Shootings

[RunningMn9]

Someone who goes into a school and murders dozens of kids isn't a "gun owner." He is a mass murderer.
:
And with every shooting more and more people are driven to the extremes on both sides.

Two things:
1) Not all gun owners are mass murderers (obviously). But it’s turning out that a number of mass murderers are also gun owners. And some people would like to talk about whether or not there are ways to stop potential mass murderers from being gun owners, so that they can just be murderers.

But we aren’t allowed to even ask that question.

2) People are driven to extremes because literally nothing is being done to address the issue. Nothing is *allowed* to be done because one side has such dramatically out-sized influence in government due to the number of politicians they’ve bought.

I am not opposed to people owning guns, but this is getting to be regoddamndiculous.

[noxiousdog]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

[msteelers]

Yeah, I'm not in a place right now where I can tiptoe around basic facts because gun owners are thin skinned and might be offended. Sorry.

[msteelers]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

Some weapons are deadly enough that we make it illegal for citizens to have them, and nobody is complaining about "freedom". How many people need to die before we say that AR-15 and other assault style rifles are too deadly?

[Chrisoc13]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

I used to see it that way. I'm done with that argument. This isn't freedom.

[Fireball]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

How many dead kids is your freedom to own an AR-15 worth?

[noxiousdog]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

How many dead kids is your freedom to own an AR-15 worth?

How many dead people is your freedom to drink alcohol worth?

[LawBeefaroni]

A gun and a person willing to pull the trigger. You take away either one and you don't have a shooting. Since we can never guarantee to be rid of either, it makes sense work on both of them.

To work on the gun portion of that equation, you have to have the pro-gun party willing to work on it. And so far they've demonstrated that they're not willing to do so.

You can't solve a problem if one side completely refuses to come to the table, or do anything in any way - even the most minimum of efforts - to assist in solving the problem.

Who do you consider on the "pro-gun side? "

And like I said, the pro-gun extremists are hammering the message of "they'll start with [x] and before you know it, all guns will be banned!" The other side isn't doing much to quash that narrative and any potential support from gun owners evaporates.


FWIW, I'm pro-gun and also pro-gun-regulation and even pro-gun-control in some instances. I know to most on both sides that's probably an illogical combination but there I am. And I have several friends in the same niche. What we constantly find is that we're shunned by both sides for being in the other group. Being firmly in no-mans land it's pretty clear to me that this is a stalemate and the only way out is to get more gun owners/enthusiasts on board with reasonable gun reform. Bullheadedness on both sides is just wasting time while people keep getting shot.

[gilraen]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

How many dead kids is your freedom to own an AR-15 worth?

How many dead people is your freedom to drink alcohol worth?

The only reason to own an AR-15 is to kill people. It's not a "side effect", there's no "responsible way" of doing it (unlike with alcohol consumption). You don't need it for hunting or for self-defense, there are other guns for that.

[Fireball]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

How many dead kids is your freedom to own an AR-15 worth?

How many dead people is your freedom to drink alcohol worth?

If we want to ramp up punishments for drunk driving, I'm game. But we've done FUCK ALL to address gun violence in this country.

[noxiousdog]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

How many dead kids is your freedom to own an AR-15 worth?

How many dead people is your freedom to drink alcohol worth?

If we want to ramp up punishments for drunk driving, I'm game. But we've done FUCK ALL to address gun violence in this country.

That's a completely different stance than "There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons."

[El Guapo]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

I used to see it that way. I'm done with that argument. This isn't freedom.

More to the point I think is that that answer (freedom!) is question-begging. It could be used to justify literally any weapon (or object of any kind), including things like bazookas that no one (almost no one) would argue civilians should be able to own. So we inevitably wind up in some sort of individual welfare vs. societal cost of the mass ownership of these kinds of weapons.

[Isgrimnur]

The only reason to own an AR-15 is to kill people.

There are plenty of other reasons.

[RunningMn9]

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

Does that pesky word freedom allow you to own tactical nuclear weapons? No? We can certainly agree that the Constitution enshrines the right to bear arms, but several hundred years of jurisprudence also tells us that this right does not mean that citizens are allowed to own any and all "arms". There are obvious limits to this right, despite the language used to author it.

You aren't allowed to own lots of types of arms. Which isn't to say that you shouldn't be allowed to own AR-15s, just that your smarmy response isn't particularly useful in a climate where the State clearly can limit what constitutes "arms".

[msteelers]

I've never done this before, but here's a clip from my show this morning with my comments on the shooting. The overwhelming emotion isn't sadness. It's anger.

[Fireball]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

How many dead kids is your freedom to own an AR-15 worth?

How many dead people is your freedom to drink alcohol worth?

If we want to ramp up punishments for drunk driving, I'm game. But we've done FUCK ALL to address gun violence in this country.

That's a completely different stance than "There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons."

No, it is not. There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15. There is no reason for any civilian to own any weapon that can be converted into an automatic weapon. None. "Freedom!" ain't a fucking reason.

[LawBeefaroni]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

If you mean AR-15s, there may not be a specific justification to own that particular type of rifle but what is the reason not to allow them? Does the reason not to allow them potentially apply to other firearms? Because there's where you'll meet resistance from the "moderate" gun owners and it's also where the pro-gun extremists make their hay.

Also, the AR-15 is the most popular sort of weapon in the US right now and it's not because they are good at mass murder (I'm not saying they are not good at mass murder, I'm saying that not what makes them so popular). Banning them is probably not the best place to start.

[Isgrimnur]

Time: Here Are 7 Animals Hunters Kill Using an AR-15

[noxiousdog]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

I used to see it that way. I'm done with that argument. This isn't freedom.

More to the point I think is that that answer (freedom!) is question-begging. It could be used to justify literally any weapon (or object of any kind), including things like bazookas that no one (almost no one) would argue civilians should be able to own. So we inevitably wind up in some sort of individual welfare vs. societal cost of the mass ownership of these kinds of weapons.

Right. And therefore to outlaw it, you better justify that it's a significant problem and banning it will cure more ills than it creates.

Hopping to the default of "There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons" is how we wound up with Prohibition and a drug war that has killed and destroyed the lives of far more people than school shootings. I would argue that our gun loving society is a direct result of those two authoritarian regimes.

[Skinypupy]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

You have freedom to own a gun. I have the freedom to not get shot and/or be killed by a gun.

With increasing frequency, your freedom trumps mine...and we're not even allowed to have a discussion about things we can do to prevent it.

[Fireball]

"There is no justification for any civilian to own these types of weapons" is how the civilized world got to a point where their kids aren't being slaughtered in schools.

[noxiousdog]

No, it is not. There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15. There is no reason for any civilian to own any weapon that can be converted into an automatic weapon. None. "Freedom!" ain't a fucking reason.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and that's exactly why you get so much resistance to gun control.

[msteelers]

The only reason to own an AR-15 is to kill people.

There are plenty of other reasons.

Exactly!

My step-brother specifically told me he bought his AR-15 because it was fun to shoot at the range. Why should he be punished? Just because people and children are being routinely murdered while going about their everyday lives, now he can't shoot at a piece of paper? This is America, dammit!

[noxiousdog]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

You have freedom to own a gun. I have the freedom to not get shot and/or be killed by a gun.

With increasing frequency, your freedom trumps mine...and we're not even allowed to have a discussion about things we can do to prevent it.

You aren't? I thought that's what we were doing right here.

[Fireball]

.

[ImLawBoy]

No, it is not. There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15. There is no reason for any civilian to own any weapon that can be converted into an automatic weapon. None. "Freedom!" ain't a fucking reason.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and that's exactly why you get so much resistance to gun control.

Go back to jerking off to pictures of murdered kids.

Rein it in if you want to keep this discussion going.

[LawBeefaroni]

No, it is not. There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15. There is no reason for any civilian to own any weapon that can be converted into an automatic weapon. None. "Freedom!" ain't a fucking reason.

Any semi-automatic weapon can be converted to full auto with enough gunsmithing skill. So to the moderate and extreme gun owner, you are calling for the ban of all semi automatic firearms. Which is probably 3/4 of all civilian pistols and probably half the rifles. Which means an impossibly large hurdle which means nothing changes.

I mean it's a good sound bite but it's effectively a ban on the vast majority of modern firearms. Nothing makes more money for the NRA than that.

[msteelers]

Time: Here Are 7 Animals Hunters Kill Using an AR-15

Nobody ever killed an elk, deer, rabbit, goat, pig, coyote, or friggin seal before the 1950s?

[Jag]

I'm probably way too angry and upset to post right now as this hits our community so goddam hard. Our kids and friends all know people who lost children yesterday. So fuck anyone who thinks civilian ownership of an AR-15 is ok. Our fucking children are being murdered by military grade assault rifles. I don't give a fuck what recreational use they may also have. The fucking things need to be regulated heavily.

There is zero reason why regulations can't be put into place other than the blood money used to buy politicians and a brainwashed public convinced by expensive and slick PR. The NRA is a bigger threat to this country than ISIS but they have already bought our politicians.

