Shootings

[noxiousdog]

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

It's like msteelers post above. Every time a reasonable exception is made because the gun owners know the details and why the anti-gun people are trying to make laws that don't make sense.

There is widespread support for gun regulation but there is wider support for possession. 60% want more strict sales laws, but 71% don't want handguns banned. And that's handguns.

The fact that we continue to have discussions about AR-15s on this board is telling. It's like arguing about pit bulls being dangerous or outlawing a BMW 4 because it's involved in the most accidents.

And let's be clear. I'm not a gun owner. I touched a gun one time and was intimidated and gave it back as soon as I could. Then my girlfriend yelled at me because I didn't perform the right safety checks. But we have a pretty detailed history about banning very popular things in this country. It doesn't go very well.

[Remus West]

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?

I would want but not support banning of all guns so I'll field this one. All the ban would do is create a headache for the paper pushers trying to find and collect all those out there now, create more "crime" as folks not breaking any other law suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of it,...etc.

Attaching prohibition and the war on drugs to the gun culture is silly to me but the results of banning weapons of this sort would result in similar underground societies providing them and all the issues that arise from those underground societies.

What we need is to limit the people that have access to guns much better and to treat those individuals that need mental health care much better. Sadly, that even what we had in those respects is being undone by the current assholes in the WH and congress.

[Fireball]

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.

"Moderate gun owners"? Please show me where this vaunted group of heroes is in our national discourse. Where are their proposals? It seems to me that group just exists to sadly shake their head and shoot down any effort to prevent the sales of certain types of weapons to civilians as being "impractical" or "scary" to their less-moderate brethren.

[noxiousdog]

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?

I was talking more about the theory that there's no good reason to own a gun so we just ban them all.

Banning one type of gun wouldn't make any difference because then they'd just sell an AR-16.

[El Guapo]

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

It's like msteelers post above. Every time a reasonable exception is made because the gun owners know the details and why the anti-gun people are trying to make laws that don't make sense.

There is widespread support for gun regulation but there is wider support for possession. 60% want more strict sales laws, but 71% don't want handguns banned. And that's handguns.

The fact that we continue to have discussions about AR-15s on this board is telling. It's like arguing about pit bulls being dangerous or outlawing a BMW 4 because it's involved in the most accidents.

And let's be clear. I'm not a gun owner. I touched a gun one time and was intimidated and gave it back as soon as I could. Then my girlfriend yelled at me because I didn't perform the right safety checks. But we have a pretty detailed history about banning very popular things in this country. It doesn't go very well.

Yeah, but there's rhetoric and emotion involved in *every* public policy debate. And in every public policy debate you have extreme voices on each side who want things that probably won't happen for a variety of political and practical reasons. Why would that be stopping a dialogue here? Like, if a few people on a message board calling for things that may or may not be practical is enough to stop a dialogue on a major public policy issue, then we've got bigger problems than gun control.

But the bigger issue is that there are lots of gun regulation measures (usually things like universal background checks and other regulatory procedures to slow but not stop gun acquisition) that are overwhelmingly supported by the public but which have gone nowhere (the opposite of nowhere) in our legislatures.

[noxiousdog]

Yeah, but there's rhetoric and emotion involved in *every* public policy debate. And in every public policy debate you have extreme voices on each side who want things that probably won't happen for a variety of political and practical reasons. Why would that be stopping a dialogue here? Like, if a few people on a message board calling for things that may or may not be practical is enough to stop a dialogue on a major public policy issue, then we've got bigger problems than gun control.

And yet, that's why the really good journalism is on NPR or comes out of The Atlantic instead of daily newspapers with catchy headlines or BREAKING NEWS banners. And I don't know why reasonable groups haven't had this dialog. Why we are waiting for government to solve this for us instead of demanding solutions is pretty bizarre especially when we know the NRA is going to sabotage it from getting started in Congress.

But the bigger issue is that there are lots of gun regulation measures (usually things like universal background checks and other regulatory procedures to slow but not stop gun acquisition) that are overwhelmingly supported by the public but which have gone nowhere (the opposite of nowhere) in our legislatures.

And there are lots of laws on the books that are enforced sporadically. The Las Vegas shooter should have never been sold a gun, but a government failure allowed it. We have to convince gun-owners that the new law will be more effective than the old law. Rhetoric and emotion plays against that goal.

