The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Larry]

24 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The study is claiming crime rates that actually went down in states WOULD have went down even more w/o the right to carry laws.

 

Seems suspect

 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/23/right-to-carry-crime-rates-john-donohue/

 

Pointing out that your snopes article does not in any way even suggest that it "seems suspect".  

 

Yes, I admit myself that I'm skeptical of scientific papers arguing that "well, X went down, but it would have gone down more if we'd done it my way".  

 

But I'll also point out that there's a lot of scientific studies that are done that way.  They've got practice at using those kinds of tools.  For example, I understand that the way a lot of drug trials are done now days is, instead of "drug" and "placebo" groups, they have "drug" and "placebo for two weeks, then drug" groups.  And what they look for is "Both groups got better.  But the group that started the drug right away got better two weeks earlier."  (They do this because there's ethical problems with inviting people with medical conditions to participate in a study, and then intentionally don't treat their condition.)

 

  

[Larry]

57 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Thanks @Larry for keeping us straight.   So what part do we want to discuss?

 

The topic in the other thread started with the assertion that "The world would be better if there were no AR-15s"  

 

(The board no longer lets me quote from one thread to another, so I can't do an official quote.  I'm quoting from memory.  Probably off a bit.)  

 

Which got a response of "I bet you want to ban all semi-auto, magazine fed, rifles."  

 

To which I wanted to answer "Yes."  

 

My reasoning:  

 

I really do want to balance public safety with individual liberty.  I want people to be able to have guns for recreation, and for defense.  So I'm looking for things that can be done that, to me, will hamper the mass shooters, gang wars, and the like.  With as small an impact on recreational and defense users as I can.  

 

And I don't really think that recreational and defense users need the ability to fire, say, 60 rounds in one minute.  To me, reducing the number of rounds that can be fired without reloading, and increasing the time required for reloading, will hurt the gang bangers a lot more than it hurts Joe Sixpack.  

 

To me, the combination of semi-auto firing, a magazine larger than, say, 6 or 10 rounds, and the ability to reload another 6-10 in 1-2 seconds, results in a "total rounds fired in 60 seconds" that's very important for mass shootings, not so much for sport or defense.  

 

Yeah, I'd be cool with banning weapons that can hold more than a few rounds, that can be reloaded in only a few seconds. 

 

I'd probably say "by a typical user", here.  Yeah, I assume that there's people out there who have spent years practicing how to reload their revolver in 1 second flat.  They're not typical.  And, just like the black belt in karate, the years they had to invest into acquiring that skill makes it unlikely that they'll abuse it.

 

I will say, though, I don't think I'd be as cool with banning semi-auto, magazine fed, pistols.    

 

I realize it's an inconsistency in my position.  But I also assume (based, I'll freely admit, on a whole bunch of ignorance) that the vast majority of people who buy auto pistols don't buy them because they can fire 60 rounds in a minute, if they carry 5 (or however) magazines.  They buy them because they're flatter than a revolver.  (Or at least, that's the reason why I could see myself buying one, some day.)  And to me, that's a perfectly valid reason, and I want gun buyers to have that option.  

 

[twa]

33 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Pointing out that your snopes article does not in any way even suggest that it "seems suspect".  

 

 

 

  

 

The Snopes article was for the crime rates going down .

 

A reduced violent crime rate is not a increase as the buzzfeed article alleged

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

The world would be a better placed without mechanical killing machines, of any kind really. Cat is out of the bag on that so it’s irrelevant.

 

Trying to separate mass shootings from the gun control debate sounds like something a Trumpster would do...

Edited May 28, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

My reasoning:  

I'm not gonna beat up on the technicalities because they don't matter much.  I will note that in most mass shootings,  they have happened in a somewhat contained environment.  An AR or semiauto rifle honestly doesn't have much advantage there.  Results would probably have been worse with a pistol with an extended mag.  I really believe most mass shootings aren't worse only because the shooter lacks good tactical planning. 

 

That said, I'd like to divert away for a moment from the idea of mass shootings and self defense for a moment.  I've gone on record here several in support of different gun control measures.  But now, I'm a lot less willing.  You could say it's because I think there may be a need in the future for using the 2nd in a way closer to what the founders intended.  The direction I see our country going, the last thing I want to do is give up my weapons.  I'd be interested to hear what @Bang thinks since he seems to think the same but also is more pro-gun control.

 

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Trying to separate mass shootings from the gun control debate sounds like something a Trumpster would do...

Cool story.  Come back when you figure out the difference.  ☮️

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm not gonna beat up on the technicalities because they don't matter much.  I will note that in most mass shootings,  they have happened in a somewhat contained environment.  An AR or semiauto rifle honestly doesn't have much advantage there.  Results would probably have been worse with a pistol with an extended mag.  I really believe most mass shootings aren't worse only because the shooter lacks good tactical planning. 

 

Yeah, I do sometimes wonder if you took a mass shooting, and replaced the shooter's weapons with a semi-auto pistol and 20 magazines, would it really make that much difference?  

 

The impression I get is that most mass shootings don't happen that far away. 

 

(Las Vegas being an obvious exception). 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

22 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Cool story.  Come back when you figure out the difference.  ☮️

 

The difference between what you are doing and what you sound like?

 

 

As far as not being tactically prepared the vids from the Christchurch shooting sure appeared to be tactically well planned, but that’s from a novices perspective...

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The difference between what you are doing and what you sound like?

Wrong.  Read the description of both threads.  You will (or at least should) see the difference.

 

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

As far as not being tactically prepared the vids from the Christchurch shooting sure appeared to be tactically well planned, but that’s from a novices perspective...

 

Exactly. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah, I do sometimes wonder if you took a mass shooting, and replaced the shooter's weapons with a semi-auto pistol and 20 magazines, would it really make that much difference?  

 

The impression I get is that most mass shootings don't happen that far away. 

 

(Las Vegas being an obvious exception). 

 

Don't need 20 mags when things like this are available. 

 

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/kci-magazine-for-glock-9mm-50-round-drum-851586008078.do?sortby=ourPicks&refType=&from=fn&ecList=7&ecCategory=119441

 

 

[Popeman38]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

As far as not being tactically prepared the vids from the Christchurch shooting sure appeared to be tactically well planned, but that’s from a novices perspective...

And how would America banning any semi rifle have ANY impact on mass shootings conducted, I don’t know, NOT IN AMERICA?!?

 

Additionally, going into an enclosed environment with few egress points is like shooting fish in a barrel. That doesn’t make it tactically well planned, just slightly researched. 

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

Yeah, I do sometimes wonder if you took a mass shooting, and replaced the shooter's weapons with a semi-auto pistol and 20 magazines, would it really make that much difference?  

 

The impression I get is that most mass shootings don't happen that far away. 

 

(Las Vegas being an obvious exception). 

Velocity. Non-fatal wounds with a 9mm round become fatal with the cavitation caused by the high velocity round. Reducing the velocity of civilian .223 rounds would help. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Velocity. Non-fatal wounds with a 9mm round become fatal with the cavitation caused by the high velocity round. Reducing the velocity of civilian .223 rounds would help. 

Id say this is debatable.  Ammo depends on more than velocity.  A quality 9mm hollow point inside of 25 yards that hits the torso or a few other parts will kill unless medics are right there.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

42 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

And how would America banning any semi rifle have ANY impact on mass shootings conducted, I don’t know, NOT IN AMERICA?!?

 

I don’t know, I was just responding to “how much worse these shootings would be if they were well planned from a tactical standpoint.”

 

46 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Wrong.  Read the description of both threads.  You will (or at least should) see the difference.

 

I get it but I don’t agree with the premise, still have to suck it up and deal with it I suppose. If 20 elementary school students weren’t enough to end this debate, nothing will, so it seems pointless to continue having it. There is no debate. America likes what is happening. Good enough. Welcome year zero.

 

Quote

 

Exactly. re: novice perspective

 

How was it tactically flawed?

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I get it but I don’t agree with the premise, still have to suck it up and deal with it I suppose.

Truth.

 

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

How was it tactically flawed?

Someone asked me once how I'd do a mass shooting.  After some reflection and mod input, I determined advising on such would be a bad idea.  Same applies to this question.  

[Bang]

9 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm not gonna beat up on the technicalities because they don't matter much.  I will note that in most mass shootings,  they have happened in a somewhat contained environment.  An AR or semiauto rifle honestly doesn't have much advantage there.  Results would probably have been worse with a pistol with an extended mag.  I really believe most mass shootings aren't worse only because the shooter lacks good tactical planning. 

 

That said, I'd like to divert away for a moment from the idea of mass shootings and self defense for a moment.  I've gone on record here several in support of different gun control measures.  But now, I'm a lot less willing.  You could say it's because I think there may be a need in the future for using the 2nd in a way closer to what the founders intended.  The direction I see our country going, the last thing I want to do is give up my weapons.  I'd be interested to hear what @Bang thinks since he seems to think the same but also is more pro-gun control.

 

Cool story.  Come back when you figure out the difference.  ☮️

 

Not giving up my weapons either, and have bought again just in case. As i have said, i smell a fight.

 

I think "control" is gone. The last 15 or so years have seen a ridiculous flood of weapons matched with a campaign to make people angry and afraid of one another. they ****ers driving all of this scream that we have a mental health problem and they then exacerbate it AND flood guns into the public.

We will get 'control' only by picking weapons off of lots and lots of bodies.

 

~Bang

[tshile]

12 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Trying to separate mass shootings from the gun control debate sounds like something a Trumpster would do...

He’s an expert in (at least) small arms both tactics and the mechanics of it all

 

Youd do better listening instead of arguing. You look silly. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

He’s an expert in (at least) small arms both tactics and the mechanics of it all

 

Youd do better listening instead of arguing. You look silly. 

I appreciate that but "expert" is probably over-stating it a little bit.  We'll go with a knowledge level far above most people.  Not quite expert though.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 hours ago, tshile said:

He’s an expert in (at least) small arms both tactics and the mechanics of it all

 

Youd do better listening instead of arguing. You look silly. 

 

I’m not arguing tactics. Just because he is an expert in guns doesn’t mean he is an expert in the morality and implications of can laws or how they tie into mass shootings.

 

In fact, he may be less apt to have an informed opinion about it because he thinks about from a tactical perspective, where as a mass shooter (admittedly) doesn’t.

Edited May 29, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

In fact, he is less apt to have an informed opinion about it because he thinks about from a tactical perspective, where as a mass shooter (admittedly) doesn’t.

I'm actually capable of having an informed opinion based on multiple perspective.  It's called critical thinking.

 

And in case you still haven't figured it out, the Mass Shooting thread is for discussing the shooting and things involved in it EXCEPT for the gun control portion which goes here.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

45 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm actually capable of having an informed opinion based on multiple perspective.  It's called critical thinking.

Yeah, what I meant was the fact that you are an expert in tactics doesn’t make you more qualified to talk about mass shootings. Not that you don’t have an informed opinion.

 

 

 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

15 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I get it but I don’t agree with the premise, still have to suck it up and deal with it I suppose. If 20 elementary school students weren’t enough to end this debate, nothing will, so it seems pointless to continue having it. There is no debate. America likes what is happening. Good enough. Welcome year zero.

 

I created this thread almost 4 years ago because when we had a tragic mass shooting, back then, it was typically a stand alone thread for one specific event.  And in those threads, the gun control debate would always come up and would become very political at times with a lot of arguing, etc.  Which derailed the thread from it's intended purpose, to provide information about the incidents as it became available and for those wanting to pay their respects to those that lost their lives.

 

Now we sadly have a general mass shooting thread to encompass all the tragic events into one place, but the purpose is still the same.  Discuss/provide information about the tragedy itself and pay respects.  

 

We all know where all of us (that post in here) stand on the topic, but it's still is (and probably will for a long time) a major ongoing debate.  Me personally, I'm very disappointed that it's come to extremes from both sides.  Whether it's the extreme right wanting zero/nothing done in regards to gun control or the extreme left wanting everything banned.

 

It disappoints me that both sides aren't willing to put forth a legitimate effort to work together and start small with common sense laws/regulations and work their way from there.  If they do that though I guess it hurts their support in election years, which seems it's more about that than actually saving lives and reducing these tragedies from happening.  

 

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

Some good news

 

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Cooked Crack

[thegreaterbuzzette]

VA Beach Shooting - What gun control could have made a difference?

 

 

I could see an argument for limiting extended magazines, but one could still have multiple magazines - so may have slowed it down, perhaps?

 

Or are people suggesting we just somehow collect all the guns from everyone, everywhere? (Which is impossible)

 

 

 

Yet again, the main issue with this one...mental illness. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

VA Beach Shooting - What gun control could have made a difference?

 

Doesn't matter.  If there were something, it will never get put into place anyways.  

 

When 20+ children got killed at Sandy Hook and nothing changed, that was the proof that nothing will ever change.  We can all discuss more gun control methods we think should be in place but that is about as useful as shouting at clouds.  The only option is to make sure you are armed to have a chance of surviving.  So make sure you have a reliable weapon and are proficient with it.

 

(honey, can I buy another gun?  You know, for my own safety......)

[thegreaterbuzzette]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Doesn't matter.  If there were something, it will never get put into place anyways.  

 

When 20+ children got killed at Sandy Hook and nothing changed, that was the proof that nothing will ever change.  We can all discuss more gun control methods we think should be in place but that is about as useful as shouting at clouds.  The only option is to make sure you are armed to have a chance of surviving.  So make sure you have a reliable weapon and are proficient with it.

 

(honey, can I buy another gun?  You know, for my own safety......)

 

Someone is a grump this morning. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

Someone is a grump cynical this morning. 

 

Fixed.

[Chew]

The magazine bans make no sense to me.  As Buzzette said, if anything, it may slow somebody down by a few seconds.  Anyone that's trained to use a weapon, it takes maybe 2 seconds to reload a pistol, 4-5 seconds to reload a rifle. Not to mention, you can get a high-capacity mag or drum pretty easily if you really wanted one, illegal or not.  

As a reasonable gun owner, I just don't understand why so many gun advocates aren't on board with gun laws in general remaining pretty loose, but just with much more extensive background checks. 

But even then, the whole "mental illness" thing won't catch everyone either.  Sure, that Stoneman shooter kid showed some signs for years and the system failed.  But this guy in VA yesterday, he was probably a normal dude his entire life.  Sometimes things happen to people that cause them to snap, which I imagine is what happened to this dude after he was fired.  It ignited a rage in  him.  I'm sure we will get more info about Craddock's background this weekend, but I doubt he had any red flags that would've popped up in an "extensive" background check, one that includes checking for mental illness issues and possibly even a psych eval.  

Edited June 1, 2019 by Chew