[Skinypupy]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

You have freedom to own a gun. I have the freedom to not get shot and/or be killed by a gun.

With increasing frequency, your freedom trumps mine...and we're not even allowed to have a discussion about things we can do to prevent it.

You aren't? I thought that's what we were doing right here.

The few of us going back and forth on a message board isn't exactly a national dialog that will create and promote actual solutions.

[noxiousdog]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

You have freedom to own a gun. I have the freedom to not get shot and/or be killed by a gun.

With increasing frequency, your freedom trumps mine...and we're not even allowed to have a discussion about things we can do to prevent it.

You aren't? I thought that's what we were doing right here.

The few of us going back and forth on a message board isn't exactly a national dialog that will create and promote actual solutions.

Why can't we have a national dialog?

What you're really saying is that we can't currently have a vote in Congress.

If people would stop with the rhetoric and emotion, we might actually be able to have a national dialog.

[El Guapo]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

I used to see it that way. I'm done with that argument. This isn't freedom.

More to the point I think is that that answer (freedom!) is question-begging. It could be used to justify literally any weapon (or object of any kind), including things like bazookas that no one (almost no one) would argue civilians should be able to own. So we inevitably wind up in some sort of individual welfare vs. societal cost of the mass ownership of these kinds of weapons.

Right. And therefore to outlaw it, you better justify that it's a significant problem and banning it will cure more ills than it creates.

Hopping to the default of "There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons" is how we wound up with Prohibition and a drug war that has killed and destroyed the lives of far more people than school shootings. I would argue that our gun loving society is a direct result of those two authoritarian regimes.

Showing that mass ownership of guns like this (and more to the point, the ease with which they can be acquired) is a significant problem seems relatively easy. We're at, what, 45 mass shootings in 29 days in 2018? We have way more mass shootings than pretty much any other country. That's pretty solid evidence that our public policy on the ease and convenience of gun acquisition and regulation is way off where it should be and a matter of social cost.

As for individual benefits, my understanding is that the evidence of the utility of guns (both in general, and especially for automatic / semi-automatic weapons) for self-defense (which I think is the most compelling individual justification for owning a weapon) is pretty thin. And while I am sure that gun ownership for the purposes of hunting and gun-range shooting is enjoyable, I don't find that an especially compelling justification for individual gun ownership. For one, if people want to use a given type of weapon (including an AR-15, say) for hunting, I don't see why we couldn't just ban it for individual ownership purposes, and then have people rent them from gun ranges / hunting management companies.

In any event, if I were actually in charge of gun policy in this country, I'd set up a commission to study gun regulations and their implementation internationally (especially Canada, Europe, and Australia), and then implement the ones that seemed the most sensible and effective. But I think the core of the frustration for people who favor greater gun regulation is not that the AR-15 and other weapons are not getting banned, but more that gun policy in the United States continues to move against any sort of regulation at all.

[msteelers]

No, it is not. There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15. There is no reason for any civilian to own any weapon that can be converted into an automatic weapon. None. "Freedom!" ain't a fucking reason.

Any semi-automatic weapon can be converted to full auto with enough gunsmithing skill. So to the moderate and extreme gun owner, you are calling for the ban of all semi automatic firearms. Which is probably 3/4 of all civilian pistols and probably half the rifles. Which means an impossibly large hurdle which means nothing changes.

I mean it's a good sound bite but it's effectively a ban on the vast majority of modern firearms. Nothing makes more money for the NRA than that.

This is the problem with the pro-gun crowd, even moderates such as yourself. Every potential solution gets shot down because of a work-around.

Ban assault weapons! Assault weapons are already banned, these are semiautomatic assault style weapons.

Ban extended magazine, banana, clips! Those clips suck. They constantly jam. Any experienced shooter knows to avoid them.

Limit the amount of ammo being sold, who needs 1,000 rounds of ammunition!? It's not uncommon to go through hundreds of rounds of ammo in one session at the range.

Ban bump stocks! We can accomplish the same thing with just a rubber band, lol. In fact, any semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full auto.

You know what? F*CK THIS SH*T! BAN ALL GUNS. NO MORE GUNS. YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE, AND YOU F*CKED IT UP.

That's how a moderate anti-gun individual becomes an extreme anti-gunner.

[El Guapo]

There is no justification whatsoever for any civilian to own these sorts of weapons.

Other than that pesky freedom word I suppose.

You have freedom to own a gun. I have the freedom to not get shot and/or be killed by a gun.

With increasing frequency, your freedom trumps mine...and we're not even allowed to have a discussion about things we can do to prevent it.

You aren't? I thought that's what we were doing right here.

