That's apologist bullshit. Why is the subject of a stereotype responsible for disproving the stereotype? Why should anyone temper their views to meet the demands of unreasonable people?

Sorry if I misacribed your gun control views, but that comment sat poorly with me.

2/22/2018 4:44:33 PM

Wow the deputy shit his pants. Put him on suicide watch...that being said, It speaks to need to ban assault rifles.

2/22/2018 6:32:39 PM

How do you suggest we define the term "assault rifle"? The way it was defined in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban or do you have another definition?

2/22/2018 6:56:56 PM

^^^What I'm saying is that there are intractable people on both sides. The reason I'm saying that the left shouldn't come to the table and demand "gun ban gun ban gun ban gun ban" and at the same time not addressing the intractable people on the right is because, at least what I've seen so far, there are no intractable right wingers on this board.

If someone on here was arguing against any type of gun control, then I would address their comments as well. But I was mainly speaking to JesusH, because to him, it is either his way or the highway.

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 7:26 PM. Reason : sfdafs]

2/22/2018 7:25:16 PM

How do would you define assault rifle? Does it really matter?

2/22/2018 7:47:25 PM

you're the one who said we should ban them. what exactly do you want to ban? yes, that is very important. i don't think it's unreasonable to ask what someone wants to ban.

2/22/2018 7:51:31 PM

Whatever this guy had

2/22/2018 7:53:19 PM

do you not know what you want to ban or are you just too lazy to type it out?

2/22/2018 7:57:43 PM

Instead of proposing an idea and then you arguing it and saying liberals don’t understand guns so they can’t participate, how about we work together. What are some guns YOU would accept being banned?

2/22/2018 7:58:43 PM

Well me personally, I wish the more guns banned, the better.

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 8:00 PM. Reason : *I own a gun]

2/22/2018 7:59:30 PM

why haven't you cut your gun in two? be the change and such...

2/22/2018 8:02:32 PM

Could probably get some internet points for it

2/22/2018 8:05:43 PM

Quote :

"Whatever this guy had"

we're told he had an "AR-15". so you want to ban AR-15s?

2/22/2018 8:11:20 PM

"Assault Rifle"

->16" barrel length
-capable of semi-auto fire
-sold with >10 round magazine (after market mags are another debate)
-muzzle velocity >2000ft/s

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 8:18 PM. Reason : I'd regulate them as a higher tier as someone else mentioned ITT, rather than a ban.]

2/22/2018 8:17:01 PM

i say keep the AR-15 but you only get 5-rd magazines

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 8:17 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2018 8:17:06 PM

^^so does it have to meet all four criteria or just one?

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 8:24 PM. Reason : ^are you confiscating >5 round mags or just no new ones?]

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 8:24 PM. Reason : dasf]

2/22/2018 8:22:24 PM

i'd suggest banning new ones, have a date when already manufactured ones can't be sold, and then a date when they can't be possessed

in reality i doubt 5-rd would work, it probably wouldn't hold up in court if tested. 10-rd magazine limit has precedent though and would probably work.

2/22/2018 8:30:02 PM

All 4 I think.

Shorter rifles are SBRs, which should maybe be banned?
Bolt action rifles with large magazines could be pretty dangerous with a skilled user (all these "scout rifle" designs), but are nowhere near a priority right now.
10- round mag limit is debatable for me, I'd listen to arguments for as low as 5.
<2000ft/s is no longer a rifle round IMO, would fall closer to handgun regulations?

2/22/2018 8:30:53 PM

I’m not advocating for confiscation. Maybe buybacks and mandatory registering of already owned ar-15 or military-style weapons.

2/22/2018 8:31:53 PM

would a 5 round mag even extend through the bottom of the mag well on an AR-15?

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 8:34 PM. Reason : ^what's the point of registration if not for confiscation?]

2/22/2018 8:34:32 PM

no one said there was a limit on the length of the magazine, just the capacity

2/22/2018 8:36:15 PM

would you also want to ban guns with tube magazines that hold more than 5 rounds?

2/22/2018 8:39:08 PM

Confiscation is never going to be a good choice, for mags or weapons or any other component. If you want to reduce the supply of something gun related - and this would apply equally to any very common item that is difficult to manufacture on an individual level:

1) Prohibit or severely curtain production of new items
2) Incentivize people to remove existing items from the population (buybacks)
3) Confiscate items when they are attached to some illegal activity (i.e., owning the magazine is legal, but we're still going to seize and destroy it if we find it in your meth lab)
4) Wait for attrition. Magazines will break. The price will go up, limiting the extent to which they are transferred.

Just as importantly, though, are regulations/monitoring regarding the transfer of these items from one person to another. I don't really care if NeuseRvrRat has 10,000 AR-15s with extended magazines and top of the line optics. I think Neuse is a weird dude with a persecution complex, but I don't particularly think he's going to shoot anybody and even if he does, with the worst will in the world he can only fire one AR-15 at a time. So the other 9,999 don't concern me so much - except insofar as he can sell them to 9,999 wannabe Dylan Klebolds, each with a well-established pattern of disturbing behavior but no means of documenting it.

2/22/2018 8:40:43 PM

what does "military-style" mean? anything ever issued by the military? the US military has issued muzzle loaders, single shot rifles, lever actions, bolt actions, semi-autos, and full autos. what they currently issue? that would include bolt action rifles that are really no different than those issued in 1906.

i know you think i'm being pedantic, but the words we use have meaning and we have to use precise vocabulary in such a discussion. otherwise, you end up with arbitrary regulation like the '94 AWB, which gave us this:



both of those are semi-autos chambered for .223 Remington. can you see why the pro-gun side would want to make sure that what we ban is well-defined?

i commend Turd for at least putting forth some specific criteria. his are kinda goofy (a rifle doesn't have a specific muzzle velocity. i have rifles that can fire a round at 1200 fps or 2700 fps, depending on ammo), but at least he stepped out there with something.

2/22/2018 8:44:41 PM

I'd modify it too, "capable of reaching >2,000ft/s muzzle velocity with a common off-the-shelf ammo."

I'm open to other translations. Maybe muzzle energy is a better metric? My main reasoning is that common rifle rounds are more destructive than slower/less energy rounds. It's morbid, but the way most of these recent shootings seem to go down (psycho spraying in the general direction of people) lower muzzle energies could translate to fewer deaths.

2/22/2018 8:58:10 PM

.223 Remington is pretty much as low as you can go besides itty bitty stuff like 22 Hornet and the .177 and .204 caliber cartridges. one of the major criticisms of the AR-15 in Vietnam was how weak the round was. they called it a "poodle shooter". it's not the ballistic powerhouse that so many think it is.

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 9:07 PM. Reason : speaking of muzzle energy, not velocity]

2/22/2018 9:07:27 PM

yes, but a .223 energy is 3x higher, than say a 9mm carbine, at basically any reasonable range. REAL rifle rounds are significantly more destructive than other rounds. High capacity, semi-auto Rifles that shoot rifle rounds are where our focus has to go directly to.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't USA ammo in Vietnam governed by the Geneva conventions, which doesn't allow hollow points or expanding bullet designs (unique bullet shapes, etc). Meaning the high velocity 5.56 round just ripped directly through bodies rather than blowing a giant hole through the exit wound (and transmitting much less energy to the victim)?

2/22/2018 9:31:08 PM

i wonder if the results would really be any different if a dude shot up a school with a 9mm AR. the dude at virginia tech used a 9 mm and a .22 LR handgun.

2/22/2018 9:43:23 PM

If the goal of gun control is truly to significantly reduce gun violence and deaths, shouldn't we look at changing regulations on hand guns, since they account for about 20x more gun deaths than rifles?

2/22/2018 9:51:18 PM

why can't it be both?

2/22/2018 9:53:16 PM

The goal is to reduce deaths. Does it have to be significant or the largest number possible?

2/22/2018 9:55:55 PM

Sure, but it appears all of the suggestions on various law changes over the past couple pages (aside from JHC) have had to do with rifles, even though handguns account for a much bigger problem in this country.

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 9:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2018 9:57:17 PM

As far as I know handguns are already more tightly controlled in most states, you gotta get a permit. Even if that process is a joke, it's STILL more difficult than it is to buy a rifle. The process to buy an AR is the same as buying a muzzleloader. Given the recent shootings it's understandable that people would be interested in making the AR process at least as difficult as buying a handgun.

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 10:05 PM. Reason : We should absolutely revisit handgun regulations though]

2/22/2018 10:04:07 PM

capacity limits on handguns too
all sales require background check
keep record of all sales
training and proficiency required in all states for any kind of carrying
end permit-less carry
give time limit for agencies to report to NICS and fund it
bring back waiting periods
storage requirements
tax guns and ammo for victim fund

2/22/2018 10:10:22 PM

Quote :

"The process to buy an AR is the same as buying a muzzleloader."

That's incorrect. Muzzleloaders are not considered "firearms" by the federal govt. You do not have to complete a Form 4473 to buy a muzzleloader. It's like buying a pellet gun.

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 10:19 PM. Reason : that's why felons hunt with muzzleloaders all season long]

2/22/2018 10:19:13 PM

^^I could get on board with all of those. I'd not heard of the concept of a victim fund, that's a nice touch.

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ^oh word? I did not know that.]

2/22/2018 10:21:14 PM

i do believe that state legislatures should be able to pass any gun legislation they want, including complete bans and confiscations.

[Edited on February 22, 2018 at 10:31 PM. Reason : as long as it complies with their state constitution, of course]

2/22/2018 10:30:36 PM

why AR-15’s, though?

2/23/2018 12:55:11 AM

This page is proof of how ridiculous it is to try and negotiate with pro-gun people on their terms.

They are trying to drown you in a sea of banality and technical gobbledygook. They obfuscate and bewilder you with wildly meaningless jargon and esoteric balderdash.

You have to fight them on moral terms, and with simple arguments and clear goals:

We want a clear reduction in the number of firearms in this country. This includes all guns that shoot bullets.


That is the end goal. That HAS to be the goal. The technology and jargon of gun enthusiasts is intentionally confusing and designed to evolve at a rate that surpasses the average persons ability to keep up, and, ultimately, it outpaces our ability to regulate when we limit ourselves to their language.

Quote :

"...I said was that when gun control advocates just come to the table with "ban X guns" right off the bat, it is going to turn off the far right."

[quote]

Yeah. Good. Fuck 'em. They are an impediment to reform. They are not to be won over, they are to be defeated. They are the OPPOSING SIDE.

2/23/2018 1:15:10 AM

JHC, I am curious as to your views on guns in the hands of LEOs, military, etc. I think we're all in agreement that less guns in the hands of bad citizens is a good step in the right direction. But are you in favor of cops having the same guns as they do now, but only citizens being limited in their gun rights? Or do you think law enforcement should also transition to more non-lethal weapons for their standard issue stuff?

2/23/2018 1:24:13 AM

Look everywhere else. Cops can leave the guns in designated places and bring them out when need be

[Edited on February 23, 2018 at 1:32 AM. Reason : even in their car]

2/23/2018 1:29:55 AM

Quote :

"when need be"

I guess what I'm getting at is if we don't trust citizens to have firearms, (why) do we trust law enforcement with firearms?

[Edited on February 23, 2018 at 1:34 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2018 1:33:51 AM

Quote :

"what does "military-style" mean? anything ever issued by the military? the US military has issued muzzle loaders, single shot rifles, lever actions, bolt actions, semi-autos, and full autos. what they currently issue? that would include bolt action rifles that are really no different than those issued in 1906. i know you think i'm being pedantic, but the words we use have meaning and we have to use precise vocabulary in such a discussion. otherwise, you end up with arbitrary regulation like the '94 AWB, which gave us this:"

i can only laugh at this point. liberals do gymanstics to try and come up with laws that will help and get cuaght in the same debate EVERY SINGLE TIME. They are powerless and get owned by people who know guns like in the quote every time. Its a losing battle. When will they switch the strategy?

Its almost like they want nothing to happen but want it to look like they want something to happen. Hmm....

2/23/2018 1:35:54 AM

Quote :

"But are you in favor of cops having the same guns as they do now?"

No. Replace them with squirt guns, for all I care. No representative of the state should have the authority to kill a citizen.

Quote :

"firearms, (why) do we trust law enforcement with firearms?"

I don't



[Edited on February 23, 2018 at 1:47 AM. Reason : ]

2/23/2018 1:46:45 AM

Fair enough. Sounds like you are consistent in what you want.

2/23/2018 1:52:20 AM

and in a perfect (fiscal) world

https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/videos/10156386751733689/

2/23/2018 2:33:27 AM

Quote :

"They are trying to drown you in a sea of banality and technical gobbledygook. They obfuscate and bewilder you with wildly meaningless jargon and esoteric balderdash."

Yeah, we're the ones using the meaningless terms.

2/23/2018 6:37:30 AM

Quote :

"We want a clear reduction in the number of firearms in this country. This includes all guns that shoot bullets."

Okay, how do you propose we get there, and why do you think your strategy will be effective in reducing gun violence? Keep in mind the standard counterargument of "Gun bans only take guns away from law-abiding citizens".

2/23/2018 6:42:54 AM

Tier 1: Weapons that are totally impractical for modern violence

Muzzle Loading, black powder, and antique weapons; air/pellet/bb guns

No requirements for sale.

Tier 2: Weapons that you could technically kill some people with, but only one at a time and even then you'd look silly, so really you're just a threat to animals during hunting season

Shotguns holding two or fewer shells at a time; bolt-action or otherwise non-semiautomatic rifles with a capacity of fewer than five rounds and a caliber of, say, .306 and below

Criminal background check required. Basic firearm safety certificate required - I'm thinking of the quick little paper tests I've had to take at NC gun ranges before they'd let me rent their hardware, something that any idiot should be able to pass but which at least tells us you know which end of the weapon is the scary one.

Tier 3: Now we're getting a little more murderous

To be continued because holy crap, it's already 8 and I need to get out the door.

2/23/2018 8:03:27 AM

So.

For the crowd calling for armed guards/retired vets/more police officers/armed teachers (basically, those calling for MORE guns in schools), what do you think about the fun fact that the armed police officer stationed at the school waited for up to four minutes while kids were being shot?

2/23/2018 8:46:04 AM