• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
CaptainHowdy said:
They are all EXACTLY like an AR15 in that they can fire a projectile. If you were a kid who wanted to shoot up the school and you didn’t have an AR-15, you don’t think any of your guns could be used instead? They couldn’t even be modified in some way that would allow them to be used to shoot somebody? Really?
Click to expand...
Sorry, modified in some way to shoot somebody? Pretty sure no working gun needs a modification to shoot somebody.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
When you talk about banning the AR-15 and all guns similar to the AR-15, you're talking about banning pretty much all sporting rifles. If you're talking about every gun that performs the same function as an AR-15, as in 'fire a projectile' that's every gun. So when someone says they only want to ban the AR-15 and guns that perform a similar function, they want to ban all guns.
Click to expand...

In the same manner that a law that says it is illegal to drive an F1 racecar on public roads is just a slippery slope away from banning all motor vehicles because they all use an internal combustion engine? The proposals from the public (because your politicians lack the courage to propose anything the NRA might disapprove of) are to: tighten up background checks, develop better regulations as to who is able to purchase firearms and to possibly restrict access to certain classes of firearms.

You've hit reducto ad absurdum - a proposed ban on a class of firearms is NOT the same thing as a ban on all firearms.

If you want to discuss matters like a reasonable adult the rest of society will be here - we won't be waiting for you, so you'll need to catch up.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
They are all EXACTLY like an AR15 in that they can fire a projectile. If you were a kid who wanted to shoot up the school and you didn’t have an AR-15, you don’t think any of your guns could be used instead? They couldn’t even be modified in some way that would allow them to be used to shoot somebody? Really?
Click to expand...

They are exactly like an aardvark in that each weighs more than 400 grams, and yet everyone else can figure out the difference between a .22 hunting rifle and an aardvark, and everyone else can figure out the difference between a .22 hunting rifle and an AR-15. Of course, you know the difference as well. You're just creating a diversion.

The one gun I own that might cause some confusion is the Mauser. It was manufactured specifically to kill people, so if you wrote the laws badly, you might end up banning the Mauser along with the AR-15. It's a chance I'm willing to take.



There is a serious question that will have to be answered about why should one set of guns be banned and not another set. It's a worthwhile question, and I don't want to blow off any serious questions about it, so I'll do my best to answer it. First, I'm not going to go into exact detail about exactly which technical details make a gun bannable. When that's done, the legislation will be several pages long, with an appendix to define terms and a set of clarifying regulations and on and on and on. That's not someplace I'm going to go.

The short answer is that some guns make sense in self defense scenarios that an ordinary person could find themselves in, outside of their fantasy lives. i.e. That pistol really could be used to get a burglar out of your house, or to end the life of a rapist. It's a good choice for that role. Most of my guns are very good at firing at deer, where you only get one or two shots before they've bolted. Those are legitimate purposes.

You could do that with an AR-15, too, but you don't need it. The AR-15 is good for firing lots of bullets, very quickly. When do you need that? As best I can tell, you need that if you have a lot of moving targets, or you are in a fire-fight with people shooting back at you, and you need to provide suppressing fire, or you can't afford to take the time to aim a shot. That's it. An ordinary citizen, outside of their fantasy lives, will never be in a firefight, and will never have multiple moving targets. There's no good reason for an ordinary citizen to ever own that weapon. Given that no one needs that weapon, but that it can be used for mass murder, I think it should be banned for sale to ordinary citizens.

There's another serious follow up question about why we ought to allow guns that are useful in self defense or hunting, when we know that they can also be used by criminals to kill people. That is also a legitimate question, and not everyone agrees on the answer. My answer is that, whether we like it or not, we have a 2nd amendment, and the Supreme Court has ruled that a blanket ban on handguns would violate that provision of the constitution. I've read that opinion, and find no flaw with it.

I'm not sure what I would do if there were actually a movement to repeal the 2nd amendment. I could make arguments either way, that it was still necessary, or that it was outdated. However, it doesn't really matter. It's there. The courts recognize it. There's insufficient political will to even think about getting rid of it, so there it is. I, for one, am opposed to the school of thought that says that we can ignore parts of the constitution we don't like, or that we can insert parts that we think they should have included. Therefore we have the right to keep and bear arms. There won't be any blanket ban on all firearms.
 
Last edited:
CaptainHowdy said:
When you talk about banning the AR-15 and all guns similar to the AR-15, you're talking about banning pretty much all sporting rifles. If you're talking about every gun that performs the same function as an AR-15, as in 'fire a projectile' that's every gun. So when someone says they only want to ban the AR-15 and guns that perform a similar function, they want to ban all guns.
Click to expand...

This is Poe, isn't it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Like I said, it's strange how easily you recognise different categories of people but can't recognise different categories of gun. But, hey, if you want to argue that a Brown Bess musket is exactly the same as an M61 Vulcan because they both fire a projectile, and the difference between weights of projectile and rates of fire is irrelevant, please go ahead. I'm sure everyone will adjust their view of your credibility accordingly.

Dave
Click to expand...
If Nikolas Cruz had walked into the school armed with a brown bess musket is it impossible that anybody would be hurt? Nothing he could do with this musket except maybe hit another kid with it?

Remember that our goal here is to ban assault rifles and other guns like the assault rifle because school shootings. So the relevant categories of weapons are those that be used in school shootings and those that cannot. If you want to argue that given the weight of projectile and rate of fire, the Brown Bess musket falls into the second category please go ahead. I'm sure everyone will adjust their view of your credibility accordingly.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
If Nikolas Cruz had walked into the school armed with a brown bess musket is it impossible that anybody would be hurt?
Click to expand...

Perfect Solution Fallacy. A classic example. Seventeen deaths, in your world, are no worse than "that anybody would be hurt."

If you were trying to undermine your own position you couldn't do it better.

Dave
 
CaptainHowdy said:
....So the relevant categories of weapons are those that be used in school shootings and those that cannot......
Click to expand...

Did you mean "that can be used"? Because that's quite important. You are, for your own purposes, making a category which is infinite. You could ban rubber bands under your categorisation. An honest person would have argued "have been used in school shootings" or "are most often used in school shootings" or "would save the most lives if not available for school shootings". You see? Dishonest word-play to try to score a few internet points.......it's a crappy tactic.
 
Last edited:
CaptainHowdy said:
If Nikolas Cruz had walked into the school armed with a brown bess musket is it impossible that anybody would be hurt? Nothing he could do with this musket except maybe hit another kid with it?

Remember that our goal here is to ban assault rifles and other guns like the assault rifle because school shootings. So the relevant categories of weapons are those that be used in school shootings and those that cannot. If you want to argue that given the weight of projectile and rate of fire, the Brown Bess musket falls into the second category please go ahead. I'm sure everyone will adjust their view of your credibility accordingly.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone is taking that specific position. Other mass shooting apply too of course, there were 2 pretty bad ones in 2017 as I recall. I'll say it again, I own an AR-15. Why? Well it was given to me. I shoot it for fun every now and again. I'm not a "preper" but say there was mass rioting or such, I'd want it then. I did take stock and acquired some emergency supplies after the last election. I'd prefer it over a muzzle loading musket, cause its quite a bit better. Saying it, and other similar guns*, aren't more effective than a Brown Bess is just plain nonsensical.

*I mean semi-auto, box magazines, intermediate rifle cartridges, not "looks scary"
 
AJM8125 said:
Here in California, we’re potentially just one Supreme Court decision from banning the sale of handguns to the general public, something that isn’t flying on the average california’s radar. In an anti-gunners wet dream, the requirement for microstamping has halted the sale of new semi-automatic handguns which do not meet that requirement. Semi-autos on the roster now are grandfathered in but will eventually be phased out.

Gun manufacturers of course balked at the law because as written, is impossible to implement. The California DOJ’s response? Then you’re certainly welcome to sell your guns elsewhere. Legal challenges at the state level have failed.