The few of us going back and forth on a message board isn't exactly a national dialog that will create and promote actual solutions.

Why can't we have a national dialog?

What you're really saying is that we can't currently have a vote in Congress.

If people would stop with the rhetoric and emotion, we might actually be able to have a national dialog.

Yes, I think what he's saying is that Congress (and most state legislatures) are not giving any sort of real hearing to any kind of reasonable gun regulations. Not that individuals aren't discussing this, but that our legislators are (for the most part) not doing so.

But I'm curious - how is "rhetoric and emotion" stopping a dialogue on this issue? Are gun owners snowflakes?

[RunningMn9]

The only reason to own an AR-15 is to kill people.

There are plenty of other reasons.

Agree with Isg here, there are plenty of other reasons to OWN AR-15s than to kill people. I can own an AR-15 for the purpose of shooting targets because it's fun. Of course, shooting pieces of paper isn't exactly the purpose of the weapon, which is what I think you were going for.

A gun has a singular purpose - to propel a metal object at high-velocity towards the intended target. That's it. An AR-15 has a singular purpose - to quickly propel metal objects at high-velocity towards the intended target with rapid frequency.

Of course, it would be absurd to argue that the purpose of an AR-15 is to shoot paper targets. An AR-15 is designed for the sole purpose of putting bullets into things to kill them. That's it. It's ability to put bullets through paper targets is simply practice for the purpose of hitting live targets and making them not-alive.

But none of that means that if I go to buy an AR-15, my only reason for doing so is to shoot people in the face. It's entirely reasonable that I just like using it to shoot paper targets.

[Alefroth]

A gun and a person willing to pull the trigger. You take away either one and you don't have a shooting. Since we can never guarantee to be rid of either, it makes sense work on both of them.

To work on the gun portion of that equation, you have to have the pro-gun party willing to work on it. And so far they've demonstrated that they're not willing to do so.

You can't solve a problem if one side completely refuses to come to the table, or do anything in any way - even the most minimum of efforts - to assist in solving the problem.

And while the other portion may be the scapegoat, they aren't too inclined to work on it either.

[RunningMn9]

banning it will cure more ills than it creates.

Out of curiosity (and keep in mind that I have no desire to ban AR-15s), what ills does an AR-15 ban create?

[gilraen]

We have way more mass shootings than pretty much any other country.

We have more mass shootings than the next 10 countries combined. And probably more countries, it's just that those are the only ones that had been specifically studied.

[LawBeefaroni]

No, it is not. There is no reason for a civilian to own an AR-15. There is no reason for any civilian to own any weapon that can be converted into an automatic weapon. None. "Freedom!" ain't a fucking reason.

Any semi-automatic weapon can be converted to full auto with enough gunsmithing skill. So to the moderate and extreme gun owner, you are calling for the ban of all semi automatic firearms. Which is probably 3/4 of all civilian pistols and probably half the rifles. Which means an impossibly large hurdle which means nothing changes.

I mean it's a good sound bite but it's effectively a ban on the vast majority of modern firearms. Nothing makes more money for the NRA than that.

This is the problem with the pro-gun crowd, even moderates such as yourself. Every potential solution gets shot down because of a work-around.

It seems like you didn't really read what fireball and I both wrote. I didn't shoot down his suggestion, I tried to explain how it would be received.

Ban assault weapons! Assault weapons are already banned, these are semiautomatic assault style weapons.

Ban extended magazine, banana, clips! Those clips suck. They constantly jam. Any experienced shooter knows to avoid them.

Limit the amount of ammo being sold, who needs 1,000 rounds of ammunition!? It's not uncommon to go through hundreds of rounds of ammo in one session at the range.

Ban bump stocks! We can accomplish the same thing with just a rubber band, lol. In fact, any semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full auto.

You know what? F*CK THIS SH*T! BAN ALL GUNS. NO MORE GUNS. YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE, AND YOU F*CKED IT UP.

That's how a moderate anti-gun individual becomes an extreme anti-gunner.

And that's how potential solutions go away in favor of rhetoric and foot stomping.

Bump stocks were kind of the bellwether and we all failed miserably.

It's almost as if knowledge gun owners/users are necessary to help develop workable and potentially passable long-term gun control measures.

[Isgrimnur]

This is the problem with the pro-gun crowd, even moderates such as yourself. Every potential solution gets shot down because of a work-around.

That's how a moderate anti-gun individual becomes an extreme anti-gunner.

It it so bad that pro-gun moderates want to actually have policy formed around ideas that would actually work rather than banning things because they look scary?

* Yeah, what ^he^ said.