What's new
By:

The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

Rubashov said:
Honestly you do not need to own an assault rifle, it is a tool for killing humans and nothing else. People hunted very effectively with rifles and shot guns.

People still hunt here, you have to do a gun safety course and pass a police check to get a licence. Its not too hard to get a long arm licence, hand gun licences are much harder to get and should be. Again guns are a tool, a friend of mine is a professional shooter who does pest control for farmers and is a nationally ranked target shooter he does not need automatic weapons to do his job.

I personally see no reason why firearms in metropolitan areas can't be stored at police stations or government owned armouries and signed in and out by their owners (farmers need them, especially if you own animals, guns have to be on hand to destroy animals if necessary). I suppose since Port Arthur we've managed things fairly well, most gun related deaths are from suicide and it is predominately in rural areas because guns are at hand.
Click to expand...
The right to firearm ownership in the U.S. is not tied to hunting. The right is specifically linked to self-defense including the defense of citizens against an unjust or illegitimate government. That means that the most effective tools for that purpose are these semi-automatic "sporting" rifles.

A gun held at the police station cannot help to protect you from something like a home invasion robbery, which as far as I can tell is the cornerstone fantasy most gun fanatics believe they are prepared to counter. No need to consider that home invasion robberies are exceedingly rare and when they do happen they are carried out by people who know the victims and are typically for drugs or large amounts of other valuables or cash, not usually for you VCR and Plasma TV.

AR-15s are not automatic. They are semi-automatic.
 
Wholesale gun rights reform would require either a constitutional amendment or a supreme court that has a different view of the 2nd amendment than our current supreme court has.

While you can find polls where a majority of people support "reasonable" regulation, that's only true so long as you don't specify what you mean by "reasonable" because the second you start to define it your majority support fractures into oblivion.

A significant portion of democrats do not support significant gun reform. There is no path to significant reforms right now. That's the facts.
 
Gameface said:
The right to firearm ownership in the U.S. is not tied to hunting. The right is specifically linked to self-defense including the defense of citizens against an unjust or illegitimate government. That means that the most effective tools for that purpose are these semi-automatic "sporting" rifles.

A gun held at the police station cannot help to protect you from something like a home invasion robbery, which as far as I can tell is the cornerstone fantasy most gun fanatics believe they are prepared to counter. No need to consider that home invasion robberies are exceedingly rare and when they do happen they are carried out by people who know the victims and are typically for drugs or large amounts of other valuables or cash, not usually for you VCR and Plasma TV.

AR-15s are not automatic. They are semi-automatic.
Click to expand...
This.

AR does not stand for "assault rifle". It stands for "armalite rifle". People get it in their heads that the "AR" is simply fully automatic death unequaled by any firearm known to man. It just isn't like that. They choose it because it makes them feel like a "soldier" carrying out an important mission. But a pistol would be every bit as effective.
 
Gameface said:
Wholesale gun rights reform would require either a constitutional amendment or a supreme court that has a different view of the 2nd amendment than our current supreme court has.

While you can find polls where a majority of people support "reasonable" regulation, that's only true so long as you don't specify what you mean by "reasonable" because the second you start to define it your majority support fractures into oblivion.

A significant portion of democrats do not support significant gun reform. There is no path to significant reforms right now. That's the facts.
Click to expand...
I think you could tax the eff out of it or put extreme liability on manufacturers and retailers and owners for crimes their guns are used to commit.

I certainly don’t have all the answers but it feels like there are ways to help control this stuff without a huge change to the constitution. Greed is undefeated… taxes and financial loss might have private companies making some of these decisions for us…
 
LogGrad98 said:
This.

AR does not stand for "assault rifle". It stands for "armalite rifle". People get it in their heads that the "AR" is simply fully automatic death unequaled by any firearm known to man. It just isn't like that. They choose it because it makes them feel like a "soldier" carrying out an important mission. But a pistol would be every bit as effective.
Click to expand...
Are pistols as accurate as semi-automatic rifles? I thought longer barrels improved accuracy.
 
One Brow said:
Are pistols as accurate as semi-automatic rifles? I thought longer barrels improved accuracy.
Click to expand...


Much less accuracy and stopping power, the shorter barrel effects both accuracy and velocity of the projectile. A hand gun in close quarters is still very effective tho, so is a knife.
 
One Brow said:
Are pistols as accurate as semi-automatic rifles? I thought longer barrels improved accuracy.
Click to expand...
Most of these shootings are taking place within 50 feet. At that point the improvement in accuracy is negligible.
 
