Redskins Diehard

I understand what you're saying. I happen to think that in the hands of an average user a revolver is significantly less lethal than a semiautomatic handgun and a handgun is significantly less lethal than a semiautomatic rifle(in mass shooting situations). Every reload introduces a chance for malfunction. Even in the hands of the most trained shooter there is a decrease in volume of fire and accuracy. For what it's worth I've fired just about every weapon in the Army inventory from 9mm to main gun on Abrams. Qualified on everything from 9m, m4, m203, m249, and m240. Have fired thousands of 9mm rounds and tens of thousands(if not 100k) of 5.56. Here are some observations. A semiautomatic rifle is basically point and pull from about 25 yards and in. A pistol is not. In hundreds of combat patrols/ engagements I never once used the bayonet lug on my assault rifle. I never once used the collapsible stock(it was fully extended everytime we rolled out) The flash suppressor did not contribute to the lethality of the weapon system except maybe when firing with NVGs. What makes the weapon I carried in combat effective were not the things captured in the 94 ban. What did make it effective was rate of fire(function of semi auto and ease of reload) and damage of the round(function of accuracy and muzzle velocity). I think we need to regulate weapons with those characteristics the same way we regulate M4s, and M249s, and M240s. I would rather someone have a bayonet lug, collapsible stock, and flash suppressor on a bolt action rifle than have a semi automatic rifle with none of those things.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/27/gun-research-social-science/

Complete misrepresentation of what I argued burgold. Would have thought you were better at reading comprehension. Let's go ahead and ban bayonets, flash suppressors, and collapsible stocks... that will fix everything. Either way an assault weapon ban will require a definition of that which is being banned. Choose to define it however you want. Go ahead and base it on your understanding of what makes that weapon so good at what it does

There is no universal definition of "mass shooting" but I do not believe a change in definition is responsible for the change in numbers. Most mass shootings do not involve rifles of any kind and do not receive much attention in the public consciousness.

We do have an idea. Anyone who has an elementary understanding of the weapon has an idea what role those characteristics played. The next time we read about someone attaching a bayonet to the end of their "assault rifle" will be the first time

Are you going to answer the question directly posed? Or acknowledge those things regulated by the ban play no role? To be clear... what I have proposed multiple times in this thread is far more restrictive than the 94 ban.

You are correct. There is currently no agreed upon definition of "assault weapon/rifle". And that lack of a definition is a problem. The only one that we have ever had, to my knowledge at least, is the 1994 ban. That is why I do not like using the term. Which is why I reengaged in this thread. If we are going to continue using the term then we must define it. I have said semi automatic, high velocity, with external magazine. That definition captures what makes this weapon lethal. The previous definition of bayonet lug, flash suppressor, and collapsible stock does not. Automatic weapons that you referenced ARE available but regulated. You CAN buy one. I walked through the nation's gun show in Chantilly and they no kidding had a .50 cal machine gun available for purchase. The same exact weapon we mounted on HMMWVs in the Army. If you want to buy it you have to get an FFL stamp.(and come up with the 50k purchase price) You can buy just about anything in the Army inventory going through that process. In the spirit of "well regulated militia". In the state of VA at least you already have to be 21 to purchase a handgun. What I have said throughout these last few pages at least is pass these same regulations for semi automatic, high velocity, external magazine rifles right now. There is precedent for all of this. Additional work would be required to address the other flavors of gun violence. Universal background checks, waiting periods etc are good starts there. Oh, we live in a single variable world. Tell the class Burgold... how have bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and collapsible stocks played a role in these mass murders?

No offense but your post isn't very bright and seemingly ignorant on the history related to this topic. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban created a definition that had no impact on the lethality of the weapon system. If you aren't interested in creating a definition that addresses those characteristics then it seems like you are interested in legislative theatrics. I'm interested in decreasing the frequency and lethality of these attacks. Perhaps if you read the thread before popping off you would have seen that I have provided the definition that addresses that numerous times in this thread. So go ahead. Follow your strategy and continue to watch these events take place over and over again

You can't regulate that which you can't define. The biggest problem with the 1994 assault weapon ban was that it didn't ban that which made the firearm as lethal as it is. Same with "red flag laws"...if you are going to pass a red flag law then you have to define what is a red flag. Popular buzzwords are not going to do a damn thing if they aren't defined in an intelligent and meaningful way. Your suggestion for an algorithm was beyond foolish. Maybe well intentioned but still foolish. Laws and regulations require very clear and precise definitions. That is if you want them to accomplish what they are intended to accomplish. I understand your frustration. And assume you are well intentioned. But I think you would benefit from learning more about this topic.

Sorry but you aren't worth the time and effort. Why discuss with someone who is tired of it?

I agree. I think so at least. There are things that can be done to make it more difficult to carry out sensational mass shooting crimes. The kind that get this thread bumped and garner 24x7 news coverage. There are other things that can address the rest of gun violence(which is the vast majority) It is going to take work. First step is people educating themselves

The guy has bemoaned the lack of honesty conversation a couple of times. But is not willing to listen to anything other than his own viewpoint. Which doesn't offer a solution. Well other than a national "profiling" program which is sure to cause innumerable problems. Wait until his profiling suggestions disproportionately impact groups he didn't mean to hit

This is true. I am interested in how people would define what they mean by "Bubba". I'm guessing it's used to put a bow around a bunch of stereotypical generalizations. I also don't think the former military are the ones we need to be most worried about. (Not saying proliferation among that community is cool... just not the biggest worry right now) Make it harder for everyone to obtain these weapons. Age restrictions. Waiting periods. FFL. For ALL high velocity, external magazines weapons. Right now. Today. That will not stop everything. Will make it harder. Do that and then have a discussion about the so called Bubbas out there

And the thing is... politicians are best positioned to do something proactive about this. Everyone else is reacting. Police, medics, doctors. All forced to react. ****ing politicians could play the hero by doing something, anything, to make it even a little more difficult to get the equipment needed to inflict mass casualties on people going about their lives

I'm with you. If you're defending your home out beyond about 20 yards I'm not sure how much actual "defense" is going on at that point. Good old shotgun is probably best for defense. Much more forgiving in limited visibility and high stress as far as accuracy is concerned. Also not nearly the concern for rounds traveling through walls etc.

This can be addressed through muzzle velocity and barrel length. Handgun regulations should be revisited also. But to regulate the weapons commonly used in these situations it's muzzle velocity and external magazines. That's how you differentiate between a traditional hunting rifle, a handgun, and the weapons used in these crimes. Nobody under age 21 and require a FFL stamp. (In addition to background checks)

I added it above. But I would do following immediately: Require FFL for high velocity, semi automatic rifles. Ban production of high capacity magazines(greater than 10 rounds) Nobody under age 21 Again, just a start. And just for the sake of clarity... military grade weapons of war already require an FFL.

Never said I was the only gun control expert. Never claimed to even be an expert. What I have said is what we're doing isn't working. Maybe we should try something different. So explain to me please... how does a bayonet lug contribute to lethality? How does a flash suppressor contribute to lethality? How does a collapsible stock contribute to lethality? Take those 3 things away and you no longer have an "assault weapon" as we've defined in law. How would you define it? Only thing I would add is high velocity. And while a "ban" would be best case. Just regulate them like we do with the truly military grade weapons. Require an FFL. If we can't stop it... at least make it a challenge. And less lethal when it does happen Add: would also add age requirement for any high velocity, semi automatic rifle. 21 or older. If you want to look like GI Joe before that you can join the Army. And I know none of this would stop it, or make it impossible. But it would make it harder and less deadly. Maybe that's a start

The debate here has been uninformed for years. Just like it's uniformed in public discourse. And keeps getting us the same result. Maybe try something new? Like getting yourself informed on the issue if you aren't I don't think they are being forced to. I hear stuff from elected representatives that is ignorant on this topic. It is a bunch of people talking about irrelevant stuff. And not about the characteristics of these guns that make them as lethal as they are

Sure. Nothing can be done. So may as well think and pray. We can do that right? If you want to stand a chance against a lobby educate yourself. And don't let politicians get away with meaningless promises like "common sense gun laws" or use stupid terms like "military style weapons". I promise you can't buy a single weapon found in a light infantry squad without a federal firearms license. The only 2 weapons found in an infantry company that you can are the 870 shotgun and 9mm. And those aren't what it's being used in these attacks.

Sure... it's because blah blah blah NRA blah blah right wing nutjobs. That strategy is working great. It's the gun control equivalent to thoughts and prayers

I'm all for additional regulations to minimize the ease with which someone can procure the weapons generally used in these attacks and to minimize to the extent possible the lethality of them. It's extremely frustrating that we can't have the discussion because we talk about the wrong things and use words that don't mean anything. If we use the definition of "assault weapon" as defined by the 1994 federal ban then we aren't talking about things that reduce lethality. Bayonet lugs? Flash suppressors? Folding stocks? None of those contribute to the lethality. We need to be talking about things like muzzle velocity and exchangeable magazines. If you are passionate about gun control and preventing these tragedies then please take the time to learn. It doesn't take long. We need to regulate high velocity, semi automatic, external magazine rifles. "Assault weapons" means nothing

Trading Ovi would be about the most colossally stupid thing to do. There is no trade that is greater than having the greatest scorer of all time finish his career in DC. They'll stay competitive. About like they were this year. No rebuild. No title run. Pretty much status quo.

Next 3 years is all about being decent and Ovi hunting down Gretzky.

I maxed out on ibonds end of 21 and beginning of 22 figuring the 7 percent it was paying for that 6 months would be better than anything else even if it went down to 0.... and then it went up.