[Carpet_pissr]

Steve Mnuchin is on it:

"“I will say, personally, I think the gun violence — it’s a tragedy what we’ve seen yesterday, and I urge Congress to look at these issues,” Mnuchin said at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing."

He's being touted as some kind of goddamn hero because of this. Wow, he's daring to speak such ballsy words when Trump is obviously not on board!

Yes, let's "look" at these issues more. We sure haven't seen enough evidence yet, or have enough case studies. Congress HAS looked at this, and not only done nothing, but repealed the tiny inches of legislation passed previously. Maybe let's not let Congress look anymore, they are only making things worse. Not to mention being in the pocket of the NRA.

[Smoove_B]

I was talking more about the theory that there's no good reason to own a gun so we just ban them all.

Of course the missing piece to this puzzle is the vocal group of gun owners that believe they should be permitted to carry their guns with them, anywhere and at any time. Currently the state of NJ is watching the federal reciprocity law as we're one of 10 states that does not recognize concealed carry permits from other states.

And so when a situation like 17 teenagers in a high school are killed by someone wielding a gun, instead of people saying, "Holy shit, 17 teenagers were killed at school by a gun", these people think "If there were more guns in that school by permitted responsible owners, this could have been prevented." In other words, more guns. More guns is the solution here...in a high school.

There isn't a news article or research study that's going to change the mind of someone that believes more guns will prevent these horrific events.

[LawBeefaroni]

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?

If AR-15s disappeared tomorrow I don't think would be any major ills. Police would have to find new patrol rifles. Mall ninjas would have to find new rails to stick all their lasers on. But things wouldn't change too much.

However, that involves magic. To actually have a ban, you'd first have to define an AR-15. Without going into the exhaustive history and pedantry, let's just assume we came up with a definition that included all rifles based on the Colt AR-15 standard, including all variants (Colt's patents ran out but they hold the trademark on the name). So after coming up with that definition (which wouldn't be easy), you have to implement the ban. Stopping new sales is easy enough. What happens to all the AR-15s in stores? What happens to all the already owned AR-15s? Do you get those off the street and if so how? There are probably tens of millions out there.

Then there is the problem of simply driving people to other platforms. Does the ban include AR-15ish rifles? What about AR pistols? I would imagine that AK variants would become popular. Do you engage in whack-a-mole by implementing subsequent bans on every alternative that pops up? Or do you try to implement a wider ban on semi-automatic rifles in general? Let's say that happens. You now have even more guns to collect. Often from cold dead hands.

I'm not saying it's not worth a try but IMO, a ban on AR-15s or even "AR-15 like" rifles probably wouldn't do what it's supposed to do. That being limiting access to easy to shoot semi auto rifles/carbines.

The resources required to get there would immense, in terms of political capital, dollars, and enforcement. I mean in terms of scale, it would be like a ban on game consoles.


Do I have an alternative solution? No.

[msteelers]

It seems like you didn't really read what fireball and I both wrote.

That is always a possibility.

I didn't shoot down his suggestion, I tried to explain how it would be received.

Right, but that's the issue. If gun owners continue to perceive everything as a slippery slope, then nothing will get done.

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

Completely agree. Responsible gun owners are the answer here. What steps have they taken to solve the problem? Some undoubtedly have. I know a talk show in Orlando gave up his AR-15 after the Pulse shooting.

I am getting rid of my AR-15. Some background:

I have been associated with "firearms sports" since I was 12 years old. Gun safety was instilled in me, not by my parents, but by a gentleman who was a safety instructor for the National Rifle Association.

You name the type of firearm, and there's a pretty good chance that I have pulled the trigger: shotguns, pistols (revolvers and semi-automatic), black powder, etc.

I pretty much shot for sport and competition. I still do, but to a lesser degree.

Hunting was never an interest. I do not have a concealed-weapons permit, and I refuse to place a pistol in my car.

I am more nervous around power tools than firearms.

I bought an AR-15 because I thought it would be interesting to shoot. My intention was never about home protection or joining a militia.

...

I will not lie. Shooting an AR-15 is fun. It's a powerful firearm that can be exhilarating when the trigger is pulled.

This is not some type of screed designed to change the minds of my many friends or neighbors. It is nothing more than my own personal decision.

I no longer want to be associated with a type of firearm that has been used on far too many occasions to mow down and chop up human beings.

