quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So wishing to stop mass murder is extremist......Fucking laughable

There is something distinctly bizarre about people who style themselves as righteous for supporting laws that will do nothing to solve the problem.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

And you seem to be labouring under the impression mass murders are not a valid point........how sad.

The occurrance of occasional spectacular crimes is not a "point," it's simply a fact. If you can't even distinguish between the two, there is little reason to have much confidence in any thinking that builds upon that confusion. Do you really believe that if Lanza, for example, hadn't had access to an AR-15 the event wouldn't have occurred or the loss of life would have been less? If you do, I'd be entertained to learn how you support that conclusion.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

And you seem to be labouring under the impression mass murders are not a valid point........how sad.

The occurrance of occasional spectacular crimes is not a "point," it's simply a fact. If you can't even distinguish between the two, there is little reason to have much confidence in any thinking that builds upon that confusion. Do you really believe that if Lanza, for example, hadn't had access to an AR-15 the event wouldn't have occurred or the loss of life would have been less? If you do, I'd be entertained to learn how you support that conclusion.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

And you seem to be labouring under the impression mass murders are not a valid point........how sad.

The occurrance of occasional spectacular crimes is not a "point," it's simply a fact. If you can't even distinguish between the two, there is little reason to have much confidence in any thinking that builds upon that confusion. Do you really believe that if Lanza, for example, hadn't had access to an AR-15 the event wouldn't have occurred or the loss of life would have been less? If you do, I'd be entertained to learn how you support that conclusion.

K.

that is the 2nd time I have seen you say that, what exactly would Lanza have used to kill more people?

If he had less access to guns how would he have killed more people?

you seem to be implying that if he couldn't get his hands on a load of guns he might have somehow killed more people.

Entertain us K

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Let me see.......... rate of fire slower...... Gives people more time to do something, as against your idea of do nothing.

What the fuck are you talking about with this "my idea of doing nothing" business? Is possible for you to exchange posts with someone without making shit up? Another case in point regarding making shit up is this "rate of fire" crap. The rate of fire of an AR-15 is no different from that of any other semi-automatic firearm from the smallest pistol on up.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Regarding AR15 rate of fire.......... Got any facts......

It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation about guns with people who don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're talking about. But since that's what we're stuck with, and since you're the one who claimed "rate of fire" as a factor with the AR-15, where are your facts? Hmm? You want a fact? I'll give you one: You don't even know what a semi-automatic firearm is. Because if you did, you wouldn't be making these claims.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Regarding AR15 rate of fire.......... Got any facts......

It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation about guns with people who don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're talking about. But since that's what we're stuck with, and since you're the one who claimed "rate of fire" as a factor with the AR-15, where are your facts? Hmm? You want a fact? I'll give you one: You don't even know what a semi-automatic firearm is. Because if you did, you wouldn't be making these claims.

K.

The usual pedantry,I am still waiting to hear how Lanza would have killed more K

Please entertain us

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Regarding AR15 rate of fire.......... Got any facts......

It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation about guns with people who don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're talking about. But since that's what we're stuck with, and since you're the one who claimed "rate of fire" as a factor with the AR-15, where are your facts? Hmm? You want a fact? I'll give you one: You don't even know what a semi-automatic firearm is. Because if you did, you wouldn't be making these claims.

K.

The usual pedantry,I am still waiting to hear how Lanza would have killed more K

Please entertain us

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So wishing to stop mass murder is extremist......Fucking laughable

There is something distinctly bizarre about people who style themselves as righteous for supporting laws that will do nothing to solve the problem.

K.

And you seem to be labouring under the impression mass murders are not a valid point........how sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Mass shootings are the rarity in gun crimes..really. Multiple means at least two persons killed, mass...more than two.

Calling more than two people getting shot "mass murder" is doublespeak. But interestingly, your link notes that "the relationship between gun availability and homicide rates is, according to an American Journal of Criminal Justice paper, 'not stable across nations.'" In other words, there's no correlation. The rest of the page appears to be serious studies directed toward finding out the real causes. Along those lines, Peter Squires of the University of Brighton, UK, who has studied the problem, finds that...

mass shooters in any nation tend to be loners with not much social support who strike out at their communities, schools and families... Many other countries where gun ownership is high, such as Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Israel, however, tend to have more tight-knit societies where a strong social bond supports people through crises, and mass killings are fewer... What stops crime above all is informal social controls. Close-knit societies where people are supported, where their mood swings are appreciated, where if someone starts to go off the rails it's noted, where you tend to intervene, where there's more support.

Reference: USA Today (reprint)

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So wishing to stop mass murder is extremist......Fucking laughable

There is something distinctly bizarre about people who style themselves as righteous for supporting laws that will do nothing to solve the problem.

K.

And you seem to be labouring under the impression mass murders are not a valid point........how sad.

Okay, lets look at mass murders in the US.

Columbine, not a single weapon qualified under the assault weapon ban then in effect was used.

Virginia Tech, arguably the highest number of victims, both wounded and killed, no assault weapon used, just handguns, and those hand guns are not in the current ban.

Now from a source that is arguably anti gun there are some documented facts to consider.


Source.


Notice anything about the weapons used in the majority of mass killings?

Most of those handguns are not covered under the proposed ban.

Now I will agree to something, most gun owners have no need for an AR based weapon, or even an AK styled weapon.

For home defense, a long arm of any type is more of a hindrance than an asset. Especially when you consider that you cannot use deadly force until the person you constitute as a threat is inside the home. In close quarters, a pistol is the far more effective, and logical choice.

Now, the average hunter, from the stats I have been able to find, uses a lever action, bolt action or a limited capacity semi automatic rifle.

Fundamentally, the AR based rifle is unique in its versatility and has a wide range of configurations.

What are the non homicide related uses, as I have pointed out, dealing various problematic wildlife. The AR can be configured for ease of use in a wide range of wildlife habitat, unlike any other rifle design.

So there is the rub.

Granted, some bright individual at in the employ of a gun manufacture might come up with an equally versatile but the odds are it will fall under the ban.

The US has already put restrictions on fully automatic rifles and sub machine guns, requiring an NFA form, transfer fee and other procedures before you can purchase one, and you cannot purchase an automatic weapon manufactured after 1984.

Instead of a ban, what about purchase restrictions based on intended use?

With the intended use being verifiable, and going so far as to set residence restrictions, such as no sales to people in an urban environment.

That would limit the purchases, and control who buys these weapons.

The majority of doomsday preppers prefer a 22 semi automatic and a shotgun, and agreeably those people are just a bit on the paranoid side of the gun owner group, but a specific configuration of the AR could be set up for them, that would probably be less than one percent of sales.

I am sure such suggestions would be considered blasphemy by the NRA and others, but it does address the legitimate use of the AR design in non military settings.

Would this be just as good as a ban?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

A little bit of an aside, and not entirely serious: but what about painting all guns pink (in an irreversible way, that is)? I'd love to see the results of a psych experiment on that. No change to function, but image somewhat marred . . . .

K.