Active shooter?

[laklak]

If I'm going to have a discussion about anything with someone, it behooves us both to have at least a working knowledge of the subject. If we're talking about medical health insurance rates then we should both know what health insurance is and broadly how it works. If we're arguing the relative merits of 70s muscle cars we should be able to differentiate a Barracuda from a Camaro and know what "Mopar" means.

Same goes for discussions about gun control. If you do not know the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon I'll likely ignore anything you have to say about it. If you think 13 year olds can walk into any Walmart and buy a gun I'll ignore you. If you think ARs or AKs "spray thousands of bullets" I'll ignore you. If you don't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun or a long gun and a hand gun I'll ignore you. If you think people wander about the streets of the U.S. carrying machine guns and rocket launchers I'll ignore you. If you think "assault weapons" kill more people annually than auto accidents I'll ignore you. If you eat Tide Pods for any reason I'll ignore anything you have to say about any subject.

However, if you're reasonably knowledgeable about the weapons you're trying to regulate, restrict, or ban, and the statistics you use to back up your argument aren't from Anderson Cooper (when he isn't busy interviewing washed up porn stars) then we can have a substantive and perhaps productive discussion. We'll even part friends, at least from my PoV. Otherwise it's about as useful as arguing with a creationist or discussing quantum physics with my dog.

[Brian Peacock]

Err... I afforded proofs for my point. It's not doubling down. It's explaining why coming to someone to persuade them and speaking in terms that make no sense to the target of your argument makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about and and they are not likely to take your argument seriously.

People will never convince a pro-gun person of the efficacy of a regulation by declaring that nobody needs an automatic weapon. Can't you see why that is?

All I can see is the NRA-patent attempt to have the discussion on the gun-fanciers terms alone while tone-policing the position of those with differing opinions on the use and ownership of personal firearms.

[JimC]

If I'm going to have a discussion about anything with someone, it behooves us both to have at least a working knowledge of the subject. If we're talking about medical health insurance rates then we should both know what health insurance is and broadly how it works. If we're arguing the relative merits of 70s muscle cars we should be able to differentiate a Barracuda from a Camaro and know what "Mopar" means.

Same goes for discussions about gun control. If you do not know the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon I'll likely ignore anything you have to say about it. If you think 13 year olds can walk into any Walmart and buy a gun I'll ignore you. If you think ARs or AKs "spray thousands of bullets" I'll ignore you. If you don't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun or a long gun and a hand gun I'll ignore you. If you think people wander about the streets of the U.S. carrying machine guns and rocket launchers I'll ignore you. If you think "assault weapons" kill more people annually than auto accidents I'll ignore you. If you eat Tide Pods for any reason I'll ignore anything you have to say about any subject.

However, if you're reasonably knowledgeable about the weapons you're trying to regulate, restrict, or ban, and the statistics you use to back up your argument aren't from Anderson Cooper (when he isn't busy interviewing washed up porn stars) then we can have a substantive and perhaps productive discussion. We'll even part friends, at least from my PoV. Otherwise it's about as useful as arguing with a creationist or discussing quantum physics with my dog.

Yes but...

Forget about fully automatic, that's not the point, and not needed to achieve a pretty high death count in confined areas. What is needed to be effective at school or mall massacres is a semi-automatic rifle with the following features:

1. Reasonably light, with a moderate barrel length, so it's easy to carry and (under a coat, perhaps) easy to conceal
2. A small calibre (typically .223) so that the recoil is only moderate, and easy to control for someone of even a small build, but still firing a round that (unlike a .22) is deadly to humans at the ranges it will be used
3. A large capacity magazine (20 or 30 rounds) that is easy to swap. The calibre means that rounds are not very heavy, so carrying a few spare magazines is easy.
4. No need for the longer, heavier barrels of a hunting rifle, because accuracy at medium to long range is not a requirement

Now, these characteristics (other than fully automatic fire) are also found in many modern infantry weapons, for the simple reason that they fulfil the function of efficiently killing human beings at close to medium range. After all, many of the rifles in this category available in the US are civilian adaptations of US (or Soviet) infantry weapons.

Other than simply having fun at a rifle range, there is really no functional need for these weapons - if you are a serious hunter, you will have a serious hunting rifle...

[NineBerry]

[Brian Peacock]

[NineBerry]

It's a cheap joke

[laklak]

But I'm not demanding registration, regulation, banning, or confiscation of vaginas. I'm not blaming law-abiding vagina owners for the actions of a few vagina criminals.

Jim and I can have a rational discussion, because he is presenting salient facts. That's all I or any other "law abiding gun owner" I know is looking for.

Oh - ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina. Can't remember, offhand the top bit - fundis, something like that?

[pErvinalia]

But I'm not demanding registration, regulation, banning, or confiscation of vaginas.

I, however, am demanding free and unfettered access to vaginas!

[pErvinalia]

Oh - ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina. Can't remember, offhand the top bit - fundis, something like that?

You forgot "meat curtains".

[laklak]

Ros' beef sammich.

[Forty Two]

IMG_20180329_011139.jpg

Demand regulation all you like. However, if someone were to demand regulation of the vagina and say that women needed to be protected from prostate cancer, you might suggest that they learn something before they comment. To suggest that people making medical recommendations for laws to be enacted are not asked to learn something about it before they are taken seriously is not surprising or out of the ordinary. That's pretty normal.

[Joe]

If the magazines of semi-automatic rifles were capped at a 10 round capacity, gun massacres would at least be a little harder. No possible hunting scenario requires more than 10 rounds, FFS...

Indeed, but if you just ban detachable magazines and pistol grips, doesn't that get the job done?

I know that a lot of gun advocates would object, but what I'm searching for is a clear line. The reason the automatic vs. semiauto line works well is because there is very little, of any, argument over whether something is an automatic weapons. The trouble with the gun control side is they don't come to the table speaking gun language, and often appear to gun advocates as not knowing what they're talking about, and the result is often that the gun control side proposes vague and overly broad regulations which they think are targeted at scary, military weapons, when in fact they include normal hunting weapons as well.

To move the line, a new line with clarity and enforceability -- without too much vagueness -- needs to be found. Nobody likes to be subject to vague rules, because that invites arbitrary and capricious enforcement.

Well, the Planned Parenthood shooter had 4 SKS rifles and a bag of ammunition. The SKS is a semi-automatic with a 10 round integrated magazine and a standard rifle grip, so it would be legal, but the fact that someone so obviously unwell as Robert Dear could buy them suggests making getting the weapons harder for such people might be helpful too.

The problem is that there is no clear line that I can see. Most people with a mental illness aren't threats.

If it is agreed that not everyone should be allowed to own guns - felons, mentally ill, etc. -- and we define those terms with specificity, then there should be no reason why a good background check that will identify such persons when they attempt to buy a gun would not be legal. What is needed is an effective background check.

I would also suggest that training the safe handling of weapons would help. If everyone was required to attend some level of training courses, those who give the training programs would provide a level of reporting. I.e. if someone in the class starts exhibiting some odd signs, give the training instructer a privilege to to report the class member for investigation.

As long as any guns are legal, there will be no guarantee that some nutjob won't get a legal gun of whatever type and kill people with it. However, unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed, and the political will arises to pretty much ban all guns, then there are going to be many legal guns around. Moreover, it should be noted that for the incredibly overwhelming number of people, owning pretty much whatever gun they want is not a problem. So, really, there is a compromise here. Anyone wanting 0 gun injuries/deaths is not going to get what they want, just like we don't expect 0 automobile injuries/deaths.

Well, I certainly agree that nutjobs shouldn't have firearms, but what is a nutjob, and who decides someone is one?

There are over 200 defined mental illnesses, with varying degrees and symptoms, that can change over time. The effectiveness of treatment also varies by person and over time. The specificity you speak of doesn't seem to exist, from what I can gather. This article gives a pretty good outline of some of the difficulties.

We shouldn't minimize the challenge of determining whose mental illness is sufficient threat to themselves and others to strip them of a Constitutional right, but if we got it right, it could contribute to lowering the number of gun deaths.

[Brian Peacock]

People with a severe mental health diagnosis are more likely to harm themselves than others.

[Joe]

People with a severe mental health diagnosis are more likely to harm themselves than others.

Very much so, and the majority of US firearm deaths are suicides. If we can keep guns out of their hands, and treat them, we increase their odds of survival. Plus, how many of these mass shootings end with the shooter committing suicide?

Just to illustrate the scale of what I'm talking about:

[JimC]

Around 33,000 Americans shot to death each year. I wonder how many are seriously injured?