He's also publicly stated that he is no longer a member of the NRA. We need more of that, IMO. Instead, we get more gun owners who continue to vote how the NRA wants. If gun owners who support smart gun regulation and gun control would call up en masse to their members of Congress and tell them that they demand these things, and vote in like minded politicians, we might actually see a change. Until then, we'll just keep rehashing these same arguments every couple of months.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, but there's rhetoric and emotion involved in *every* public policy debate. And in every public policy debate you have extreme voices on each side who want things that probably won't happen for a variety of political and practical reasons. Why would that be stopping a dialogue here? Like, if a few people on a message board calling for things that may or may not be practical is enough to stop a dialogue on a major public policy issue, then we've got bigger problems than gun control.

And yet, that's why the really good journalism is on NPR or comes out of The Atlantic instead of daily newspapers with catchy headlines or BREAKING NEWS banners. And I don't know why reasonable groups haven't had this dialog. Why we are waiting for government to solve this for us instead of demanding solutions is pretty bizarre especially when we know the NRA is going to sabotage it from getting started in Congress.

But the bigger issue is that there are lots of gun regulation measures (usually things like universal background checks and other regulatory procedures to slow but not stop gun acquisition) that are overwhelmingly supported by the public but which have gone nowhere (the opposite of nowhere) in our legislatures.

And there are lots of laws on the books that are enforced sporadically. The Las Vegas shooter should have never been sold a gun, but a government failure allowed it. We have to convince gun-owners that the new law will be more effective than the old law. Rhetoric and emotion plays against that goal.

Ok, I've been trying to ignore this, BUT ---- it's dialogUE, not dialog.

Now that I've got that critical issue off my chest, groups and individuals ARE having a dialogue, and people ARE demanding solutions. The problem is that the government isn't acting on those solutions (or on making existing laws function better), and the government is the only entity that can reasonable implement any solutions (since the government has also been ignoring my demand to grant law enforcement powers to OO). Which has a lot to do with politics in this country - that the NRA is unified and organized while pro-gun control groups are non-unified and less organized, that "no gun control" is a simpler and easier political message than "let's implement X or Y regulation", and that the political organization of this country gives disproportionate political power to rural areas that are more anti-gun regulation.

[Rip]

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

What sorts of weapons? You mean a rifle?

There was nothing special about the weapon used other than marketing.

An AR15 is no more dangerous than any other rifle just like a Corvette is no more dangerous than an Escalade.

[noxiousdog]

Now that I've got that critical issue off my chest, groups and individuals ARE having a dialogue, and people ARE demanding solutions. The problem is that the government isn't acting on those solutions (or on making existing laws function better), and the government is the only entity that can reasonable implement any solutions (since the government has also been ignoring my demand to grant law enforcement powers to OO). Which has a lot to do with politics in this country - that the NRA is unified and organized while pro-gun control groups are non-unified and less organized, that "no gun control" is a simpler and easier political message than "let's implement X or Y regulation", and that the political organization of this country gives disproportionate political power to rural areas that are more anti-gun regulation.

I'd also suggest that just like pro-gun regulation owners are getting undercut by the NRA, pro-gun regulation non-owners are getting undercut by Fireball and his ilk.

I'll put it this way, I support thoughtful gun regulation. I vehemently oppose "there's no reason to own one of these weapons."

[Paingod]

Yes, let's "look" at these issues more. We sure haven't seen enough evidence yet, or have enough case studies. Congress HAS looked at this, and not only done nothing, but repealed the tiny inches of legislation passed previously.

The NRA is a bitch of a blockade, as has been discussed. They dump money into almost everyone who Tweets "Thoughts and Prayers" after these events. They quash data collection so a legitimate discussion with real numbers can't take place. They have a very simple, very easy, very clear message of "No" on all gun control. I do not support the NRA in this and am not a member.

I'd call myself a "moderate" gun owner. I believe in the right to defend your property, your family, yourself, and others as needed. I enjoy shooting and we own three firearms, all semi-automatic. I'm not a hunter, but understand it as a thing people do - and in some cases, it is essential to keep wildlife populations in check since we've decimated natural predators in many areas.

I would also endorse gun control laws that required training prior to ownership and strict controls on anything that turned the gun into a weapon of near-mass destruction like we saw in Vegas. I would agree to background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on felons, the mentally unstable, and those with civil orders against them like restraining orders.