LogGrad98 said:
This.

AR does not stand for "assault rifle". It stands for "armalite rifle". People get it in their heads that the "AR" is simply fully automatic death unequaled by any firearm known to man. It just isn't like that. They choose it because it makes them feel like a "soldier" carrying out an important mission. But a pistol would be every bit as effective.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Yet you just explained the reason that AR type guns should have different regulations. It makes them feel like a soldier. It looks like a call of duty gun.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Gameface said:
Wholesale gun rights reform would require either a constitutional amendment or a supreme court that has a different view of the 2nd amendment than our current supreme court has.

While you can find polls where a majority of people support "reasonable" regulation, that's only true so long as you don't specify what you mean by "reasonable" because the second you start to define it your majority support fractures into oblivion.

A significant portion of democrats do not support significant gun reform. There is no path to significant reforms right now. That's the facts.
Click to expand...

And it doesnt really matter if a significant portion of democrats or republicans did support significant reforms.
Politicians still gonna get paid by gun supporting lobbyists and still wouldnt do anything.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Agreed. Yet you just explained the reason that AR type guns should have different regulations. It makes them feel like a soldier. It looks like a call of duty gun.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
The point is we chase the Boogeyman of guns and then they just switch to the sport version of the same rifle or load up on pistols and nothing changes. But we sure did spend billions to regulate "assault rifles" to virtually zero effect.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The point is we chase the Boogeyman of guns and then they just switch to the sport version of the same rifle or load up on pistols and nothing changes. But we sure did spend billions to regulate "assault rifles" to virtually zero effect.
Click to expand...
Do they? While people with gun expertise and no ego to prop up understand there is little difference, how many of these mass shooters does that describe? How many will think it's just not dramatic enough if they can't use a semi-auto rifle? I honestly don't know. but if the semi-auto rifle is the overwhelming choice, it seems like a question to ask.
 
One Brow said:
Do they? While people with gun expertise and no ego to prop up understand there is little difference, how many of these mass shooters does that describe? How many will think it's just not dramatic enough if they can't use a semi-auto rifle? I honestly don't know. but if the semi-auto rifle is the overwhelming choice, it seems like a question to ask.
Click to expand...
This implies choice of weapon determines follow-through. I find that inaccurate. I doubt there are many people out there thinking "I want to shoot up my school but if i can't get an AR then forget it". It's just the weapon they would prefer. My bet is anything available would suffice. Weapon of choice does not to me mean that if i can't get the weapon i want then forget it. It's a psychological state, an itch that is going to be scratched. If they have to use a different scratcher the itch is still there. It might be that if you eliminate AR-style guns the school shootings will just go away, but my gut tells me that's a heavy oversimplification.

Maybe if we had some evidence of one of these guys going store to store to find the exact weapon they wanted it might carry more weight. Even more if it could ever be shown that it even delayed or discouraged a shooter significantly. Many of them have been known to take plenty of time collecting their weapons so it seems delays aren't significant mitigating factors. Although it could be we would have a lot more if there were even fewer delays. Almost no way to know this. The Columbine shooters spent more than a year planning and accumulating weapons and for them the weapon of choice was actually a pistol, even though one was using a version of an AR-Style rifle.

My point was that we could better use the time and money chasing this one gun to hopefully enact more meaningful control that would have broader effect than one gun.

But you better believe the gun lobby would love to have everyone zero in on one gun they could fight interminably before finally "giving up" the point, all while plenty of other fully serviceable weapons are left off the table.
 
Last edited:
LogGrad98 said:
If they have to use a different scratcher the itch is still there. It might be that if you eliminate AR-style guns the school shootings will just go away, but my gut tells me that's a heavy oversimplification.
Click to expand...
Not go away, but perhaps reduce. I don't know enough about the psychology of these people, but it would not surprise me if some of them were looking to kill with "flair". It might be a coincidence, but school shooting did rise after the "assault weapons" ban was let expire.

LogGrad98 said:
But you better believe the gun lobby would love to have everyone zero in on one gun they could fight interminably before finally "giving up" the point, all while plenty of other fully serviceable weapons are left off the table.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, although lately they have not been the compromising sort.
 
LogGrad98 said:
This implies choice of weapon determines follow-through. I find that inaccurate. I doubt there are many people out there thinking "I want to shoot up my school but if i can't get an AR then forget it". It's just the weapon they would prefer. My bet is anything available would suffice.
Click to expand...
Lets find out if your bet is correct. Never know unless we try.



Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top