School shooting Florida

[quadraginta]

1950s? That's not "pretty recently."

By what standard? Plenty of people are still around who lived through the Fifties. That it is still withing the living memory of many people suggests to me that by most standards it is "pretty recently".

How old are you? Whatever words were used in the olden days, people today should know the difference.

Dismissing the Fifties as "the olden days" does little or nothing to advance your argument.

Not least because it is simply wrong.

Hysterically demanding that the government ban weapons that have already been banned makes a person look like they don't know what they're talking about.

If you are claiming that the NRA doesn't know what they are talking about, I'm not going to disagree.

Source for the Dana Loesch quote?

For someone who puts himself forward as such an authority on the topic, you certainly are hesitant to research which constitutes little more than a quick Google search.

Could it be that you fear the result would diminish your position?

 

[quadraginta]

The meaning of "Automatic" can depend on what you are talking about.

Originally, when referring to firearms, "automatic" referred to the reloading mechanism of the rifle, for example an SLR (self-loading rifle) such as an M16, L1A1 or a FN-FAL automatically reloads and cocks the rifle ready for firing after each round is fired.

Note: In the Belgian FN FAL battle rifle, FAL stands for "Fusil Automatique Léger" (Light Automatic Rifle).

When I did my weapons training with the FN-FAL, the instructors specifically and repeatedly called them an automatic rifle "because the rounds were loaded automatically". I'm my time in the military, what is now referred to as "an automatic weapon" was referred to as a "machine gun".

IMO, the correct nomenclature should be

Automatic: Any firewarm that reloads itself or does not require a manual action by the shooter to reload and re-cock.

Semi-Automatic: Any automatic firearm that can only fire one round per trigger pull.

Fully Automatic: Any automatic firearm that can fire multiple rounds per trigger pull.

This would cause far less confusion than the current state of affairs!

Confusion is the state of affairs which the NRA and its supporters are trying to maintain.

People like CaptainHowdy understand very well that the sort of dismissive nitpicking they employ in their transparent ploys to distract from the real problems have no other purpose than to sew confusion. Protestations of "educating" while actually intending insult fool nobody.

 

[quadraginta]

And, while i'm here, it really ticks me off that the American people are too cheap to hire an extra chemistry teacher to improve our pathetic schools, but they'll hire armed guards.


Oh.....and they'll hire grief counselors.

Are grief counselors cheaper than chemistry teachers?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Then you're heading into a colossal strategic blunder that will lead to the ruin of your position.

"They" have a good enough grasp of what they think the issue is. And it's not how many bumps the bump stock could hold or how long the ricochet chamber was in the gun that shot their kids. It's that some ******* who everyone knew was crazy could still get a boom-stick and shoot their kids with it.

You can declare your own unconcern about their opinion

I'm not unconcerned about their opinion. I'm very concerned when people who don't understand an issue are able to influence policy on that issue. That's where we're at today. Huge numbers of people think that banning assault rifles will reduce gun violence. The NYT just published an article on the ease with which guns can be purchased in various countries. Judging by the comments, people are shocked and outraged that all you have to do to buy a rifle in the United States is pass an instant background check and pay for your gun and walk out of the store. How can you even talk to people like that?

. but you don't get to decide whether or not they have, or will vote on, their opinion. If you want policy to be based on a nuanced understanding of the differences between firearms, then do what you can to make sure that people who lack that nuanced understanding acquire it.

How do you do that when everybody is reacting emotionally?

Because like it or not, you're at a watershed here. John Q. and Carol M. Public are on the verge of giving up trying to resolve the issue based on careful assessment of optimum compromise between opposing principles, and will instead start simply advocating and voting their own self-interest, which they increasingly see as having fewer guns of any kind around.

The obvious and inevitable response to "you don't know the proper terminology to distinguish one gun from another, therefore you shouldn't have a say," is going to be, "indeed I do find it difficult to distinguish one kind of gun from another, so let's just KISS and ban them all." That is not the way you want this controversy to play out in the coming years.

I think the best thing we could do right now is yield to the demands of these anti-gun crisis actor children. They think that banning bump stocks and assault rifles will make our schools safer. OK, let's do it. The problem is that bump stocks were in the process of being banned before Parkland and assault rifles have been illegal as long as I can remember.

They think it should be more difficult than simply passing an instant background check to acquire a gun. OK, fine. Let's close all these "loopholes" that making acquiring a gun as easy as it is. Let's start by requiring that all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows be made through a licensed dealer only. Impose a 10-day waiting period after a gun is purchased before it can be released to a purchaser. Require a person to be at least 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun and at least 21 to buy a handgun. Make buying a handgun even more difficult by requiring the purchaser to provide proof of residency as well as proof of age. Maybe even require a potential purchaser to take a class or something that teaches him how to safely use the weapon and then require him to demonstrate this knowledge before he can take possession of his gun.

The only problem with implementing strict regulations like this is that this is the way we do it here in California already. Other states have more or less the same sort of regulations.

This is why it's important for people to know what they're talking about. We can give this latest round of anti-gun activists everything they want because we have already done it. We already know that what they want isn't going to stop gun violence because it hasn't. Let's talk about practical solutions to gun violence. We could start by identifying areas of our cities and parts of our cities where gun violence is rampant and declaring them no gun zones. Anybody living in a no-gun zone wouldn't be able to have a gun. Let's make citizenship a requirement to acquire a gun. A person who is a citizen of another country has no business owning a firearm in the United States so they shouldn't

We could remove millions of guns from circulation without impinging on anybody's rights and thereby make our country a much safer place with just these two suggestions. Neither of these ideas would have done anything to prevent Parkland from happening. But demanding that our government pass legislation that has already been passed like these CNN crisis actors won't shut up about isn't going to do anything either.

 

[jimbob]

There's the problem with so many of the anti-gun people--kids and adults alike--seem to have. They don't have a good grasp on the issue. If somebody says 'bullett' when they mean 'cartridge,' I'm not going to condemn them. But somebody who wants to ban "assault rifles" or doesn't know the difference between 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' doesn't get to have an opinion on gun control.

You have very strong opinions on Muslims and I see no evidence that you have much knowledge about their faith.

Unlike this, that actually makes a difference.

 

[MikeG]

If she doesn't know the difference between auto and semi-auto, no, she doesn't.

What if you think that neither should be in the hands of the populace? Are you allowed your opinion then?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What if you think that neither should be in the hands of the populace? Are you allowed your opinion then?

Nope. Only gun enthusiasts are allowed an opinion, and only if the opinion is against ANY and ALL restrictions on firearms.

 

[Cheetah]

It should not matter if someone knows nothing about guns, except that they want less shootings and killing and less guns.

Gun enthusiasts will obviously know more about guns than others, their opinion is not more valid because of this.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It should not matter if someone knows nothing about guns except that they want less shootings and killing.

But you won't know how to produce less shootings and killings unless you are an expert on guns, love guns, and sleep with one between your legs........

 

[Cheetah]

You also have to own more than five...

 

[Nessie]

There was a little flicker of hope that this mass shooting would make a difference. It has already gone out.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Let's face it. Semi-autos are inferior in possible conflict with government, and for use in militia. You want to defend Mexico border with semis ?
Citizens should have access to full-autos. And anything else. RPGs, AA missilies, heavy artillery.
Also what's the point of being nuclear superpower if you can't buy nukes !?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's face it. Semi-autos are inferior in possible conflict with government, and for use in militia. You want to defend Mexico border with semis ?
Citizens should have access to full-autos. And anything else. RPGs, AA missilies, heavy artillery.
Also what's the point of being nuclear superpower if you can't buy nukes !?

Which of course would be absolutely true if people actually took the second amendment as part of the national defense seriously.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not unconcerned about their opinion. I'm very concerned when people who don't understand an issue are able to influence policy on that issue. That's where we're at today. Huge numbers of people think that banning assault rifles will reduce gun violence. The NYT just published an article on the ease with which guns can be purchased in various countries. Judging by the comments, people are shocked and outraged that all you have to do to buy a rifle in the United States is pass an instant background check and pay for your gun and walk out of the store. How can you even talk to people like that?


How do you do that when everybody is reacting emotionally?



I think the best thing we could do right now is yield to the demands of these anti-gun crisis actor children. They think that banning bump stocks and assault rifles will make our schools safer. OK, let's do it. The problem is that bump stocks were in the process of being banned before Parkland and assault rifles have been illegal as long as I can remember.

They think it should be more difficult than simply passing an instant background check to acquire a gun. OK, fine. Let's close all these "loopholes" that making acquiring a gun as easy as it is. Let's start by requiring that all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows be made through a licensed dealer only. Impose a 10-day waiting period after a gun is purchased before it can be released to a purchaser. Require a person to be at least 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun and at least 21 to buy a handgun. Make buying a handgun even more difficult by requiring the purchaser to provide proof of residency as well as proof of age. Maybe even require a potential purchaser to take a class or something that teaches him how to safely use the weapon and then require him to demonstrate this knowledge before he can take possession of his gun.

The only problem with implementing strict regulations like this is that this is the way we do it here in California already. Other states have more or less the same sort of regulations.

This is why it's important for people to know what they're talking about. We can give this latest round of anti-gun activists everything they want because we have already done it. We already know that what they want isn't going to stop gun violence because it hasn't. Let's talk about practical solutions to gun violence. We could start by identifying areas of our cities and parts of our cities where gun violence is rampant and declaring them no gun zones. Anybody living in a no-gun zone wouldn't be able to have a gun. Let's make citizenship a requirement to acquire a gun. A person who is a citizen of another country has no business owning a firearm in the United States so they shouldn't

We could remove millions of guns from circulation without impinging on anybody's rights and thereby make our country a much safer place with just these two suggestions. Neither of these ideas would have done anything to prevent Parkland from happening. But demanding that our government pass legislation that has already been passed like these CNN crisis actors won't shut up about isn't going to do anything either.

Hmmm.....good point. These measures aren't good enough. Let's rewrite the definition of assault weapons to include AR-15s, and anything else capable of throwing that many bullets that fast. Then let's ban assault weapons.

 

[Border Reiver]

There's the problem with so many of the anti-gun people--kids and adults alike--seem to have. They don't have a good grasp on the issue. If somebody says 'bullett' when they mean 'cartridge,' I'm not going to condemn them. But somebody who wants to ban "assault rifles" or doesn't know the difference between 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' doesn't get to have an opinion on gun control.

I believe they may be defining "the issue" differently than you are.

I believe they are defining the issue as "too many firearms of whatever type are too easily available and this availability needs to be well regulated to ensure public safety."

And on the issue of what constitutes public safety, the public gets an opinion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Crisis actors?
Really?

 

[Meadmaker]

There was a little flicker of hope that this mass shooting would make a difference. It has already gone out.

We'll see. March 24 will be a big day in seeing how well this might work. Hope isn't out yet. What the gun lovers are hoping for is that their small baby step measures, like what they passed in Florida, will be enough to placate people and they won't demand more stringent measures. It might work. They might get past the crisis. However, they are really sticking with the "give guns to teachers" line, and it turns out a lot of people aren't exactly happy with Mr. Kaminsky packing heat in history class.

There's a lot more momentum behind the anti-gun movement than at any time in my lifetime. That even includes back when there was an actual assault weapon ban passed. When that happened, there were a few enthusiastic supporters, and a whole lot of enthusiastic opponents, and the rest, which was a majority or at least a sizable minority, didn't have a strong opinion, so, in terms of gaining votes, opposition to gun control was the sensible position for a finger in the wind politician.


This time, the people who favor gun control are literally marching in the streets. That might change things. The gun lovers are pulling out the same old arguments, but this time, we're calling B. S.

 

[Cheetah]

Crisis actors?
Really?

Good answer!

 

[Thermal]

Good answer!

*bumbling correction mode*

'Er, no no no! I just meant that they were children who acted during a crisis! Yeah, that was it! For real.'

 

[Thermal]

There's the problem with so many of the anti-gun people--kids and adults alike--seem to have. They don't have a good grasp on the issue. If somebody says 'bullett' when they mean 'cartridge,' I'm not going to condemn them. But somebody who wants to ban "assault rifles" or doesn't know the difference between 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' doesn't get to have an opinion on gun control.

A lot of gun owners call semis 'automatics' as a shorthand. I called my .22 Ruger and 12ga Remy autos, knowing full well the difference. The pedantic distinction of 'full auto' is unimportant to civilians, as full autos are so rare. Saying that someone using the common shorthand doesn't deserve an opinion is the cheapest of cheap arguments.

Some of the survivors at Parkland and their families (and as you call them, 'crisis actors') likely do not appreciate the distinction. You think they don't deserve an opinion on the issue? Seriously, do you hear yourself?