Unfortunately, I don't think any amount of gun control will stop these incidents and the only "cure" would be to confiscate every gun in the country - which is a non-starter. I wouldn't endorse that personally because I do believe that there are instances where firearms are used to the greater good, too - a Good Samaritan stops a robbery or assault, a person saves their own life during a break-in, etc. I can't reasonably weigh the lives of those murdered against the lives of those saved.

[El Guapo]

Now that I've got that critical issue off my chest, groups and individuals ARE having a dialogue, and people ARE demanding solutions. The problem is that the government isn't acting on those solutions (or on making existing laws function better), and the government is the only entity that can reasonable implement any solutions (since the government has also been ignoring my demand to grant law enforcement powers to OO). Which has a lot to do with politics in this country - that the NRA is unified and organized while pro-gun control groups are non-unified and less organized, that "no gun control" is a simpler and easier political message than "let's implement X or Y regulation", and that the political organization of this country gives disproportionate political power to rural areas that are more anti-gun regulation.

I'd also suggest that just like pro-gun regulation owners are getting undercut by the NRA, pro-gun regulation non-owners are getting undercut by Fireball and his ilk.

It's sort of amusing to balance the NRA with "Fireball and his ilk". I feel like the NRA is a touch more influential on this stuff than people spouting off online.

But that aside, you're never going to be rid of overheated rhetoric. I don't care about people spouting off online, I care what elected representatives are doing on this (which is essentially nothing).

[RunningMn9]

Attaching prohibition and the war on drugs to the gun culture is silly to me but the results of banning weapons of this sort would result in similar underground societies providing them and all the issues that arise from those underground societies.

How significant was this problem the last time we banned assault weapons? How significant is this in a state like NJ that still has an assault weapons ban in place? I think that AR-15s have been banned here for 20 years. Are there underground AR-15 societies here in NJ?

[LawBeefaroni]

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.

"Moderate gun owners"? Please show me where this vaunted group of heroes is in our national discourse. Where are their proposals? It seems to me that group just exists to sadly shake their head and shoot down any effort to prevent the sales of certain types of weapons to civilians as being "impractical" or "scary" to their less-moderate brethren.

There is no room for moderates in national discourse on this issue. Show me which of the two parties we have to choose from is moderate on firearms and I'll listen.

I have exchanged emails with NRA board members, explaining why I'm not a member. Pissing in the wind? Maybe. But I bet I have their ear more than you do. I have taken up the mantle at the range and in the gun shop. I get shit for it sometimes but at least they'll listen. I support any state and local politician with even an inkling of a moderate stance (either way). I've sat down with my state rep to discuss the issue. I even got a call from her office for my opinion on Illinois CCW. But hey, I'm not on national news so I effectively don't exist.

[Fireball]

.

[noxiousdog]

It's sort of amusing to balance the NRA with "Fireball and his ilk". I feel like the NRA is a touch more influential on this stuff than people spouting off online.

But that aside, you're never going to be rid of overheated rhetoric. I don't care about people spouting off online, I care what elected representatives are doing on this (which is essentially nothing).

Well, sure, but as you pointed out earlier, we are here and they are there. Also be aware that overheated rhetoric is what pushes people to support the NRA.

[noxiousdog]

Attaching prohibition and the war on drugs to the gun culture is silly to me but the results of banning weapons of this sort would result in similar underground societies providing them and all the issues that arise from those underground societies.

How significant was this problem the last time we banned assault weapons? How significant is this in a state like NJ that still has an assault weapons ban in place? I think that AR-15s have been banned here for 20 years. Are there underground AR-15 societies here in NJ?

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/N ... 96771.html

The AR-15 is prohibited by name in New Jersey.
Other assault rifles are also banned by name, along with guns with specific aesthetics, similar to New York's statutes.
Despite the ban, there are semi-automatic rifles based on the AR-15 that are legal in the state. Such variants eschew many of the features of guns named in the ban and include smaller magazines.
Anyone who owned an AR-15 or other assault rifle before May 1, 1990, can keep the weapon so long as they registered the weapon before May 1, 1990, and the state Attorney General's office determined it was used for target shooting.
Gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition are illegal in New Jersey.

It sounds like other than smaller magazines, it's cosmetic.

[Isgrimnur]

Just as the assault rifle ban was.

[Chrisoc13]

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

What a joke. Yeah you need an ar-15 to kill those. Give me a break. That list is laughable. I've hunted a fair amount in my life and any Hunter would know that list is a joke of a defense.

Doesn't matter, I'm done arguing about ar-15s. Eff it. I want all the guns gone. All of them. I used to be on board with limiting certain weapons etc but the complete lack of real active empathy and movement from the other side has pushed me to say I'm happily on board the"repeal the 2nd amendment" train.

[El Guapo]

[Remus West]

Attaching prohibition and the war on drugs to the gun culture is silly to me but the results of banning weapons of this sort would result in similar underground societies providing them and all the issues that arise from those underground societies.

How significant was this problem the last time we banned assault weapons? How significant is this in a state like NJ that still has an assault weapons ban in place? I think that AR-15s have been banned here for 20 years. Are there underground AR-15 societies here in NJ?

I don't know the specifics of the NJ ban but I'd be willing to bet it either does not include weapons purchased before the law went into effect or that that piece of it is conveniently ignored. Still, the most important thing to me is taking care of the mental issues that cause people to do things like this COMBINED with gun control laws. It is not an either or thing for me. It is a both or failure thing.

Should have previewed and read the new posts before replying.

[Rip]

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

What a joke. Yeah you need an ar-15 to kill those. Give me a break. That list is laughable. I've hunted a fair amount in my life and any Hunter would know that list is a joke of a defense.

Doesn't matter, I'm done arguing about ar-15s. Eff it. I want all the guns gone. All of them. I used to be on board with limiting certain weapons etc but the complete lack of real active empathy and movement from the other side has pushed me to say I'm happily on board the"repeal the 2nd amendment" train.

Hope you packed your lunch because that train will never reach the station.

[Chrisoc13]

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

What a joke. Yeah you need an ar-15 to kill those. Give me a break. That list is laughable. I've hunted a fair amount in my life and any Hunter would know that list is a joke of a defense.

Doesn't matter, I'm done arguing about ar-15s. Eff it. I want all the guns gone. All of them. I used to be on board with limiting certain weapons etc but the complete lack of real active empathy and movement from the other side has pushed me to say I'm happily on board the"repeal the 2nd amendment" train.

Hope you packed your lunch because that train will never reach the station.

Generations come and go. The stomach Americans have to watch other Americans get slaughtered for "freedom!" I believe will eventually drop out. Just a generation ago gay marriage would have been unthinkable. Keep pushing people to the extremes on this issue and with continued gun violence I believe the anti-gun crowd will ultimately win and win much bigger gains than the gun crowd can realize.

Or we'll all die in massive shootings but at least someone can claim they need their ar-15 to hunt deer.

[Rip]

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

What a joke. Yeah you need an ar-15 to kill those. Give me a break. That list is laughable. I've hunted a fair amount in my life and any Hunter would know that list is a joke of a defense.

Doesn't matter, I'm done arguing about ar-15s. Eff it. I want all the guns gone. All of them. I used to be on board with limiting certain weapons etc but the complete lack of real active empathy and movement from the other side has pushed me to say I'm happily on board the"repeal the 2nd amendment" train.

Hope you packed your lunch because that train will never reach the station.

Generations come and go. The stomach Americans have to watch other Americans get slaughtered for "freedom!" I believe will eventually drop out. Just a generation ago gay marriage would have been unthinkable. Keep pushing people to the extremes on this issue and with continued gun violence I believe the anti-gun crowd will ultimately win and win much bigger gains than the gun crowd can realize.

Or we'll all die in massive shootings but at least someone can claim they need their ar-15 to hunt deer.

By then anyone who wants a gun will just print one out.

[msteelers]

I believe in the right to defend your property, your family, yourself, and others as needed. I enjoy shooting and we own three firearms, all semi-automatic. I'm not a hunter, but understand it as a thing people do - and in some cases, it is essential to keep wildlife populations in check since we've decimated natural predators in many areas.

I would also endorse gun control laws that required training prior to ownership and strict controls on anything that turned the gun into a weapon of near-mass destruction like we saw in Vegas. I would agree to background checks, waiting periods, and restrictions on felons, the mentally unstable, and those with civil orders against them like restraining orders.

Great! I urge you to contact your MOC and tell them exactly that.

Even better, join a group of like minded individuals. One doesn't exist? Create one. Maybe you'll be the sensible gun owners answer to the NRA.

[Fireball]

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

What a joke. Yeah you need an ar-15 to kill those. Give me a break. That list is laughable. I've hunted a fair amount in my life and any Hunter would know that list is a joke of a defense.

Doesn't matter, I'm done arguing about ar-15s. Eff it. I want all the guns gone. All of them. I used to be on board with limiting certain weapons etc but the complete lack of real active empathy and movement from the other side has pushed me to say I'm happily on board the"repeal the 2nd amendment" train.

Hope you packed your lunch because that train will never reach the station.

Generations come and go. The stomach Americans have to watch other Americans get slaughtered for "freedom!" I believe will eventually drop out. Just a generation ago gay marriage would have been unthinkable. Keep pushing people to the extremes on this issue and with continued gun violence I believe the anti-gun crowd will ultimately win and win much bigger gains than the gun crowd can realize.

The American political right recognizes that basically all of their policy positions are becoming deeply unpopular. That's why they are working just as hard to undermine our democratic electoral system as they are to expand the places that any random jerk can walk around openly carrying a deadly weapon. The goal of people like the Kochs and groups like the NRA is to enshrine perpetual minority rule in the United States by corrupting all of our political processes.

[Carpet_pissr]

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

What sorts of weapons? You mean a rifle?

There was nothing special about the weapon used other than marketing.

An AR15 is no more dangerous than any other rifle just like a Corvette is no more dangerous than an Escalade.

As much as I hate to even respond to a reference to that tired old pro-gun car argument, "but, but CARS are dangerous, too!" :

A rocket car IS inherently more dangerous than a moped.

[Isgrimnur]

Good thing that bazookas are controlled.

[Jeff V]

(since the government has also been ignoring my demand to grant law enforcement powers to OO).

You know what would happen if this ever came to be. We'd start a tribunal (council of 8, natch), summarily declare Rip an enemy of the state, order his carcass dumped into the Flint River, and then the website vanishes and we all cease to exist. That's how they win.

[RunningMn9]

So is that a no on the secret societies in NJ?

[noxiousdog]

So is that a no on the secret societies in NJ?

There's no way to know. They are secret.

[Rip]

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

What sorts of weapons? You mean a rifle?

There was nothing special about the weapon used other than marketing.

An AR15 is no more dangerous than any other rifle just like a Corvette is no more dangerous than an Escalade.

As much as I hate to even respond to a reference to that tired old pro-gun car argument, "but, but CARS are dangerous, too!" :

A rocket car IS inherently more dangerous than a moped.

Stop misinterpreting my words. The statement is about an AR-15 versus other semi-automatic rifles. They are equally dangerous. There is NOTHING at all special about an AR-15.

[RunningMn9]

Fair enough, do you have an answer on the ills created by banning AR-15s? Or is it limited to the paperwork involved, and whether or not we have to collect them?

[Unagi]

An AR15 is no more dangerous than any other rifle just like a Corvette is no more dangerous than an Escalade.

Stop misinterpreting my words. The statement is about an AR-15 versus other semi-automatic rifles. They are equally dangerous. There is NOTHING at all special about an AR-15.

The AR15 (among others, yes) is designed to mitigate recoil in order to engage multiple targets as fast as possible.

[noxiousdog]

An AR15 is no more dangerous than any other rifle just like a Corvette is no more dangerous than an Escalade.

Stop misinterpreting my words. The statement is about an AR-15 versus other semi-automatic rifles. They are equally dangerous. There is NOTHING at all special about an AR-15.

The AR15 (among others, yes) is designed to mitigate recoil in order to engage multiple targets as fast as possible.

Aren't all rifles designed to mitigate recoil?

[LawBeefaroni]

The AR-15 has some special characteristics but it's not magical. It's more about the rounds being used and they aren't unique to the platform.

I have fired an AR-15 as well as several other modern semi-automatic rifles and PCCs. It is not a supergun relative to the others. They are all very effective at putting a lot of rounds in a lot of targets in a short time.

In the context of a mass shooting, all are frightening. With current ballistics and optics (see: red dots), pretty much any modern semi-auto is going to be.

[Remus West]

So is that a no on the secret societies in NJ?

I can not tell you but if you'd like to apply send me a PM.

and with that post I have just given the alt-right everything they need to convict me personally of altering the last election I'm sure.