun control regarding handguns. Any idea that might help reduce the number of mass shootings?

Handguns very easily beat rifles in terms of frequency, with "rifles having been used in six of the ten deadliest mass shooting events" but either in very unconventional scenarios (such as the LA shooting), or in combination with handguns or shotguns. The ✝ cross symbol indicating the previously deadliest mass shooting is also interesting in those regards. Also, you argue that "mass shooters seem to disagree" - but is that an opinion to take into consideration when most mass shooters were egregiously untrained, to the point of them injuring themselves during their sprees, missing their targets at close ranges, jamming their weapons and even failing to hit a watermelon with a shotgun at a very close range (Randy Stair). Most of them also bought or procured their weapons in the weeks or months prior to the planned attack and did little training session, often on their own (i.e. without being taught by an actual instructor); in other words, they weren't "gun nuts". Also they were mentally ill, obviously, so again, why give weight to their opinions?

As to ideas on how to help reduce the number of mass shooting, aside from proper gun control and cultural changes I fear might no longer be possible to achieve, I feel like dropping the use of terms such as "high capacity magazine", "assault rifle" and such hysterical, irrational fears would go a long way. If we want to talk about capacity, for instance, the most common semi-autos in the world have a capacity of 15-17 with the latter being more common due to the popularity of the G17 and G19, not to mention GLOCK mags can be found in an astoundingly number of variants (19, 24-26, 31-33 being the most common and leaving custom stuff and drum mags alone), most of which compatible with different models assuming the caliber is the same. Handguns are always more easily concealable and GLOCKs are especially easy to use, much more so than AR-15s and clones thereof. It's also easier to survive a 9 mm or a .223 than a 12 gauge shotgun blast at your typical mass shooting ranges, but again, people are fixated with AR-15s because they look evil and scary. But a shotgun is a lot less scary for some reason.
If people (journalists, politicians and those who listen to them) took the actual technical characteristics of guns and the dynamics of mass shootings (such as the number of perpetrators, number of weapons carried, and the paralyzing effect those events have on people) into consideration instead, maybe that'd help in approaching the issue in a more realistic light. Or to put it on other words, if I were present during a school shooting, I'd much rather have the shooter have a single AR-15 that he'll have to reload than a couple of handguns or a handgun and a shotgun. More chances to find the courage to jump him that way, much less so with the presence of a sidearm. Oh, and more about why the "high capacity" rants are absolute bullshit: what about shell bandoliers? They can hold 50, 100 shells, all of which can be quickly chambered. Fast enough to discourage the already paralyzed victims to try and jump the shooter, so where's the big difference between a guy swapping an AR-15 mag and a guy reloading a shotgun? And mind you, I have no conflict of interest in this: there are no mass shootings here, we have excellent gun control, and there's no need for even talking about "assault rifles" or "high capacity magazines" - in fact you'd expect a 30-rounder to be the standard when purchasing an AR or AK style [strike]assault[/strike] semi-automatic rifle.

[Mayhem]

Handguns very easily beat rifles in terms of frequency, with "rifles having been used in six of the ten deadliest mass shooting events" but either in very unconventional scenarios (such as the LA shooting), or in combination with handguns or shotguns. The ✝ cross symbol indicating the previously deadliest mass shooting is also interesting in those regards. Also, you argue that "mass shooters seem to disagree" - but is that an opinion to take into consideration when most mass shooters were egregiously untrained, to the point of them injuring themselves during their sprees, missing their targets at close ranges, jamming their weapons and even failing to hit a watermelon with a shotgun at a very close range (Randy Stair). Most of them also bought or procured their weapons in the weeks or months prior to the planned attack and did little training session, often on their own (i.e. without being taught by an actual instructor); in other words, they weren't "gun nuts". Also they were mentally ill, obviously, so again, why give weight to their opinions?

When talking about crimes, giving weight to the opinions of criminals is critical. You don't stop future criminals when you only give weight to the opinion of law-abiding folks.

[Coolthulhu]

When talking about crimes, giving weight to the opinions of criminals is critical. You don't stop future criminals when you only give weight to the opinion of law-abiding folks.

That's all you have to say? Little effort on your part given the questions you asked. But have it your way: AR-15s are still the "weapon of choice" of mass shooters in the propaganda of journalists and politicians only, the truth is quite different.

Several types of guns have been used in mass shootings in the United States. A 2014 study conducted by Dr. James Fox of 142 shootings found that 88 (62%) were committed with handguns of all types; 68 (48%) with semi-automatic handguns, 20 (14%) with revolvers, 35 (25%) with semi-automatic rifles, and 19 (13%) with shotguns.

https://psmag.com/news/simple-facts-...t-simple-72055
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...nes-full-data/

[Kellhound]

Because the ones in power don't try to fight the things that lead to school shootings but rather thoughts and prayers themselves out of responsibilities?



Are you ignoring my post?

No, but you are ignoring the true causes of the shootings.

[Mayhem]

That's all you have to say? Little effort on your part given the questions you asked. But have it your way: AR-15s are still the "weapon of choice" of mass shooters in the propaganda of journalists and politicians only, the truth is quite different.

https://psmag.com/news/simple-facts-...t-simple-72055
https://www.motherjones.com/politics...nes-full-data/

Oh, how fun it would be if you'd read my posts. I mean, I keep them short on purpose, yet here you are with stuff I already talked about.

- - - Updated - - -

No, but you are ignoring the true causes of the shootings.

Such as?

/10char

[Kellhound]

Oh, how fun it would be if you'd read my posts. I mean, I keep them short on purpose, yet here you are with stuff I already talked about.

- - - Updated - - -



Such as?

/10char

No one has bothered to look into it. Its much easier to blame an object than the shooters and not the social breakdowns that have led them to resort to violence when in years past that was not the case.

[Mayhem]

No one has bothered to look into it. Its much easier to blame an object than the shooters and not the social breakdowns that have led them to resort to violence when in years past that was not the case.

Obviously, there are other things at play as well, but the prevalence of firearms is also part of the problem. As much as one shouldn't ignore what leads to mass shootings, one shouldn't ignore that for mass shootings to occur there have to be firearms around.

[Coolthulhu]

Oh, how fun it would be if you'd read my posts. I mean, I keep them short on purpose, yet here you are with stuff I already talked about.

That’s rich, considering you stated stuff I had to disprove twice because you didn’t bother reading the link in my post, and asked me questions which I answered and you conveniently ignored. As usual you’re not here to constructively contribute to the discussion, no, you’re only interested in winning interned fights. Way to go.

[Kellhound]

Obviously, there are other things at play as well, but the prevalence of firearms is also part of the problem. As much as one shouldn't ignore what leads to mass shootings, one shouldn't ignore that for mass shootings to occur there have to be firearms around.

AR-15s predate the outbreak of mass shootings by decades. They are not the problem.

[Attackrabbit]

AR-15s predate the outbreak of mass shootings by decades. They are not the problem.

Didn't realise AR-15s had been around since the 19th century