Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
We could just make a law that says "Any gun (meant for, sold to, or possessed by a private citizen) must require a distant action separate from pulling the trigger (including but not limited to pump action, bolt action, lever action, or slide action) between firing of rounds" and be 99% of the way there.

Again the idea that the law is just sooooooooooooo hard to write is not ringing true to me.

I mean the US Government passed the Patriot Act and it boiled down to "Whatever we say it means to defeat terrorism" so spare me.

"Legalese" is yet another thing that only gets invoked when convenient to stall out a process.
Click to expand...

Just ban semi auto and auto weapons of any kind! why piss around with esoteric definitions?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Depends on what you mean by worked. It definitely lead to some weapons being banned, but the features banned by the AWB were largely aesthetic, not practical.

Take a look at the CETME-L or the Kel-tec RDB

https://marcolmarfirearms.com/shop/cetme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kel-Tec_RDB

This is commonly available in my state of Massachusetts and the only thing it needs done to be AWB compliant is to have a muzzle device that isn't a flash hider welded in place. I don't see how a shooting like Uvalde would have had a different outcome if this, or a mini 14, or any of the other box-fed semi-auto rifles that are AWB compliant.

It's worth pointing out that the Sandy Hook shooting occurred in a state that never repealed their own state-level assault weapons ban which had very similar language to the federal ban, and the AR-15 pattern rifle used was ban compliant.

Even if you're in favor of gun regulation, the assault weapons ban focus on largely cosmetic features like pistol grips or muzzle devices is largely ineffective. There are more ripe intrinsic features to focus on, like removable and large magazines and semi-auto functionality.
Click to expand...
From my link up thread to Trevor Noah's comments: So what, just start somewhere.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Sure, but I'm not sure why you would cite the federal AWB if your goal is meaningful gun control regulation. The AWB is crap legislation that doesn't achieve its intended goals. In a hypothetical situation where there is enough political pressure to make a serious gun control bill pass, passing an AWB style bill would be a wasted opportunity. The gun market quickly responded to create and sell nearly identical firearms that were compliant with the law and were just as lethal as their pre-ban ancestors.

Unless you're talking about a hypothetical AWB that looks very, very different than the kinds that have come before.

ETA: The problem with prior assault weapon bans that have come before isn't that "assault weapon" is vaguely defined. The definition could not be more clear and determining what was or was not an assault weapon required only the ability to count to 2. The problem was that the definition was idiotic.
Click to expand...
1) So what, just start somewhere.

2) I was under the impression it did work and when the law wasn't renewed mass shootings with assault weapons increased.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Just ban semi auto and auto weapons of any kind! why piss around with esoteric definitions?
Click to expand...

Exactly. As we have done in Australia with great effect. No doubt some shooters will say semis are required to kill certain prey/pests. It will be rubbish.
 
Dr.Sid said:
In Australia there was great agreement it should be done. In US there is not.
Click to expand...

Firstly, there was no great agreement in Australia. Port Arthur happened, government acted, game over.

And I think the mood is changing is the US.

Anyway, what is the rational argument for semi automatics? That you can cut a deer in two with one? That they give you more firepower against an imaginary enemy (bear in mind the evidence posted here shows that merely owing a gun makes it far more probable you will get shot)? Other countries have had the debate and decided to ban them. Why is the US terrified of even a debate?
 
lionking said:
Anyway, what is the rational argument for semi automatics? That you can cut a deer in two with one? That they give you more firepower against an imaginary enemy (bear in mind the evidence posted here shows that merely owing a gun makes it far more probable you will get shot)? Other countries have had the debate and decided to ban them. Why is the US terrified of even a debate?
Click to expand...

In America, we need a lot of guns to defend ourselves from our murderous police. You see? There is a reasonable explanation after all.
 
TragicMonkey said:
In America, we need a lot of guns to defend ourselves from our murderous police. You see? There is a reasonable explanation after all.
Click to expand...

There is an element of truth in this, but not enough to keep the status quo (and I know, as almost always, you were joking).
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Even if you're in favor of gun regulation, the assault weapons ban focus on largely cosmetic features like pistol grips or muzzle devices is largely ineffective. There are more ripe intrinsic features to focus on, like removable and large magazines and semi-auto functionality.
Click to expand...

Great then. Let's make a new law that specifies "assault weapons" are guns with removable and large magazines and semi-auto functionality, and other of those intrinsic features. I like it.

However, the fact that the AWB that was initially passed had an imperfect definition that mostly covered "cosmetic features" and yet still resulted in reduced mass shootings - further supported by a skyrocketing number of them when the ban was allowed to expire by a GOP-controlled Congress - is very interesting indeed. As is the fact that the most popular and preferred spree/mass shooting weapon-of-choice at all relevant times was and is the AR-15. Despite the fact that, as you say, the AR-15 could be bought in a "AWB-compliant" configuration, it seems to be the case that even so while the ban was in effect fewer people bought them and went on mass-shooting sprees. While it did not stop mass shootings entirely, objectively speaking the ban had an effect consistent with its intention. It worked.
 
TragicMonkey said:
In America, we need a lot of guns to defend ourselves from our murderous police. You see? There is a reasonable explanation after all.
Click to expand...

Whether you're joking or not, it's worth remembering that when gun-nuts hold rallies and beat their chests about how the "real reason" for the 2nd Amendment is to "oppose tyranny" and use other jingoistic expressions like that "the government should be afraid of its people", what they're actually talking about is killing police officers.
 
catsmate said:
The Texas DPS was insinuating that she was responsible. McCraw, the DPS director, made the claim that negligence allowed the murderer.entry to the school via a good propped open. He has now back-peddled on this claim.

This is one of a number of police/LEA claims that have been withdrawn, including that the murderer was wearing body armour (he wasn't, it seems police simply didn't hit him), that he exchanged fire with a school police officer outside the school (didn't happen). There's also doubt that police actually killed the murderer.

Frankly many of the "official" statements were right up there with the Republicans who claimed the killer was a trans, communist, illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...

Well, "I" certainly wasn't implying that but I definitely got accused of it.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I have a question, is a cop who lies and covers up another cops brutality a good cop or not? The cop isn't brutalizing anyone but is enabling others to do so. Which is exactly why people blame the majority of cops for this problem, because they enable it.
Click to expand...

That cop would be wrong, but not necessarily a "bad cop". If he covered for another cop's brutality, he should be fired. But that does make him a 'bad cop'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom