Do not think about arguing

[uppityperson]

It was a gun capable of killing many people in a short period of time.

I don't give a flying fuck if the wrong brand name is used. I care less than shit if someone says the wrong layman's term.

Arguing and nitpicking those details tells me a person cares less for the victims than making sure the weapon used is narrowly defined. Yes, those terms matter for legislation, but not on forums, not on Facebook, not to most of us people.

I've seen this across the Internets and it doesn't impress or educate anyone to say in response to "how horrible that all those young people were murdered by a (insert inaccurate layman's term)", to rely "it wasn't a layman's term but an official term".

Too many were killed too fast by a murderous jerk and his gun that could do this.

[uppityperson]

1. a kick

[demmiblue]

2. K&R

I find it repulsive.

They are like cockroaches scurrying about once the lights are shut off.

[SuperDutyTX]

3. Perhaps some context would help

I've been lurking for a while, but for some reason felt compelled to respond to this. Please don't jump down my throat too much.

First and foremost, I think most every American (regardless of ideology) is horrified by what happened in Orlando; it's understandable that people would want to implement corrective measures to prevent a future occurrence. How that's done is obviously a hotly contested debate.

That said, all of the "technical details" that are being pointed out truly do mean something, and are critical to understand so people can grasp the implications of any laws/regulations they're advocating; missing those details can change the scope of any proposal quite dramatically. I'm not talking about the minor ones I see folks corrected on (i.e. clip vs. magazine), but basic fundamentals of firearms (i.e. automatic vs. semi-auto vs. bolt action etc).

In my poor attempt to make an analogy, I see it as being very similar to some right-wing fundamentalist saying "I don't need to know nothing bout those lady parts, abortions are bad, and stem cell research is an incentive to kill babies; end of story!". It's a point of view, but likely not the most thought out one.

I can respect the hurt and outrage, but it's never a bad thing to try and gain an understanding of an issue and the implications of any "proposed solution" before becoming a vocal advocate.

[passiveporcupine]

11. there is a time and place for every argument.

This is NOT the time. Have some respect for those of us who are suffering and need to vent.

[Marengo]

15. If it's time to discuss legislation, it's time to discuss technical accuracy...

When is it ever acceptable to base legislation on ignorance? Would you tolerate that in the case of reproductive rights?

[JustAnotherGen]

53. That has happened

All the legislation rolling back abortion rights are based on ignorance, stupidity, and myths.

Funny - in some states I have to wait several days for an abortion but not a gun.

[Marengo]

126. Yep, my point exactly. The absolute ignorance of those pieces of legislation...

Is bewildering and infuriating. Why would we want to repeat that elsewhere.

[JustAnotherGen]

147. Well I'm a woman

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Let's say I've been sexually assaulted and I'm now pregnant and being told I have to wait.

Sure is cheaper and easier to have a gun cleaning accident that doesn't fatally wound me to solve the problem. Accidents with guns happen all the time.

Would be interesting what Guns and Gods Intersection Freaks would do with that one. Or if a woman took a military level gun to a Focus on the Family event.

I'm not advocating anything so horrific - But it is only a matter of time. Gun massacres are now the norm and sooner or later it is going to catch the strongest advocate groups in the ass. I won't be praying when that happens.

This country can take its prayer memes and shove it up its collective asses. The prayers don't work so get God out of our vaginas and take your guns to church.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

125. Not really. People can express the size and the shape of the thing they want without technical

details.

A lot of people would like to see high capacity guns that can kill a lot of humans in a hurry go the way of the dodo--no gunskillz required for that sentiment. The legislation comes later, and technical details in any legislation would be important. But expressing a desire to have these off the street doesn't require any of that, and Congress won't be scouring the pages of DU to find technical details.

[Marengo]

128. Sure, anyone can bring anything to the table. But, if demands are based on ignorance, it's..

Not going anywhere and that can lead to a great deal of consternation. Or, as the poster above you pointed out, such ignorance if codified into law can have disasastrous effects.

[Locrian]

149. spot on

I know everyone is super pissed and wants it to stop, but there are technical issues when you talk about crafting laws that are more than just window dressing. The people on DU pointing this out are not the enemy - if you want to see the real "other side" there are tons of boards where you can see the ugliness of what we're *really* up against.

Marengo is correct - the devil is in the details (or the AR15 - whatever). This is also an issue about money, power, propaganda, and it needs to be approached with a smart strategy. Otherwise we get either nothing or a watered down bullshit law.

[Maru Kitteh]

176. Are you suggesting that DU will write legislation?

Because that is nonsensical.

Otherwise, it seems you are just attempting to stifle conversation.

[Marengo]

179. Rubbish. Go ahead and apply the stifling argument in a discussion concerning...

Legislation limiting women's reproductive rights. As if you wouldn't challenge a position of support for restrictive legislation based on ignorance. I'll patiently await a link where I stated DU writes legislation.

[uppityperson]

16. Thank you.

[cleanhippie]

18. Agreed. So why are so many arguing for gun bans?

Or is it only pro-gun arguments you're against right now?

[SuperDutyTX]

20. Respectfully

Respectfully, I didn't offer any opinion either way; I'm merely saying that it's wise to understand what you're trying to legislate.

I am sincerely sorry if I offended you; that was not my intent. I think everyone is horrified at what happened.

[Stonepounder]

68. SuperDutyTX, I understand what you are trying to say and I concur.

Just as many get furious at folks who say "Oh, you shouldn't be trying to politicize this tragedy", many of us have been exposed to so damn many pro-gun trolls that we get super sensitive, especially after yet another horrific mass shooting.

For the record, I am about as anti-gun as they come. I'm not trying to overturn the 2nd amendment or anything like that, but I personally, don't like guns. I don't want to own a gun, I don't want guns in my house, I leave the area when I see someone open carrying. At the same time, we need to know the difference between 'automatic' and 'semi automatic', we need to know just what constitutes an 'assault weapon', and so on. Otherwise our good buddies, the Republicans in Congress and their paymasters the NRA, are quite willing to pass a 'gun control bill' and actually makes these killing machines even easier to get by even more people.

[Matt_R]

89. "assault weapon" is used becasue it is a gray area, and has no meaning in law. As far as I know...

On the other hand "assault rifle" has a specific meaning in law. If you think people are arguing with you because you used the wrong term, its because 'words have meaning' and you need to know those meanings to use those words.

[Crunchy Frog]

92. I think it's a moot point, as I don't expect to see any meaningful regulation

of firearms in my lifetime.

I don't make any propositions at all, as I know they're just pipe dreams, but I do reserve the right to vent about the situation.

[lancer78]

114. In my opinion

pro-gun trolls are not posting OP's, it is the anti-gun people who then cause a reaction out of the pro-gun people. You don't want to hear from pro-gun trolls, don't start OP's like "We need to BAN ALL GUNS".

[Stonepounder]

117. I don't think anyone is saying that.

Even my, a self-professed gun hater wouldn't propose it, since unless SCOTUS radically changes its mind, such a suggestion would get suggesting something blatantly unconstitutional.

And if you haven't seen comments from the pro-gun fringe right here on DU, perhaps you aren't reading very many OP's. Although they do tend to get hidden fairly quickly.

[lancer78]

119. I read a lot here, but

the other night, I did not see a single pro-gun OP on the first 5 pages. They must get hidden super fast. Usually those who are pro-gun only comment when someone who is anti-gun calls for a ban, or more ineffective laws like the AWB.

I have always seen gun-banners and the pro-birth movement as different sides of the same coin. And that is why pro-gun people and pro-choice people fight so hard and take offense to any legislation.

[Mojorabbit]

118. I think it would be nice if you let us have our funerals

and grieve our losses before everyone starts throwing out their agendas.

[passiveporcupine]

135. Were you addressing me? nt

[Mojorabbit]

136. No, sorry. It is just so jarring when things are still really raw here. nt

[passiveporcupine]

137. I understand.

Just wanted to make sure I hadn't said something that upset you.

[yallerdawg]

14. Let's ban civilian sales of assault weapons.

"Any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms."

After that regulation, we can get into detail of exactly what arms we have the right to keep and bear.

[ManiacJoe]

30. Vent away, but you just stepped into the trap.

"assault weapons"
"Any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms"

They are not the same things. Which group do you want to ban?

[yallerdawg]

32. Assault weapons.

Exactly as defined - automatic or semiautomatic firearms of all kinds.

Snap goes the trap!

[ManiacJoe]

34. Of all the variations on the definition of "assault weapon"

yours does not come close to any of them.

That is the problem with artificial definitions. In the real world, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

[yallerdawg]

37. Assault weapon.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon

You need to read the OP. You went down the offensive rabbit hole now.

[ManiacJoe]

39. Wow. They really got that one wrong.

Fortunately, they don't do that often.

[Aerows]

58. How bad of a damn shot do you have to be

to need more than a revolver's worth of bullets?

I wouldn't be very damn proud of myself if I relied upon needing enough bullets to take down 100 people in mere minutes.

Plenty of people get along just fine with a shotgun for home defense. That's perfectly acceptable.

It isn't acceptable to me that somebody has to run around with 30 shot magazines and weapons whose rates of fire are registered in bullets per second.

Some of you folks come off as people that don't even understand the weapons that you are using, but want to lecture other people about them.

Like I said - how bad of a damn shot are you that you need that many shots in your magazine, and what kind of damn situations are you putting yourself in that requires such a payload? Shooting up bars, schools and movie theaters? Yes, I guess you would need that kind of arsenal if you plan on mass-executing people, but in every day life? Give me a damn break.

[Recursion]

74. I completely take your point, but the "but" here is important:

A weapon being an assault weapon isn't what makes it capable of firing a lot of rounds in a short period of time. That's a completely separate question. A gun is an assault weapon based on its shape and/or brand name.

A whole lot of of what's being called "deflecting" isn't deflecting at all but people trying to get advocates to see that.

[ManiacJoe]

75. What makes you believe that magazine capacity is related to shooter accuracy?

How bad of a damn shot do you have to be to need more than a revolver's worth of bullets?

The correct questions are (1) how many targets do you want to hit, and (2) how many times do you want to hit each target?

You cannot miss fast enough to win.

I wouldn't be very damn proud of myself if I relied upon needing enough bullets to take down 100 people in mere minutes.

That is because you and I are sane and don't want to kill innocent people.

It isn't acceptable to me that somebody has to run around with 30 shot magazines and weapons whose rates of fire are registered in bullets per second.

All guns are measured in bullets per second. That is the definition of "rate of fire". For the non-auto guns, they all fire at about the same rate.

Plenty of people get along just fine with a shotgun for home defense. That's perfectly acceptable.

Very true. Some prefer handguns, and that is perfectly acceptable. Some prefer semi-auto carbines, and that is perfectly acceptable.

Some of you folks come off as people that don't even understand the weapons that you are using, but want to lecture other people about them.

Sounds like most of the controllers.

Like I said - how bad of a damn shot are you that you need that many shots in your magazine, and what kind of damn situations are you putting yourself in that requires such a payload? Shooting up bars, schools and movie theaters? Yes, I guess you would need that kind of arsenal if you plan on mass-executing people, but in every day life? Give me a damn break.

In every-day life, the want for the larger magazines is so that you can spend more time shooting and less time loading magazines.

[blue neen]

95. ?

"In every-day life, the want for the larger magazines is so that you can spend more time shooting and less time loading magazines."

In every-day life? Spend more time shooting? Shooting WHAT?

[ManiacJoe]

101. Paper targets, steel targets, etc.

Tennis balls are a great way of testing your accuracy.

[blue neen]

108. Paper targets don't have hearts and lungs and brains.

Tennis balls don't have wives, husbands, children, mothers, fathers, friends.

And, that's the whole point. The weapons being discussed here, regardless of all technical terms are designed to kill the maximum amount of human beings in the shortest amount of time.

So, what are you testing your accuracy for when we know what this type of weapon is designed to do? The hunters I know, including my husband, would not feel like a sportsman if he was hunting a deer with your type of guns.

You're using terms in your posts like "targets" and "rate of fire" and "magazines" and "carbines" to deflect when it's peoples' lives we should be talking about.

I know you will not agree with me, but I'm angry, and you should be, too. Why can't we all find a way to start to fix an American Epidemic.

Thanks for listening.

[ManiacJoe]

116. Glad we understand paper targets.

And, that's the whole point. The weapons being discussed here, regardless of all technical terms are designed to kill the maximum amount of human beings in the shortest amount of time.

A common misunderstanding. The purpose of a gun is to fire bullets with repeatable accuracy. The choice of target is entirely dependent on the user. Since most things, including bodies, don't react well to having holes punched in them, guns are a great tool for a limited purpose.

So, what are you testing your accuracy for when we know what this type of weapon is designed to do?

Hand-eye coordination. Stress relief. Competitive sports.

The hunters I know, including my husband, would not feel like a sportsman if he was hunting a deer with your type of guns.

That is a good thing. AR-15 style rifles lack the ability to cleanly kill large prey like deer. Like all other semi-auto guns, when used for hunting all use the same magazine size restrictions, usually five rounds. What the gun looks like is of no matter.

You're using terms in your posts like "targets" and "rate of fire" and "magazines" and "carbines" to deflect when it's peoples' lives we should be talking about.

If you honestly believe that, you are greatly misreading the post of mine and of others who are knowledgeable about guns.

I know you will not agree with me, but I'm angry, and you should be, too. Why can't we all find a way to start to fix an American Epidemic.

Oh, I am angry. I just don't let my feelings override my good sense and knowledge. Instead they enhance each other.

Unfortunately for many people, the first step in fixing any problem is educating the people who are interested in actually working on the solution. In this case, far too many DU members wear their ignorance about guns and gun laws as medals of pride. I don't know where you fit into the knowledge scale.

[Aerows]

112. Precisely the point I was making to the person above you

I'll address you.

Why in the name of all that is Holy do you need to train with weapons with high capacity magazines?

And please tell me I'm a gun grabber, because I have stated many times that a rifle is a home defense tool. I went through Katrina, and you do not want feral hogs running around when the police couldn't get to you if you tried.

The difference: Specific use of a gun with sloppy extended magazines that kill plenty of people per second.

People don't miss when they have actual knowledge of hunting, and the first person that tells me they take an AR-15 hunting is a bigger idiot than I have time to deal with.

Said people weren't shooting a church, a bar, a movie theater, or a school. I will function just fine without needing such a multitude of shots.

Are you that awful when you aim, haven't taken rifle safety classes?

You hunt with a damn AR-15?

That's nuts.

[ManiacJoe]

120. Training, hunting....

Why in the name of all that is Holy do you need to train with weapons with high capacity magazines?

Need has nothing to do with it.
I WANT to spend more time training and less time reloading magazines.

And please tell me I'm a gun grabber, because I have stated many times that a rifle is a home defense tool. I went through Katrina, and you do not want feral hogs running around when the police couldn't get to you if you tried.

You are the best one to decide if you are a gun grabber or not.

The difference: Specific use of a gun with sloppy extended magazines that kill plenty of people per second.

You just described every semi-auto rifle that uses detachable magazines. One of the downsides to the AR-15 rifles is that the lack of slop in them can make them less than reliable when dirty.

People don't miss when they have actual knowledge of hunting, and the first person that tells me they take an AR-15 hunting is a bigger idiot than I have time to deal with.

You just admitted people use them for hunting, to quotes up. Feral hogs and other game smaller than deer are very appropriate.

Said people weren't shooting a church, a bar, a movie theater, or a school. I will function just fine without needing such a multitude of shots.

Are you suggesting one thing somehow relates to the other?

Are you that awful when you aim, haven't taken rifle safety classes?

I am good and have taken several of classes. That is probably why I am good.

You hunt with a damn AR-15?

I don't hunt any more.
If I did, I would continue to use the appropriate tool for the job. AR-15 style rifles in .223 are excellent rifles for game smaller than deer.

[Aerows]

134. "I don't hunt anymore"

But you sure advocate the use of weapons that aren't designed for hunting.

You're a real expert.

[ManiacJoe]

140. You seem to be suggesting that some guns were "designed for hunting".

As opposed to designed for something else. That is not the case. However, some guns do end up being more appropriate for some tasks over others.

Of the many rifles and shotguns I own, multiple are good for taking each level of prey, should I desire to do so.

[Aerows]

141. It looks like

you have also determined that your argument is false.

I hope that since you can come to that determination, you take a good hard look at all of the factors involved in these senseless killings.

I can use an axe to chop vegetables. I see no need to wave one around and call myself a chef just because I can put dinner together using one.

[ManiacJoe]

143. While you could use that tool, it would not be the

appropriate one for the job. You might try a knife instead. Easier to use and much safer for you and those around you.

[Aerows]

144. And we've arrived at our destination. n/t

[A Simple Game]

154. Thanks, if not for you, an anonymous poster on a internet forum, I would have totally

believed those professional word definers.

So let's think this over, you get assault weapon redefined to assault rifle and then they shorten the barrels and start calling them pistols. Is that how it is supposed to work?

[ManiacJoe]

157. No, that is neither how it is supposed to work nor actually does work.

"Assault weapons" and assault rifles are two different things, thanks to the idiots who created the artificial definition of "assault weapon" with the purposed of confusing people.

The length of the barrel has nothing to do with converting a rifle into a pistol. There are federal rules for how and when you do such a conversion.

As for the dictionary error. I, too, would believe them if I did not know that in the case of this phrase they very much got it wrong. Glad I could help.

[jmg257]

160. "the idiots who created the artificial definition of "assault weapon". Damn Gun Digest - those

fuckers, along with Treasury Dept, screwed it up for every body.

[ManiacJoe]

161. Yes, that particular list does contain some

folks that should have known better, along with the major gun controllers how were purposely trying to deceive people.

[A Simple Game]

173. Do us all a favor and give us your definition of an assault weapon.

Assault weapons is a broad category that includes but is not limited to assault rifles and assault pistols. Swords, lances, knives, bows and arrows, etc. could all be included in the broad category of assault weapons.

But by far, at this date in time, assault rifles are the most common assault weapon.

I wasn't talking about personally shortening the barrel but if you just specify assault rifle then the companies will shorten the barrel to call it a carbine, which most assault rifles actually are already, or shorten it even to a pistol classification, or they could eliminate the grooving in the barrel... voila no longer a rifled barrel.

You are just playing word games and everyone, including you, know it.

[ManiacJoe]

177. I have no definition of "assault weapon".

That is an silly, artificial phrase used to describe a bunch of rifles based on their cosmetic looks and specific model numbers. The name was purposely chosen to make people think of assault rifles (machine guns). There is no version of any definition of "assault weapons" that includes assault rifles.

The correct, real world phrase to describe "assault weapons" is "semi-automatic carbine", which also has a single definition based on functionality not looks.

There is a single, real world definition of assault rifle. And no "assault weapon" meets that definition.
Wikipedia has a great description of assault rifles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The most common definitions of "assault weapon" talk about stalk shapes, grip shapes, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, magazine sizes, barrel threads. None of that stuff matters to the functionality of the gun any more than the color of the gun.

Your idea of what "assault weapons" are is completely wrong given the common definition of the phrase. Yes, your ideas are reasonable when the two words are taken separately. Again, confusion was the exact purpose of the phrase.

Words have meanings. If you want to have clear communications, you need to use the correct words to express your ideas, and you need to use the words correctly. Otherwise, folks will not understand what you are saying, and you will may be offended when they try to correct you.

It is not necessary to use the technical words in a conversation about guns. But for whatever reason(s) that is where most people want to go even when they don't understand the words they are trying to use.

[A Simple Game]

180. You do realize that there were assault weapons even before gunpowder was invented don't you?

Please do a quick search of assault weapons throughout history. Assault rifles, carbines, and pistols are just some of the latest weapons to be included in the category.

The only thing a narrow definition of an "assault rifle" will do is allow the manufacturers to minutely change the specifications to get around the law. But maybe that's what you actually want.

[ManiacJoe]

181. Obviously you are not using the phrase the way everyone else is.

What you are describing is the simple definition of "weapon".

"Assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are not the same thing and never have been, confusion being the desired point of the phrase "assault weapon".

[A Simple Game]

182. So according to you a weapon is a weapon is a weapon and that's all there is to it?

And you are partially right, a weapon is a weapon. But there are categories of weapons as you must have found out when you did the search on ancient assault weapons. The history of weapons is fascinating isn't it?

There are offensive weapons, often the same as assault weapons, defensive weapons, and dual purpose weapons. An assault weapon can be a defensive weapon but doesn't have to be. Land mines are but one example of a defensive weapon that wouldn't be an offensive weapon. Can you at least acknowledge that there are different categories of weapons?

But then you probably don't want assault rifles categorized as assault weapons because you know most assault weapons are banned for private citizens.

Most weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people in a short time frame are offensive weapons or assault weapons. Now bear with me here because often assault weapons are often designed to wound instead of kill. It requires very little thought to understand the reasoning behind this tactic. Here's a hint, it has to do with manpower usage.

I also see that you realize a assault weapon doesn't have to be a assault rifle, but are still having a problem understanding that a assault rifle is a assault weapon or at least can be. So at least now you are only half confused, congratulations.

[ManiacJoe]

183. Thank you for confirming your non-standard use of the phrase.

"Assault rifle" has a single, standardized definition.
Regarding guns, "assault weapon" has a common theme with variations, as silly as they all are.

Your use of the phrase "assault weapon", while accurate in the historical context you are using it, is entirely wrong for the context of classification of rifles as commonly used by everyone else. Context is everything.

[A Simple Game]

185. OK I'll lower myself to play your semantics game.

Yes context is everything and if a assault rifle is categorized as a assault weapon, which it is, then it to can be banned as have most other assault weapons .

Tell us, just what reason is there for a common citizen to have an assault weapon? And there lies your reason to be against the definition of a assault rifle as a assault weapon.

In your search of assault weapons throughout history did you run into the story about the Romans banning assault weapons? Fascinating, I bet you can't stop reading the history of assault weapons now, can you? Hard to imagine isn't it, banning weapons even before the invention of gun powder.

Then there is the problem with the sovereign citizen people wanting local sheriffs to be the final authority and the fact that historically most sheriffs often banned the carrying of weapons in the towns they served. Quite the conundrum isn't it? Then again you probably aren't that recent in your study of assault weapon history yet.

[ManiacJoe]

186. I cannot take credit for any semantics game.

That credit belongs to the linguists.

Staying in the context of firearms....

Assault rifles are not "assault weapons". Every definition of "assault weapon", as silly as they are, always explicitly exclude assault rifles due to assault rifles being classified as machine guns by civilian law.

In the real world, there is no such thing as a separate gun classification as "assault weapon". All the rifles that they attempt to describe are correctly classified as either semi-auto carbines or semi-auto full-size rifles.

Why would someone want an "assault weapon"? Because semi-auto carbines are great for hunting, plinking, home defense, and competition shooting.

[A Simple Game]

187. If you can't grasp the concept of categories of weapons then there is no sense in continuing

this conversation. The fact that you seem to think the only assault weapons are assault rifles is sad when by now you know assault weapons existed before gunpowder and therefore before firearms themselves. But I am encouraged by your use of the word carbine. You have been studying haven't you?

But I do encourage you to continue studying the history of assault weapons, it truly is fascinating isn't it?

[ManiacJoe]

188. Sorry that the conversation is not going your way.

I agree with you. If you want to have a conversation about the history of weapons, great. Do that. Start a new thread. Go for it.

Unfortunately, the existing conversation you have jumped into is one specifically about firearms. It uses definitions specifically about firearms.

Unfortunately for you and for everyone else, the terms used in this conversation were specifically created to cause confusion with the uneducated masses. As you have found out the hard way, that desire to create confusion greatly fucks up any hope of an intelligent conversation.

You seem like a knowledgeable person regarding weapons and their history. I am surprised you are unfamiliar with the phrase "assault weapon" as it applies to firearms.

[A Simple Game]

189. In my case talking with someone that doesn't admit a assault rifle

is a assault weapon was the big problem.

My dabbling into the history of weapons was to show how little you really knew about the subject of weapons and the different categories of weapons and were just passing along the talking points you have learned. Review your posts and you will see that you only repeat the same sad point over and over. You don't know enough, nor do I think you want to know enough, about the subject to have a conversation.

Have fun with your plinking. Bye.

[ManiacJoe]

191. Thank you for at least admitting your ignorance.

That is the first step in learning.

We are here to help you, should you so desire.
Wikipedia has a good write-up on the "assault weapon" silliness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

[A Simple Game]

193. OK just one more time because it seems you are trying.

As it seems you like Wiki, even though you want to be selective...

From Wiki for assault weapon: The term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle". According to the Associated Press Stylebook, the media should differentiate between "assault rifles," which are capable of fully automatic firing, and "assault weapons," which are semiautomatic and "not synonymous with assault rifle."[5] Civilian ownership of machine guns (and assault rifles) has been tightly regulated since 1934 under the National Firearms Act and since 1986 under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.[11]

Thus your wanting to talk only about assault rifles.

From your Wiki link for assault rifle: In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified a definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

The bold is mine. and also points out why you don't want to talk about assault weapons. It also points out the fact that any definition can be legislated, also something you probably wouldn't want to happen.

None of this is counter to my calling assault rifles part of a larger category of assault weapons, which I will concede is a much older definition than the one legislated by our lawmakers. It is also one that will outlast the one legislated. Even you must admit that a rifle is a weapon but a weapon doesn't necessarily have to be a rifle. Weapon is a broader category than rifle but is not limited to the characteristics that define a rifle.

Please don't limit your exposure to information to Wiki, you just don't know the biases that may be incorporated into the information.

[ManiacJoe]

194. Thanks for taking the next step.

No, I don't like Wiki. But in this case, they did get it right for the most part.

> Thus your wanting to talk only about assault rifles.

Not me. This is not my thread. I am just a participant. I did not define the terms. I just use them correctly, regardless of any silliness in the definitions. Now you, too, know just how silly the legal definitions of "assault weapon" are in the context of firearms.


> None of this is counter to my calling assault rifles part of a larger category of assault weapons,
> which I will concede is a much older definition than the one legislated by our lawmakers.

Exactly. A good and accurate definition, but one that does not apply in the legal context of firearms. Unfortunately, the definition of "assault weapon" you want to use is never the one anyone else uses regarding firearms.

[jmg257]

190. Maybe you guys should start with the "legal" definitons..may vary depending what jurisdiction,

but usually enjoy a few things in common.

Next try "firearm" in NY - that is always good for a "WTF?"

[ManiacJoe]

192. No argument there regarding NY.

[Major Hogwash]

70. But, we tried that already and it didn't work.

That is a fact.

Nevertheless, instead of banning them outright, we should restrict the sale of assault weapons much more than we do the sale of handguns.

[Recursion]

73. Hm. I feel the opposite: handguns are the real problem in the US

They're something like 95% of gun deaths despite being something like 60% of guns sold.

[Major Hogwash]

87. Yet, you are including suicides in the figure that you're using for all gun deaths.

Which I'm not concerned with.
I'm just concerned with mass murders committed by murderers, using assault weapons with large capacity magazines.

The original AWB didn't affect the sale of assault weapons effectively because it only stopped the sale of new assault weapons by licensed gun dealers.

However, private sales of used assault weapons at gun shows held by private citizens were not prevented by the original AWB.
And that was because the NRA lobbied Congress in 1993 to keep that language out of the original AWB.

[Recursion]

88. Even in mass murders, handguns have a slight majority

The original AWB didn't affect the sale of assault weapons effectively because it only stopped the sale of new assault weapons by licensed gun dealers.

That's not why. It didn't affect the sale because gunmakers simply filed the bayonet lugs off of the new rifles and sold them. The proposed new ban requires them to modify the shape of the rifle's grip. It didn't affect the sale because it's a fundamentally misguided law that goes after literally every aspect of the gun except the one we actually care about: its ability to fire a lot of bullets in a short period of time.

[Major Hogwash]

99. The gun manufacturers did away with some of the offending characteristics . . .

. . that were used to define an assault weapon.
That is true.
But, it was not a misguided law simply because of the rapid fire capability of an assault weapon.
Because the rapid fire capability of an assault weapon is the same capability as most semi-automatic pistols.

Yet, there was no way of passing legislation in 1993 to eliminate all of the semi-automatic pistols that had been sold in this country by that time to prevent them from becoming so numerous in this country.

What there needs to be is a fundamental change in American's attitudes of wanting to own rapid fire assault weapons.
Any new proposed legislation isn't going to be effective.

[Recursion]

100. And your last sentence is the most important thing on the thread, I think

What there needs to be is a fundamental change in American's attitudes of wanting to own rapid fire assault weapons.
Any new proposed legislation isn't going to be effective.


That, that, that. Legislation can help by making them more of a PITA to buy. Though that can also come back to bite us (sales of AK-styled rifles soared after '94).

[Jim Beard]

107. The AMA has finally taken a stand to restrict gun ownership.

The doctors see the extensive damage done by a high velocity is much higher than a 38 snub nose revolver.

There was enough people killed with revolvers and three shell shot guns. I don't argue anymore, I have made up my mind.

[Aerows]

113. We didn't fail to go to the moon

And we didn't stop trying to distribute the satellite towers that enabled cell phones, GPS devices and many other advances.

We *TRIED*. I prefer trying to address a problem than sitting on my hands.

This problem is that there are too many people that do not see this as a problem to be solved.

[lancer78]

115. And there we go

Anti-gun person writing something that will elicit a pro-gun response.

[OwlinAZ]

152. Let's do

All the verbal sparing helps none. All the, "just enforce the laws on the books" has been useless.

As in so many other subjects, the conversation is misrepresented by the corrupt media. Until we have a Supreme
Court willing to look directly at issues that are of deep concern to individual Americans, we will be swimming in the mire and overwhelmed by special interests like the NRA and gun manufacturers. And the massacres will continue. And the United States will be less Democratic and more fascist.

[saidsimplesimon]

28. TX bigot language suks, imo

Thank you for joining the conversation.

In the spirit of sharing a hand across the border, I'll give you a pass from my tongue of truth. A quote for you, "You don't want to know the truth". So, in lock step, shield your eyes, cover your ears and pretend.

Never mind, there is a society of kind souls waiting for those with a mind equal to their emotions. Oh, never mind, not gonna happen, or so hee haw naysayers of the win at all cost. Easy for some to turn a blind eye to inconvenient truths!

[Squinch]

42. If gun trolls and the NRA would get out of the way, there is no doubt in my mind that

we would be able to find knowledgeable people who would be able to write meaningful legislation to limit availability of the kinds of guns that are being used in these massacres.

Do you know what a decidua is? Chorionic villi? A vacurrette? I am going to guess not. And yet despite that, are you pro choice? Do you believe it is possible for people with your level of knowledge of abortion procedures to a) have an opinion about abortion and b) push to protect the availability of abortion?

Do you know how to cook meth? I am going to guess not. And yet despite that, do you feel that you have the right to demand that you be protected from living next door to someone who is cooking meth and putting you at risk of death? I am going to guess you do feel you do have a right.

The fact is that most of us are not educated about the details of MOST things that are legislated.

The argument is silly.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

52. +1

[SuperDutyTX]

56. Thanks!

Thanks for the reply!

You are correct in that I do not know what a decidua, choronic villi, or vacurrette is. That said, I am personally pro-choice. I'm a married male; so it's something that (up to this point) I've never had to deal with, or felt very passionate about, but I do fundamentally believe there are reasons a woman would need to terminate a pregnancy. As a result, I would never go making technical recommendations on the specifics of when, and under what circumstances one is performed; I'd just generally support the idea.

I didn't mean to turn this into an abortion thread either; I was simply trying to help the OP (and others) to more accurately describe their beliefs. For this specific issue, the framing is of critical importance; it's literally the difference between "I am advocating the ban/restriction/limitation a thousand firearms" to "I am advocating the ban/restriction/limitation hundreds of millions of firearms".

Regardless of what side you fall on, I was just trying to be helpful.

Take care!

[Squinch]

59. You have completely missed the point. The point was that you have an opinion about these topics

and you have expectations from a civilized society about these topics. You have these opinions and expectations despite the fact that you know nothing about the details and mechanics of these topics.

You have expectations, for example, that our society will protect you from having a meth plant set up next to your home and putting you at risk of death.

If our society was not protecting you from that meth plant, you doubtless would push for legislation that allows our society to protect you from it.

You would push for this legislation despite the fact that you don't know the mechanics of cooking meth.

You would push for this legislation with the knowledge that when it came to writing the law against meth labs, you and everyone who joins you in wanting the legislation does not need to become an expert in cooking meth.

This is how it works when we write all other laws. This is how it would work when we wrote gun control laws, if the NRA and the gun lobbies would not be allowed to write or influence the legislation.

The argument that we all need to know the terminology and mechanics of the gun hobby is ridiculous.

[SuperDutyTX]

62. Thanks!

I don't know that I fully agree with your analogy (I didn't much like my own either). That said, this would be like advocating for "protection from meth producers", but calling them marijuana growers all the while, and openly refusing to spend 10 minutes to learn the difference. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone unfamiliar with firearms to know everything about them, but I would expect that when someone is passionate about a topic, that they be able to clarify the difference between a few thousand, and a few hundred million.

I respect everyone's opinion, regardless of their stance; I was just trying to help.

[Squinch]

63. No, actually it really wouldn't be like that at all. It would be like saying, "we don't want these

gun massacres to happen anymore and we want some legislation that moves toward that end."

Somehow, our legislators figured out how to make meth labs illegal without you or me learning anything about cooking meth.

Again, there is no reason why everyone needs to learn all about the gun hobby know in order to be protected from being killed by a creep with a gun.

Nice try though.

[SuperDutyTX]

64. Sounds like we're at an impasse.

But I appreciate the discussion!

[lancer78]

129. Some of us

have come to the conclusion that even though laws can be written that protect us, some of us have realized that we cannot legislate 100% safety. Some of us are not willing to lose an enumerated right to MAYBE save 500 lives a year.

When my sister and brother-in-law were killed by a drunk driver, at first I was angry that there weren't "more laws" on the books. But after thinking about it for a while, I realized that there are TONS of laws regarding drinking and driving.

Drunk drivers kill 20 times the number of people than rifles do each year. Yet, people like me, who are victims, are not demanding a ban on alcohol or more laws as we realize that if someone is going to drink and drive, they will. I guess you could make the penalty for DUI the same as attempted murder, but than you would get into cruel and unusual punishment.

We already have laws on the books regarding guns and gun violence. Pretty strict ones if I do say so myself.

I know a lot of people feel they need to "Do something", but there is only so much we can do. It is like with the Patriot Act, how far are we willing to go in order to feel safe?

[Squinch]

164. You always seem to emerge from somewhere when these massacres happen, just to tell

us that gun control is impossible.

It's striking.

[PJMcK]

54. Your civility is admirable

You've articulated very important specifics that any meaningful and Constitutionally sound legislation would have to address. I accept that you recognize the lameness of your analogy but I gather that you're trying to have a reasonable conversation.

Personally, I have no use for guns but I don't care if you have them. Please don't let them be used to kill people, whether intentionally or accidentally.

I appreciate your respectful tone. That seems to be missing in the discussion of guns in our society.

[Skittles]

77. NRA REPORTING FOR DUTY

[Squinch]

105. Exactly.

[Bucky]

122. I see where you're going with this.

The specs are important for lawmakers to know about. When you create operational limits, the regulated industry is going to push those limits. I get that. In this website you're going to find a large number of us are inclined to dig into the nuance of many policy statements. But that is not what this conversation is about.

As I leave auto regulation to auto experts and health regulation to medical experts, I leave the nuts and bolts of manufacturing regulations on guns to weapons experts. It's enough for us to say, "We need all Americans covered by health insurance" and can leave it to the health management pros to make the details of the system. Or for us to say "We need fewer miners to get crushed by cave-ins" and let professional engineers define the specs.

What this discussion is about is us, as a people, saying "Do you see that movie theater covered in dead bodies? Do you see that night club, that office park, that college campus, that high school, that elementary school with all the dozens of dead people scattered about in the puddles of blood? We demand that any weapon that can do THAT needs to go away."

We won't ever stop shooting incidents. The only goal of this discussion is to make them less bloody. Other countries have done this and have benefited from the results. They still have tragedies; they just have less.

[stopwastingmymoney]

142. Any weapon that can do THAT needs to go away

Exactly

[Recursion]

146. Then get a Democrat to propose a bill that makes them go away

I'd support that. But I will also push back against bills that don't even try to do that, which is all we keep getting.

[treestar]

4. agree

[jmg257]

5. Understood. But what about forums where legislation is being discussed (A LOT)?

In hopes of getting effective legislation promoted and passed?

[uppityperson]

6. As I said in the OP Yes, those terms matter for legislation, but not on forums, not on Facebook, not

Yes, those terms matter for legislation, but not on forums, not on Facebook, not to most of us people.

[Recursion]

71. OK but they matter if people's ignorance of the subject means they're going in literally

the exact wrong direction for what they're trying to achieve. Which is what we did in 1994, and what I'm worried we're going to do now.

Weapons like the AR-15 have a lot of characteristics, one of which allows them to fire a lot of bullets in a short period of time. In 1994 we banned literally every other characteristic of the weapon and left that ability. And I'm sick of having my mental health questioned when I try to point that out, when I'm not the one pushing for a law that keeps this gun legal.

[lastlib]

82. Pls forgive my ignorance--

what is that one characteristic? Enlightenment needed.

[Recursion]

84. Accepting detachable magazines

The whole premise of the assault weapons ban is that we keep weapons that accept detachable magazines legal (because that's like 75% of civilian guns made in the past century) but not allow them to be sold under certain brand names or have certain form factors.

[TipTok]

139. Why perpetuate ignorance?

Especially willful ignorance from those who actively refuse to educate themselves on a topic they appear to feel so passionately about?

[uponit7771]

7. +1, any device DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently shouldn't be in the hands of avg citizen

[Recursion]

72. That's a principle I can be on board with. BUT

that means we will need to ban essentially all guns made in the past century or so except revolvers.

I think people think there's a relatively small class of weapons that are capable of shooting that many bullets in a short period of time but that is not the case (realistically there's only a fairly small class that can't) and we've never yet had a politician with the guts to propose actually restricting the huge swathe of weapons with that capability.

[pnwmom]

8. +1000. n/t

[Photographer]

9. God, YES! I have moaned about the semantics war being used by

the pro gun lobby and NRA. K&R'd.

[Duval]

10. K&R!

[Android3.14]

12. Your argument is more effective if you use actual facts, accepted terms and language to support it.

While many people will agree with your broad assessment, you actually weaken the cause you want to support by leaving your argument open to attack because of your use of misinformation and faulty logic.

A little bit of research before you hit "post my reply" goes a long way.

[lindysalsagal]

38. You're exactly what the post is talking about. You missed the point, entirely. Ignore.

[Chellee]

61. He didn't miss the point.

He purposely sidestepped it.

My ignore list has grown exponentially since Orlando.

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. For the record, I also loathe that sort of pedantic deflection.

When a correction happens because it actually matters to get that particular detail right, fine. But too often, all parties know exactly what was meant, the use of specific terminology was irrelevant to the point being made, and nitpicking does nothing to enhance the conversation.

[Bettie]

67. Precisely, it is all

just nitpicking.

[Recursion]

78. OK, but this detail really, really, really matters to the OP's cause

Because as a lot of people have tried and tried and tried to get gun control advocates to understand: we're going after the wrong thing. No politician has ever said "I want to ban guns capable of shooting this many bullets in that short a time period" (well, Feinstein has at least said that, and then went on to say it's politically impossible).

What we've ended up actually saddling ourselves with is a proposal (and a decade-long law 20 years ago) that kept that capability legal but regulated the brand names and physical shape those guns could be sold with.

[ErikJ]

17. They do that to discredit the messenger

to make him look like he doesnt know what he's talking about. That way they think theyve won the debate.
Gun nuts are just that. They become obsessed by their morbid hobby collecting killing machines. So if youre off by a single detail theyll jump on you. Sick pepple.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. "to make him look like he doesnt know what he's talking about"

If you miss the term/technology by a mile, doesn't it automatically follow that the person doesn't know what they are talking about?

[ErikJ]

23. Only to a gun-nut techy geek.

Like the OP said. If its a gun that can be fired at a very rapid speed in situations like these then it doesnt really matter what the thingamabob is called does it?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Let me let you in on a secret

Any semi-auto firearm produced in the last 65 years with a detachable mag can be fired like that.

So, now we're not talking about ~9 million AR's. We're talking somewhere around 150 million firearms across tens of millions of americans. (Something like 90 million.)

The difference makes legislative work difficult to define, and political support difficult to gather.

[SuperDutyTX]

27. It does

I'm not trying to make things intentionally obscure here, just trying to illustrate a point.

If the OP is advocating going after the Sig MPX (the model used in this shooting), that can't be more than a couple thousand rifles.
If the OP is advocating going after AR-15s and their variants, that's likely tens of millions of rifles.
If the OP is advocating going after all firearms that can fire that quickly (either just semi-auto, or Semi-Auto + mag fed), now you're talking hundreds of millions of firearms.

I'm not going to advocate either way in this thread, but it's important to note that the little details greatly impact the scope of any proposal.

[ErikJ]

31. I said situations like these.

Almost nobody uses a semi-auto long rifle used for hunting when they are going into a "battle" situatation like this at very close range and double hand-holds. The AR-15 and similar guns were DESIGNED for close range battle situations. It performs as it should. THere is no reason to use it for hunting or any other use except for killing the maximum number of humans as quickly as possible.

The gun is also designed to sell to the person dreaming of being a Rambo. He has it just for fantasy sake. Killing large numbers of people. Hence the high sales in America.

I beleive they bought back and destroyed ALL semi's in Australia which is what they should do here too. Hunting with a bow and arrow should be the only legal hunting weapon in America. Give the poor deer a sporting chance. What good is it to go down and mow a herd at 100 yards. Thats sick too.

[Marengo]

41. The AR platform in the right configuration, such as the AR-10, is an excellent hunting rifle...

and gaining popularity for that usage. Not my first choice, but I see it in increasing numbers. In regard to the success of Australia's buy back program, the actual result seems to be highly debated, with some claiming compliance as low as 20%. I haven't researched the issue enough to form an educated opinion, but so far it seems compliance was not 100%.

[ErikJ]

47. Greatly reduced Aussy suicide and mass shootings.

Thats quite well documented.

[Marengo]

123. I've heard that as well, but in researching found several studies which suggest...

The NFA had minimal impact on reducing suicide rates, at least according to the abstracts. I haven't read it yet, but here it is one: http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee%20and%20Suardi%202008.pdf

On edit, found another but have not read it so am relying on excerpts: http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker%20and%20McPhedran%202007.pdf

[Recursion]

80. Your last point is crucial: Australia targeted all semi-automatics

Anything less than that is window dressing. (For that matter I'd say anything that doesn't focus on handguns is window dressing, but sometimes you have to go where public opinion is.)

[Squinch]

65. The OP is talking about the kinds of firearms that can be used to kill hundreds in minutes.

It really isn't that hard.

And most of us don't really care about how many guns we are talking about. We would like for ourselves and our loved ones to be able to go to public places without the fear that this kind of thing will happen.

[Recursion]

79. No, the OP *thinks* he or she is talking about that

And the OP thinks this is a fairly small and easily defined class of weapons when in fact it is any weapon that can accept detachable magazines. Which is a class of weapon no politician has in our lifetimes ever introduced any attempt to ban or restrict. Worse yet, people think (wrongly) that the law we did pass in '94 made that kind of gun illegal rather than regulate what it can look like and what brand names it can be sold under.

[uppityperson]

81. You can read my mind?!?!!!!

[Recursion]

86. I can read your posts

I've seen you support renewing the AWB which, again, kept the gun the shooter used legal.

[uppityperson]

90. I support not being able to kill 49 people in a short period of time. I don't use

"assault weapon", or try not to because then I get chastised for not using the right jargon, name, technical specs and then write OPs like this one.

I support not being able to shoot and kill that many people in a short period of time. I don't give a shit what something looks like, I care about it being able to shoot that many that fast.

[Recursion]

94. OK, so step 1 is coming to terms with the fact that we need a new law to do that

This is why people keep trying to say this to you: no proposal any US politician has put forward addresses your concern. I'd like somebody to propose something that does. I've suggested one in fact (a semi-auto ban or at least rescheduling). What I oppose is the party duping people into believing they are proposing something that addresses your concern, when it doesn't remotely do that.

[uppityperson]

97. I am in agreement with you. Doing the wrong thing doesn't help.

[Squinch]

93. That's because the NRA and gun lobbies were allowed to write the legislation.

They are allowed to do that because they are enabled and empowered by all those gun owners, the average of which in the US now owns 8 guns.

And there is no reason for you to say that

the OP thinks this is a fairly small and easily defined class of weapons when in fact it is any weapon that can accept detachable magazines.

The OP doesn't say anything about a small and easily defined class of weapons. The OP talks about guns that kill too many too quickly. There is no reason NOT TO restrict guns that kill too many too quickly, no matter how many such guns there currently are out there. We need to start.

When we say that we want restriction on those guns that kill too many too quickly, many of those waging arguments about terminology seem not be able to believe that we can possibly understand the scope of such a description.

Fact is, most of us don't give a rat's ass about how many guns are represented. We simply want the massacres to stop. And wanting the massacres to stop is the only legitimate position in this. It is the position we should all be taking, whether we know the terminology of the hobby or not.

Other countries have managed to stop the massacres. If we were serious, if we were not insane, we would be able to do so too.

[Jopin Klobe]

19. I posted this on truth-out.org and it was REMOVED ...

... and I just posted it on C&L and I'm going to post it on as many sites as will have it ...

... this is TRASH ...

"Did you know that you can do full-auto firing and it is absolutely legal? Bump Fire Systems is here to introduce you to Bump Fire Stock, that allows you to recreate the feeling of automatic firing. You can use it with your semiautomatic weapon by gripping the fore-end of the barrel and pulling it forward. Bump Fire uses a gun’s recoil to shoot multiple rounds."

?t=4

[link:https://www.bumpfiresystems.com/|

PLUS!!! ...you can buy this nifty AR-15 skull decal from Amazon:

My country, 'tis of Thee,
Sweet Land of Liberty
Of thee I sing;
Land where my Fathers, Mothers, Sisters, Brothers, Wives, Husbands, Children, Grandparents, etc., etc., etc. died ...

NOTE: I guess I should have found that 'SARCASM' thingy ... and do NOT tell me "this is not the time" ...

[passiveporcupine]

24. What makes you think people who are disgusted with guns being used in mass shootings

want to see gun videos and gun humper paraphernalia?

Please stop posting this shit.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. "recreate the feeling of automatic firing" but not the accuracy.

Firing full auto is inaccurate enough with a proper firearm. That's not. That's just a way to make the gun empty as fast as possible. You can't hit shit with it. You literally have to hold the firearm 'loosely' so it can slam back and forth with the recoil.

[uppityperson]

36. This is not the right thread for that video. Would you please consider posting it elsewhere?

Thank you.

[cwydro]

22. K and r.

[bonemachine]

25. I just heard this Jackson Browne song for the first time today

The whole thing is relevant to the world we are living in, but the third verse bites the hardest today:

[The_Casual_Observer]

33. This technical diversion shit means nothing when some maniac

Has one of those god damn things pointed at you.

[uppityperson]

57. Exactly, thank you

[MerryBlooms]

35. Rec & Kick. Well stated.

[Squinch]

40. Anyone who uses any of the following arguments is a troll and should be ignored completely.

The ones who make these arguments live for tragedies like this. They get their jollies by derailing all conversation about how to prevent gun tragedies. They are life sucking ghouls with blood on their hands.

Their arguments:

"You might as well give up right now, because you are too insignificant to have an impact."

"We need to completely reform the mental health system before we do anything about guns."

"Chicago has tough gun laws, and they have a lot of gun deaths, so tough gun laws won't work"

"You don't know what a Myerson Double Triple Ammo Latch is, therefore you have no right to be having a discussion about guns"

"You don't know what a Myerson Double Triple Ammo Latch is, therefore the gun control laws will be bad."

"You are saying that all gun owners are murderers. That hurts my feelings."

"All you people who don't like to see guys with semi automatic guns in JC Penney are just hysterical and don't get it. It's no big deal."

"You mean a grandpa can't just give his grandkid a gun without a lot of paperwork? Where's my Liberteeeeeeeeeee!!!!"

"What about the millions who use guns to get their food? Huh? What about those millions? You want them to starve?"

"If you take guns out of the hands of law abiding people, the only people who will be left with guns are the criminals."

"A guy in Podunk stopped a crime with his gun. See? Guns work!"

"All those gun statistics are irrelevant because they include suicides."

"All those gun statistics are irrelevant because they don't include suicides."

"It's not a clip, it's a magazine. Discussion closed."

"It's not a magazine, it's a clip. Discussion closed."

"There are a lot of kids finding guns in dumpsters and bushes." (I'm not sure how this last one fits in, but there is a lot of discussion about dumpster and shrubbery guns.)

"3 people on DU want to ban guns altogether so now I'm going to pretend that that is the goal of all gun control, and I'm going to fight it tooth and nail, and not listen to anyone who wants gun control."

[Marengo]

43. As if you have the authority to set any rules on this discussion...

[uppityperson]

50. Simply expressing my opinion. I am sorry if that offends you.

[karadax]

44. Why are NRA / 2A so entrenched ?

I don't give a flying fuck if the wrong brand name is used. I care less than shit if someone says the wrong layman's term.

Arguing and nitpicking those details tells me a person cares less for the victims than making sure the weapon used is narrowly defined. Yes, those terms matter for legislation, but not on forums, not on Facebook, not to most of us people.

It's this right here. When someone says I don't care. That makes me and others question a gun control supporters sincerity that they actually want to try to find common ground. To not welcome a clarification in such an important discussion tells me that rationality has been replaced by feeling.

That attitude is one of the reasons why the NRA and 2A members feel the need to push back hard. People say "I don't care." I don't care to some means, "laws be damned I am ok with taking everyone's guns away." The NRA pushes that hard and it's believed because it's said all the time: I don't care.

People ARE more important than guns, but laws and terms are important too. Even in a debate facts are key.

[uppityperson]

46. Yes, those terms matter for legislation

[uppityperson]

51. Best wishes to your niece, hoping she regains her equilibrium.

I'm speaking out against those who are minimizing the damage by focusing on other's inaccurate terms. Yes, it matters, but it also doesn't matter in that I can be shocked, appalled, saddened, even though I use an inaccurate term.

[ErikJ]

48. But what about the zombies?

I think that Walking Dead show did more for assault weapon sales than anything else. Shows you their mindset. Fantasy.

[edgineered]

49. A right wing friend failed an attempt to bait me.

He began speaking about RKBA and assault rifles, then asked me what I though an assault rifle was. I don't think he'll bring this up again.

My reply was saying that anyone even talking about it begins to sound like Bill Clinton. I wouldn't anyone to think I was beginning to sound like him, I don't really care what the meaning of is is. I guess he got the point (this time, finally). gotta go.

[still_one]

55. The distinction between a semi-automatic weapon and fully automatic AR 15 means very little to the

dead

[Lee-Lee]

60. People who espouse opinions on guns with no clue how they work sound as clueless and out of touch

As a bunch of old white guys do when they talk about women's health or race.

Seriously, you know how absurd GOP male lawmakers sound when they talk about ultrasounds or "legitimate ape" or how it feels to live in the ghetto? To anyone with any knowledge of guns, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, that's what people sound like when they call AR-15's "automatic" or "high powered" or "killing machines".

And as a result of sounding ignorant nobody takes you seriously. And when people who are in the middle ground on an issue take time to research and learn they see who is talking from a place of knowledge and who is talking from a place of ignorance and who are they going to think is more informed?

You want people to take your opinion on gun control seriously? Take it seriously enough your own self to at least educate yourself on the issue you are trying to talk about so you don't sound as ignorant and out of touch as an old white guy talking about how a womans body will just "shut that whole thing down".

[uppityperson]

66. You won't take my opinion seriously that too many were killed too fast by a murderous jerk and his

gun that could do this unless I use proper jargon and technical terms for the weapons he used?

You missed the point of my OP. Or you just illustrated what I meant.

[Squinch]

69. I believe it was both. And I believe that this one and the one who said, "You

just fell into a trap" about semantics around this subject have just shown the world who they are.

[ManiacJoe]

85. It is all about how you express your opinion.

If you have no technical knowledge of the topic, and if you express your opinion using non-technical language, then you will sound reasonably competent and will be taken seriously.

If you have no technical knowledge, and you misuse all the technical terms you sprinkle into your opinion statement, you come across as an ignorant nobody who either gets dismissed or corrected; neither of which folks like.

[uppityperson]

91. Let's make this simple. I don't like people having access to guns that can kill that many people

in a short period of time. I do not appreciate being told my opinion doesn't count because I don't use the right jargon or tech specs. When people start to nit pick jargon, names, specs, immediately after a mass murder, it seems to me that they care more about the words than what happened.

[Recursion]

96. We care about actually addressing the problem rather than appearing to

Or I do, at least.

If you said "I don't think cars should be able to drive 100 miles an hour, so I'm going to ban all red cars" (and this is seriously about where our party is right now) I don't think it's ghoulish for people to try to talk you down from that.

[ManiacJoe]

98. An excellent example of a non-technical statement.

I don't like people having access to guns that can kill that many people in a short period of time.

Unfortunately, you just described 99% of all guns. But you did an excellent job of expressing your opinion using all the words correctly. Everyone now knows exactly what you intended to say.

When people start to nit pick jargon, names, specs, immediately after a mass murder, it seems to me that they care more about the words than what happened.

Words have meanings. When you use the wrong words, or use the words wrongly, you don't communicate clearly. That wastes the time of others and probably annoys you when they try to educate you in a topic you are not overly interested in knowing about.

It would be like you go into the car/driving forum and ask about how to replace your brake pads while including a picture of your car's carburetor.

[Just reading posts]

145. Therefore....what? Confiscate all repeating firearms?

[ManiacJoe]

158. One could carry the logic that far.

It would not pass a constitutional review, but at least it would be based in logic.
Banning a gun because of its looks is just silly.

[Just reading posts]

159. Good point. While I disagree with imposing more gun control, I can at least see a rationale behind

laws that restrict firearms based on their functionality.

Cosmetic bans are absurd.

[Logical]

132. Lol, 50 dead and you whine about this?

[Skittles]

76. they are cowards

they can all fuck themselves

[aikoaiko]

83. It usually matters. Words have meanings even on DU.

[JanMichael]

102. A 5 or 6 shot revolver could NEVER kill that many people. A double barrel shotgun the same.

A bow and arrow ditto. A knife ditto. A rock ditto. A samurai sword ditto (but cooler effect). I know people that could kill at least two people with a toaster if they were bathing in the same tub without a GFCI. An old Ruger 10-22 with a ten round mag would maybe kill a couple of people maybe even 5 or 6. A wrist rocket can kill as well but in a nightclub it may only piss people off and break strobe lights.

All could be used for self defense or even hunting (the toaster maybe not except for bludgeoning things). Or just be a smart person and avoid dangerous situations and when in them know how to handle yourself.

If a person wanted to flip out and kill a shitload of people they should or would choose an AR-15 or another similar hate giving tool. If they or I wanted to shoot skeet we'd borrow or buy a 12 or 410 gauge shotgun. If I needed to hunt for food a shotgun and 30-06 for bigger game would do.

If I wanted to fucking DESTROY a deer I'd get an AR-15. The gun for little dick douchebags and mentally ill motherfuckers. Remember the ad? Get your manhood back? Really mother fuckers? You need that? Fucknuts. I do not thank you.

Oh a grenade launcher would likely kills less people in that nightclub. A grenade maybe 10. A flamethrower is the odd one it may kill more if it hit other flammable stuff but it is mostly like the samurai sword. Just for show.

[essme]

103. A person with a

couple of pistols with those quick re-loader things could probably accomplish about as much. 'Jus sayin. The actual gun isn't the problem- the problem is the shooters.

[JanMichael]

109. Bullshit. Less accuracy and less kill velocity. That has never happened.

Oh and get rid of the quick loader things.

Maybe they could injure more but not kill so many.

[essme]

111. I really, really want one of these

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/06/14/golden-retrievers-deployed-to-orlando-to-comfort-shooting-survivors.html

[jack_krass]

150. The Va tech shooter used pistols and killed nearly as many people

The delay of SWAT getting on the scene means that really almost any weapon could have been used. The guy had three hours alone with his victims.

[JanMichael]

166. Ah but how different was the total number of casualties?

And in Cho's defence his kill per shot ratio is almost surreal, I agree completely. He was an outlier.

Your average mentally challenged gun nut will kill many more with M-16 knockoffs and probably AK-47 knockoffs too. Although I wonder why no AK's in the US mentally fucked up gun culture have been used to kill more than 5 or 10? That Sandy Hook moron would have probably only shot and killed 10 little kids instead of 20ish.

[ManiacJoe]

167. Sandy Hook would have been much worse with an AK-47 clone.

The larger ammo size would have made multiple kills per single shot much higher due to the small size of the children.

[JanMichael]

168. Then ban them first? nt

[ManiacJoe]

169. Why first?

What makes them special that they need more restrictions than any other semi-auto carbine?

[JanMichael]

171. You just said that the AK-47 knockoffs would kill more than the 20 or so little kids.

Same shooter same school more dead? Yeah!

[ManiacJoe]

172. No, that is not what I said.

What I said was that bigger bullets go through small targets much easier than small bullets do.

Yes, using an AK-47 clone would have been worse than an AR-15 clone. Using a .30 caliber semi-auto "hunting" rifle would have had the same or worse effect as the .30 caliber AK-47 clone.

[Duckhunter935]

153. See Virginia tech

Handguns and low capacity magazines

[JanMichael]

170. Not a revolver though, huh?

Cho used a 15 round magazine in a 9mm Glock 19 and a 10 round magazine in a Walther P22 (the Bond weapon of choice).

Is 15 rounds in a handgun considered low by you all? Jeez. If not what is?

[Squinch]

110. .

[Hoyt]

104. Exactly. Time we start treating gunners like dung, rather than coddling them and their sick junk.

[63splitwindow]

106. You, Sir...

[Dem2]

121. K&R

You've nailed how the gun nuts distract and distort instead of being grown up humans who can actually take responsibility for the actions of their compatriots.

[Arazi]

124. Oh yes, this^^^^^

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. It's like a goddamn Tom Clancy novel for the gunner trash

Their complete disconnection from the ethical dimension is appalling.

[Skittles]

148. it is easy to see why they support Trump

critical thinking skills not required

[uppityperson]

131. huh, thanks for the kick but maybe to the wrong thread?

[Lint Head]

133. Thanks. Fumbled fingered tonight.

[TipTok]

138. Too late...

[liberal N proud]

151. And the question remains - how many more before we do something?

If an amendment to the Constitution is so flawed that it overrides the right to life, then we need to change it.

[niyad]

155. k and r

[heaven05]

156. distractive bullshit

and diminishment of the value of all human life. Typical of people who hold guns more important as an asset to civilized society than the innocent human beings they are massacring. This is a sick, sick gun culture a lot of us are FORCED to accept and live in.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

162. It's like claiming the argument against a nuke murdering millions is invalid....

If you say it was a Mark 24 when in was a Mark 17 which has a TOTALLY DIFFERENT secondary.

[uppityperson]

163. "but you look foolish and how can you ask for something without being accurate"

Yup. Thank you for understanding my point.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

165. Another way of putting it....

[suffragette]

174. Strongest recommendation

Thank you for saying this, uppityperson.

[uppityperson]

175. You are welcome. I still feel that way, 2 date later. I'm getting angry now,past shocked pain, but

still feel the same. I'm not a legislator, see a mixture of issues, and still am not impressed by those seeking to make sure I use the Right jargon.


I am amazed at the subthreads going opposite my OP.

[suffragette]

178. There's a reason some on here refer to it as a 'trap'

They try to weave an obfuscating web of words to make people feel so frustrated and stuck in the sticky web that they stop responding.

It's truly vile and part of why I applaud you for cutting through that mess to the core of the issue.

Stand strong - you are not alone.

[Initech]

184. You will get no argument from me!

50 people murdered in 20 minutes. And they all had lives. Some were getting married, some had beat cancer, and now they're all gone because of a senseless act of terror. Fuck guns, fuck gun culture, and fuck the NRA.