Theoretically, if the SCOTUS declines to hear or rules against the current legal challenges, California may then ban the sale of revolvers and derringers as well since they don’t eject microstamped cartridges either. Then the state may then focus on chipping away at long arms. Nifty. Other gun-unfriendly states will be free to implement similar measures.

Incidentally, the Attorney General who signed this legislation, Kamala Harris, is now a US Senator. Look for her to try pushing through something similar when the Democrats regain control after the mid-terms.

So there you have the seeds planted, perhaps.
Click to expand...
Hogwash! I've been reassured that 'nobody wants to take my guns away.'
 
Meadmaker said:
They are exactly like an aardvark in that each weighs more than 400 grams, and yet everyone else can figure out the difference between a .22 hunting rifle and an aardvark, and everyone else can figure out the difference between a .22 hunting rifle and an AR-15. Of course, you know the difference as well. You're just creating a diversion.
Click to expand...
Well now you tell me the difference between an aardvark and a .22. I wasted a lot of time breaking into that zoo and even then, didn't kill a single squirrel.

Did okay with ants.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
It's becoming clearer and clearer that this shooting is the result of massive failure of social services and law enforcement.
Click to expand...

No arguement from me. But it’s far easier for people to blame the scary black rifle than it is to fix the societal ills that led to this shooting. Even easier when you’ve managed to convince people that the gun itself is a societal I’ll.
 
AJM8125 said:
No arguement from me. But it’s far easier for people to blame the scary black rifle than it is to fix the societal ills that led to this shooting. Even easier when you’ve managed to convince people that the gun itself is a societal I’ll.
Click to expand...

Do you ignore overwhelming evidence in other fields, not just gun control?
 
AJM8125 said:
Depends. If the 2A is repealed then kiss your guns goodbye.

If California has to work within the 2A, then here’s your single shot pistol, single shot rifle or shotgun or your 22LR revolver.

Want anything else? Move.
Click to expand...

Hogwash - Canada has never had a "second amendment". From the same survey that determined there are 88.4 guns per 100 people in the US found there were about 44 guns per 100 people in Canada.

We consume the same media entertainment. Play the same video games. Were a rural society much like that of the US that is shifting more and more urban. Had the same root source for our laws and legal system. However we have (in my opinion) sensible firearms regulations and a culture that emphasizes more of a cooperative nature than the US (could be the fact that colder and longer winters made it evident that neighbours that work together and look out for each other survive better) and have fewer mass shootings (hell, crime in general) than you do. You might want to consider a cultural shift.
 
How about not letting adults who are so childish that they need to have their hunting rifle look militarized no be allowed to have guns? The fetishization of war in the US is disgusting and purile.
 
autumn1971 said:
How about not letting adults who are so childish that they need to have their hunting rifle look militarized no be allowed to have guns? The fetishization of war in the US is disgusting and purile.
Click to expand...

I've no issue with a militarized looking rifle - of course I am talking about a WWII era standard bolt action military rifle. I'm sure some of the pendants of the "it was used in assaults by the military" school of fetishists arguing about how to classify assault weapons will try to argue that since we took Juno Beach with them that the No. 4 Lee Enfield is as much an assault rifle as the C7A2. Reasonable adults will parse the difference between the two - much like was done when the Enfield, M1 Garand and other rifles with a fixed magazine capacity of more than five rounds were exempted from the max five round magazine capacity for long arms.
 
Border Reiver said:
Hogwash - Canada has never had a "second amendment". From the same survey that determined there are 88.4 guns per 100 people in the US found there were about 44 guns per 100 people in Canada.

We consume the same media entertainment. Play the same video games. Were a rural society much like that of the US that is shifting more and more urban. Had the same root source for our laws and legal system. However we have (in my opinion) sensible firearms regulations and a culture that emphasizes more of a cooperative nature than the US (could be the fact that colder and longer winters made it evident that neighbours that work together and look out for each other survive better) and have fewer mass shootings (hell, crime in general) than you do. You might want to consider a cultural shift.
Click to expand...

Well hooray for Canada.

I’m talking about California, where this cultural shift is beginning to take hold, whether I like it or not. And I don’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom