The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread
Discussion
dvs_dave said:
Why do you get so bogged down on AR-15 semantics and the needless chicanery it introduces into the discussion? It’s simple. A Colt AR-15 is the semi-auto civilian version of what’s commonly known as the M-16 rifle (and others) which is the fully auto military version. It’s the same gun, just slightly different internals to allow full auto mode.
Exactly, it's a civilian market rifle. Not a military rifle. The word 'military' doesn't need to enter the discussion and is only used to illicit an emotional response. It's not really any different to a Ruger Mini-14 yet the latter escapes the 'military-style' sticker because it has wooden furniture.dvs_dave said:
Noodle1982 said:
Like I said, clueless. Absolutely clueless.
How about you contribute something useful, you simpleton.It's pointless even trying to debate the issue with someone who wants a civilian version of an already civilian gun.
The media have achieved their goal of educating the masses on their own version of all things gun related. Unfortunately the majority of it is incorrect.
j_4m said:
dvs_dave said:
Ok I’ll let you lure me in. But firstly, what terminology would you rather be used instead of “military style”? Plenty of objections from gun nuts on the phrase, but no suggestions ever for an alternative?
There is no alternative, it's a nonsense term coined by people who want to paint said weapons in a bad light. Describe the thing you are actually talking about in the correct language, you want to ban all semi-automatic rifles.dvs_dave said:
Bigger picture is that banning guns is not the answer as it won’t stop mass murders from happening, and there’s simply too many out there to manage.
However there is no legitimate reason for any civilian in a civilized country to need a semi-auto that is able to continue rapidly firing until it’s out of rounds. There is no legitimate sportsman situation where such functionality is needed either.
The Americans have a very legitimate reason, it's a constitutionally protected right. For countries that aren't America sporting interest should be legitimate reason enough; you don't need to do sport at all. To argue that you should only do the bare minimum of what's required for an activity to be a sport defeats the whole purpose of sport.However there is no legitimate reason for any civilian in a civilized country to need a semi-auto that is able to continue rapidly firing until it’s out of rounds. There is no legitimate sportsman situation where such functionality is needed either.
dvs_dave said:
As I’ve mentioned, a sensible approach would be to introduce civilian versions having a mechanical limit on how many shots (say 6) can be fired between having to perform some sort of manual reset procedure. Such a feature would not detract from sportsman usage, but would all of a sudden make any semi-auto capable of holding more than 6 rounds much less of an effective tool for mass murders, which is the point.
No one truly has an issue with legitimate and sensible semi-auto sportsman gun ownership. It only becomes a problem when all too often, these weapons get deliberately misused as they are so devastatingly effective in their current form. Limit their effectiveness in that area, limit their lethality when being misused.
They already are civilian versions, no military in the world uses an AR-15, and I'm glad we agree that it's the people and not the weapons that are at fault. Tighten up the controls on the people, not the object itself.No one truly has an issue with legitimate and sensible semi-auto sportsman gun ownership. It only becomes a problem when all too often, these weapons get deliberately misused as they are so devastatingly effective in their current form. Limit their effectiveness in that area, limit their lethality when being misused.
No system is 100% perfect, so it's not possible for one to be devised which would weed out all the undesirables from getting firearms. That's why he suggested changes to the design to reduce the lethality without compromising lawful use too much.
New York seem to be trying to tackle the problem from both directions - restrictions on the hardware and better vetting/monitoring/response programmes.
https://expo.syracuse.com/news/g66l-2019/01/b918a7...
rscott said:
It's pretty obvious by "civilian version" he meant one with a very low capacity before a reset of some kind is required.
No system is 100% perfect, so it's not possible for one to be devised which would weed out all the undesirables from getting firearms. That's why he suggested changes to the design to reduce the lethality without compromising lawful use too much.
New York seem to be trying to tackle the problem from both directions - restrictions on the hardware and better vetting/monitoring/response programmes.
https://expo.syracuse.com/news/g66l-2019/01/b918a7...
The increased waiting time is a good idea, regardless of background checks it should weed out impulse buyers who want something quick for the wrong reasons. I don't think it'll have any effect on New York's murder and violent crime rate, however. The thing that seems to be reducing that is more spending and resources for the police (take note UK gov...).No system is 100% perfect, so it's not possible for one to be devised which would weed out all the undesirables from getting firearms. That's why he suggested changes to the design to reduce the lethality without compromising lawful use too much.
New York seem to be trying to tackle the problem from both directions - restrictions on the hardware and better vetting/monitoring/response programmes.
https://expo.syracuse.com/news/g66l-2019/01/b918a7...
rscott said:
It's pretty obvious by "civilian version" he meant one with a very low capacity before a reset of some kind is required.
No system is 100% perfect, so it's not possible for one to be devised which would weed out all the undesirables from getting firearms. That's why he suggested changes to the design to reduce the lethality without compromising lawful use too much.
New York seem to be trying to tackle the problem from both directions - restrictions on the hardware and better vetting/monitoring/response programmes.
https://expo.syracuse.com/news/g66l-2019/01/b918a7...
Of course it’s obvious. But the fake news brigade will use any excuse to derail the actual topic of discussion into a semantics driven tit for tat points scoring exercise because they know they don’t have any bulletproof (see what I did there No system is 100% perfect, so it's not possible for one to be devised which would weed out all the undesirables from getting firearms. That's why he suggested changes to the design to reduce the lethality without compromising lawful use too much.
New York seem to be trying to tackle the problem from both directions - restrictions on the hardware and better vetting/monitoring/response programmes.
https://expo.syracuse.com/news/g66l-2019/01/b918a7...
) real world sensible justifications to support their position.Looks like NZ is now experiencing their Dunblane moment.
I know very little about guns having only owned BB guns as a child and only fired real guns a few times (.22 rifle at ATC and shotgunswhen on a stag do) but this whole limiting mindset is the same mindset on vehicles which allows Volvo to cap their cars at 112mph.
It's not the tool that needs to change its the person behind it, anything could be used as a weapon, a lot more people die from fists and knifes.
I know very little about guns having only owned BB guns as a child and only fired real guns a few times (.22 rifle at ATC and shotgunswhen on a stag do) but this whole limiting mindset is the same mindset on vehicles which allows Volvo to cap their cars at 112mph.
It's not the tool that needs to change its the person behind it, anything could be used as a weapon, a lot more people die from fists and knifes.
dvs_dave said:
Ok I’ll let you lure me in. But firstly, what terminology would you rather be used instead of “military style”? Plenty of objections from gun nuts on the phrase, but no suggestions ever for an alternative?
Bigger picture is that banning guns is not the answer as it won’t stop mass murders from happening, and there’s simply too many out there to manage.
However there is no legitimate reason for any civilian in a civilized country to need a semi-auto that is able to continue rapidly firing until it’s out of rounds. There is no legitimate sportsman situation where such functionality is needed either.
As I’ve said, you want to ban things. Be honest that you want to ban things. Say you want to ban it, because you think the potential to do bad things with guns outweighs other considerations. Even if gun owners disagreed with you, you would have a logical argument. Bigger picture is that banning guns is not the answer as it won’t stop mass murders from happening, and there’s simply too many out there to manage.
However there is no legitimate reason for any civilian in a civilized country to need a semi-auto that is able to continue rapidly firing until it’s out of rounds. There is no legitimate sportsman situation where such functionality is needed either.
Referring to ‘military style’ guns just makes you look like you don’t know anything. Stuff is not ‘military style’ because it looks like something the military buys. You just want to ban semi-automatics, so say you want to ban semi-automatics. Since you want to ban things like guns, it’s is in your interests to call them by their correct term which is semi automatic, as there are many guns which have some very nice looking polished walnut furniture. They don’t look at all military, but being semi-auto when you are on your banning frenzy, you could ban them too.
As an FYI, there are genuine ‘military style’ rifles on sale to the public in the UK. They are cosmetically and functionally identical to their military counterparts. This is why caring on like a pork chop about banning ‘military style’ indicates you don’t know what you are talking about. You want to ban semi-automatic rifles. So call them semi-automatic rifles.
As for the suggestion that semi-autos can be converted to full auto: yes they can but it is not easy at all. You would need to procure parts with very tight international controls, or machine them yourself with specialist tools. I’m not aware of any crimes committed with semi-autos which have been illegally converted to full-auto.
DurianIceCream said:
dvs_dave said:
Ok I’ll let you lure me in. But firstly, what terminology would you rather be used instead of “military style”? Plenty of objections from gun nuts on the phrase, but no suggestions ever for an alternative?
Bigger picture is that banning guns is not the answer as it won’t stop mass murders from happening, and there’s simply too many out there to manage.
However there is no legitimate reason for any civilian in a civilized country to need a semi-auto that is able to continue rapidly firing until it’s out of rounds. There is no legitimate sportsman situation where such functionality is needed either.
As I’ve said, you want to ban things. Be honest that you want to ban things. Say you want to ban it, because you think the potential to do bad things with guns outweighs other considerations. Even if gun owners disagreed with you, you would have a logical argument. Bigger picture is that banning guns is not the answer as it won’t stop mass murders from happening, and there’s simply too many out there to manage.
However there is no legitimate reason for any civilian in a civilized country to need a semi-auto that is able to continue rapidly firing until it’s out of rounds. There is no legitimate sportsman situation where such functionality is needed either.
Referring to ‘military style’ guns just makes you look like you don’t know anything. Stuff is not ‘military style’ because it looks like something the military buys. You just want to ban semi-automatics, so say you want to ban semi-automatics. Since you want to ban things like guns, it’s is in your interests to call them by their correct term which is semi automatic, as there are many guns which have some very nice looking polished walnut furniture. They don’t look at all military, but being semi-auto when you are on your banning frenzy, you could ban them too.
As an FYI, there are genuine ‘military style’ rifles on sale to the public in the UK. They are cosmetically and functionally identical to their military counterparts. This is why caring on like a pork chop about banning ‘military style’ indicates you don’t know what you are talking about. You want to ban semi-automatic rifles. So call them semi-automatic rifles.
Tell us if you believe that of all the mass murders committed with firearms over the past decades, the death tolls wouldn’t have been any different if semi-auto large capacity magazine military style (
too much fun to stop) weapons hadn’t been used by the perpetrator(s). Your answer to this simple question will tell us all we need to know.dvs_dave said:
You quoted a post we’re i specifically said “banning guns is not the answer” and then you go on to put words in my mouth by saying that I want them banned.
Tell us if you believe that of all the mass murders committed with firearms over the past decades, the death tolls wouldn’t have been any different if semi-auto large capacity magazine military style ( too much fun to stop) weapons hadn’t been used by the perpetrator(s). Your answer to this simple question will tell us all we need to know.
Well I'm not sure exactly what you want to ban - remember you were saying 'military style' is semantics (but you want to ban it anyway) but I guessed that military style to you means semi-auto, but it could also include bolt action rifles which just look a bit military. So you wanting to ban a lot of guns seems to cover it. Tell us if you believe that of all the mass murders committed with firearms over the past decades, the death tolls wouldn’t have been any different if semi-auto large capacity magazine military style (
too much fun to stop) weapons hadn’t been used by the perpetrator(s). Your answer to this simple question will tell us all we need to know.The Vegas murderer would have killed a lot less people if he did not have an AR-15, but he modified it by converting it to effectively fully automatic by the bump stock which goes against the intent of the prohibition of automatic firearms in civilian hands.
The remainder, I don't see that semi-auto makes a difference, when someone goes out wanting to kill. The mass murders (Vegas excepted) generally don't rely on rapid, indiscriminate fire. And as we have seen, people determined to kill can do as much or more with a truck or a bomb. Even if you wanted to rely on rapid fire, you could still use a handgun which is legal still in Australia, NZ and in the UK too, you could cut the butt extension off and still end up with a handgun.
What difference do you think looking cosmetically a bit military makes?
DurianIceCream said:
John145 said:
When a rifle can fire as fast as you can move your index finger forwards and backwards 10mm then this is in reality fully automatic. Also this type of weapon has no place in civilian life. No practical requirement whatsoever.
If there is no practical requirement, why is the practical shooting discipline and accepted good reason to own a semi-auto rifle in the UK? It's also an accepted good reason to own an AR-15 in countries which still allow them, which is most of continental Europe.As I said on the other thread, just be honest and say you don't like them and want them banned. There's no point pretending there are no shooting disciplines where semi-autos aren't used, since clearly there are.
Of course there are many other rifle types I am perfectly happy to accept that have much higher penetration and muzzle velocity but for me the key point is not the killing potential of a single round it is the rate at which the rounds can be fired.
Any moron who thinks fully auto makes a rifle into a killer is someone who doesn't understand. When you want to kill people, you are on single fire or burst. Why? Because each shot is aimed. Full auto is for suppression. If you burst into a room of people and full auto your 30 round magazine you will kill less people then going in and firing 30 rounds with each trigger pull.
Why? Because the Rate of fire is so fast the muzzle cannot be turned accurately or far enough, quickly enough, to hit everyone. You take that extra 20-50ms per shot to point and you're doing much more killing.
Now imagine someone burst into the room with a M95 Barrett and start shooting. You're firing one round before everyone is on you.
Bolt action is much safer for everyone whilst not stopping anyone target shooting, hunting or conducting sport. I really can't justify any kind of automatic weapon for a civilian. If you're too lazy to work a bolt action when target practicing then you're never going to be winning anything.
John145 said:
I really can't justify any kind of automatic weapon for a civilian. If you're too lazy to work a bolt action when target practicing then you're never going to be winning anything.
Do you need to rethink your post - automatic rifles are not legally available to civilians anywhere (exceptionally limited exceptions in the US and probably failed states with no laws)DurianIceCream said:
John145 said:
I really can't justify any kind of automatic weapon for a civilian. If you're too lazy to work a bolt action when target practicing then you're never going to be winning anything.
Do you need to rethink your post - automatic rifles are not legally available to civilians anywhere (exceptionally limited exceptions in the US and probably failed states with no laws)John145 said:
Yes they are. Any rifle that reloads from recoil is automatic. Happy to help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_riflehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle
You don't need to take my word or Wikipedia's word for it. Semi-auto and automatic is defined in legislation by governments around the world, including in the UK and including in NZ. Automatic is prohibited.
We could forget about what me, Wikipedia and legislation which has passed through parliament says and just use your definition though.
DurianIceCream said:
As for the suggestion that semi-autos can be converted to full auto: yes they can but it is not easy at all. You would need to procure parts with very tight international controls, or machine them yourself with specialist tools. I’m not aware of any crimes committed with semi-autos which have been illegally converted to full-auto.
Yes I know, and said as much in a previous post. “Albeit not that easily” was the specific syntax I used, for the avoidance of doubt.However a quick google uncovers virtually limitless news stories of “skilled machinists” being busted for illegally converting semi-autos into full auto. So it’s evidently not actually that difficult in the grand scheme.
Although interestingly I don’t think many (any?) mass murders have actually been carried out using full auto, or illegally converted semi autos. Presumably the market for them is collectors and gang bangers, both of whom tend to have deep pockets, but not be mass murderers.
Mass murders generally seem to be committed with legally obtained semi auto assault weapons in virtually every case. And it’s not your typical “criminal” that does it either. It’s more often than not a gun enthusiast/fanatic who legally bought them. You know, someone perhaps just like yourself.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff