Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[JessFR]

Exactly. All guns are assault weapons.

Much as I feel like I almost always disagree or disapprove with JGrimez. This time I really can't. I get exactly what he's saying and I completely agree.

As I've made a point of a couple times now, assault weapon as a word is very poorly defined. Which is why I don't think it should be used.

People who aren't particularly knowledgeable about guns don't tend to see the problems. But the problem is, this is one of those situations where you don't know enough to realize what you don't know and how it doesn't make complete sense.

I think they think "I may not be able to give you a dictionary definition but I damn well know an assault weapon when I see one". Which isn't entirely wrong, what you see or think you see is entirely the definition being used. It's all cosmetic.

You can have two rifles that are functionally identical but have one be an assault weapon and one not. And these cosmetic definitions wind up having all sorts of crazy side effects. We've already gone down this road.

The only attribute of what people think of as an assault weapon that is not entirely cosmetic and stupid, is magazine size. But if you wanna argue that should be limited, say that. Don't call it banning assault weapons. It's just too hard to have a coherent conversation with such a poorly understood word.

Even when they brought in the assault weapon ban in 96, it still wouldn't entirely make sense with what most people thought of as assault weapons.

It's just a bad, undefined media invention that only really means "a scary intimidating rifle that I'm pretty sure is more dangerous that other guns". That, is the ONLY sensible definition of assault weapons. And it's terrible for discussion because not everyone even agrees on that much.

That's why any gun can be an assault weapon. It's all cosmetic so all you have to do is change the appearance of the gun and it's now an assault weapon, or not an assault weapon. This is what happened last time. All it did apart from limiting magazine size was enforce appearance changes with no functional difference.

So please, for the sake of coherent discussion I implore you, describe what you're suggesting some other way.

Because I'll tell you what's NOT gonna help anyone. It's spending piles of money and legislative manhours putting in a law that says the average AR15 is an assault weapon... Until you make the barrel a bit longer and slightly redesign the grip without changing the functionality and capability in the slightest apart from the magazine size. And that won't change either by the way cause the existing ones will be grandfathered and this time around people have had a decade to stockpile. That doesn't help anyone. It's a stupid waste of time.

 

[JessFR]

Guys, seriously. Stop. "Assault weapons" means, to most people, assault rifles. This is what they have in mind when they're using this term. This is what Feinstein and the staunch D's want.

I'm not for that. Feinstein is a bit out of touch with reality and modern-day politics, i.e. her stance on marijuana is poor.

And what does assault rifle mean? Cause most people don't have a clear understanding of that word either. Unlike assault weapon it actually does have a clear definition, but most people don't know it and just substitute it for assault weapon randomly. Only making coherent discussion even harder.

Cause guess what, if assault weapon means assault rifle in the technical sense of the word, NONE of these shootings used that kind of weapon. Almost no crime happens with those weapons.

I'll say it again, be more descriptive, stop being one of those people who will spend hours reading posts but ONLY the ones that take 40 seconds to read because you value quantity (of the same short simplified argument) over quality in your discussions. Learn something and you'll see how crazy this whole assault weapon rifle whatever thing is.

Ask yourself. Why are you even thinking an assault weapon ban instead of some other type of gun control. It's because your mind has intuitively assumed without you realizing it that everyone else is talking about that approach, so it must be the one that's worth discussing. But it's not. That's just your innate social evolution overriding higher reasoning. The type of gun control everyone's discussing is without question also the worst. It's an joke. It's another pretend compromise that politicians can use to look good but fixes nothing.

We tried it once already and it didn't work. Doing it a second time would be so disappointing. Let's do something real about gun control for once. Enough pretend bullshit. Enough assault weapon bans and gun show loopholes. They're both smokescreens. They are just distractions.

 

[JessFR]

I really don't think it's asking much to ask people to explain exactly what they're talking about when they're talking about assault weapons or assault rifles. That there is any argument at all about the meaning shows the meaning isn't clear and unambiguous. Do there's no reason people can't just be clearer about what they are talking about.

Unless of course they aren't sure themselves. But you know, you don't HAVE to have an opinion about everything. If you don't know enough to know what should be done that's fine, but don't pretend you do. Do the mature thing and either learn more or elect not to have an opinion.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Guys, this isn't a philosophical debate about "what's an ASSAULT??? weapon?" I'm not arguing about the contexts of "assault".

Rifles vs hand guns is a fairly clear difference. Fully automatic handguns aside, it's a pretty clear cut difference that lawmakers want to distinguish.

 

[JessFR]

Rifles vs handguns is NOT a clear difference at all.

Say I add a stock to a handgun, is it a rifle now? What if I increase the length of the barrel but change nothing else? Add a stock and a barrel? Does the caliber matter? What about a 22 long rifle caliber. That's generally considered a rifle caliber but it's less powerful than most pistols. How long does the stock have to be? What about an ar15 with no stock, is that a pistol (currently according to the law the answer is yes actually)? It's still a rifle caliber. It's way bigger than a regular handgun.

These things matter. But sure, if you just wanna say the solution is for the government to ban some unspecified weapon for unspecified reasons, you can. And it's been done before. But the results are always hilariously retarded.

Here in Australia, Levomethamphetamine, the chemical used in Vicks inhaler in the US over the counter, is illegal. It's a decongestant with no recreational use. It's not a precursor to a recreational drug. So why is it banned?

It's banned because it's name included the word methamphetamine and some idiot didn't comprehend the subtle differences. They went on what seemed to be apparently obvious. On appearance. They "didn't need to get into the distracting details".

Subtle differences matter. Being able to explain what you want to ban matters. Or you end up with laws that ban harmless decongestants and laws that say one rifle is legal and the other isn't for no other reason than that the grip on one has a small additional piece of plastic connecting it to the receiver, which changes absolutely nothing about how it's used or its capabilities. All because the people in charge didn't feel the need to get into "silly details" because "its clear enough".

The subtleties matter. And as a drug forum the people here in particular should be familiar with this phenomenon. We've all experienced stupid laws that make absolutely no logical sense. That's what happens when you don't care about the details or the specifics. We know the details, so we understand why it makes no sense. And we understand how the law makers ignorance led them to passing such stupid legislation. But unfortunately many here simply don't realize that the same phenomenon happens in almost every subject of interest. So they make the same mistakes they make fun of in others. In subjects they aren't so familiar with.

So people here who would make fun of a law that bans a harmless decongestant all cause some idiot thought the chemical having a similar name meant it must have similar properties. Are also people making exactly the same kind of stupid suggestions about other fields they aren't so clued in on. It's fine that you don't know everything about everything. Nobody does. What's not fine is not even thinking that you might be falling into the same mistakes you've seen others make in exactly the same way. In subjects you aren't so familiar with.

 

[JessFR]

Our politicians are just us. They try to placate us. And they make all the same mistakes as anyone else.

We don't really have anything in our system of government to try and ensure that laws will actually work or that there's any sensible evidence behind them. It's all about perception. Being seem to be doing something.

That's why the gun show loophole is a great one. It's something they can argue over, be seen to be doing something, but that nobody will really fight that hard for and stalls and distracts from anything that anyone might really worry about.

Virtually none of the mass shootings involve the gun show loophole, it doesn't make up much of the crime stats. Most gun show sales are background checked anyway. So arguing and debating it is a great way to waste time and avoid doing anything real and that will do nothing but create fairly minor inconvenience for gun owners. It's not like the gun companies have a financial reason to care, they don't make money from it.

Its a distraction. And assault weapon bans aren't much better. There is magazine sizes which is the only part of what anyone defines as an assault weapon which has any real influence on how the gun functions. Everything else that makes up an assault weapon is cosmetic.

And even with magazine sizes, we still can't do anything about even that small part of so called assault weapons. Because we can't realistically confiscate the existing magazines in the market. And we've had 10 years of people stockpiling them. It wasn't effectively banned even in the last assault weapon ban but it'd be even more of an ineffective joke if you tried it now.

So both of these are total wastes of time. They are ways to stall people by making everyone fight over something that would be worthless even if the antigun side won.

I'm not sure what you're asking me by asking my opinion on what a law is.

But I think laws should be based on evidence and a firm understanding of the situation. Not based on what people just assume is common sense based on their extremely poor grasp of the situation. But that's what we tend to do. The books are full of stupid laws that were all based on perception over evidence. That's sadly how a democracy works when the majority of people are stupid.

The big reason nothing gets fixed with guns in America. It's cause the antigun side has stupidly wound up fighting for changes that would mean they lose, even when they win. They aren't even at the point of fighting an uphill battle for real change. They're still fighting an uphill battle where victory is still losing. So is it any wonder nothing gets better?

 

[Captain.Heroin]

"add a stock" oh come on, seriously now

separate devices added = separate legislation addresses it

i.e. silencers, bump stocks

the guns WITHOUT ADD ONS are clear

 

[JessFR]

In other words you can't be fucked thinking it through whatsoever. Right.

What about if I have a rifle and take the stock away. That's not an add on, is it a pistol now? What about rifles with folding stocks. Are they both? That's also not an add on.

I think the truth is you have no idea and don't want to admit it's complicated. You can't just admit that in the moment you said something wrong because you didn't realize the complexities. So you get defensive and act like I'm the one overcomplicating what's simple rather than you over simplifying what's complicated.

Don't propose something if you're gonna ignore any scrutiny. If this is such a simple situation this shouldn't be hard. What's a rifle? What makes a rifle a rifle vs a pistol a pistol?

I've given numerous examples of how it's complicated but your evidence for how simple it is seems to involve you simply ignoring everything and just accusing me of making this complicated.

Oh and by the way, a bump stock is totally different to a stock. So I don't know why you'd bring it up unless you have no clue what you're talking about and you just mindlessly parrot what you hear on TV.

You're allowed to not know. You're allowed to not have an opinion. But you can't expect to argue that you do know and do have an informed opinion and not be subjected to anyone else pointing out all the flaws if perhaps you weren't quite as familiar with the subject matter as you might have though.

You said distinguishing pistols and rifles is simple. But you've given no argument to back it up and you've ignored me repeatedly pointing out the ambiguities.

What even qualifies separate devices? If someone changes the engine in their car, is that now a new car? Many rifles are designed so components by different companies can be mixed and matched. Which part is the actual gun?

And if you can't even come up with a clear definition of what's a pistol and what's a rifle. Something that's supposedly so simple. How are people supposed to define what an assault weapon is?

 

[JGrimez]

Much as I feel like I almost always disagree or disapprove with JGrimez. This time I really can't. I get exactly what he's saying and I completely agree.

Thanks Jess I'm glad we finally agree on something lol
I also tried to send you a PM the other day apologizing for being rude but your box was full

It's just a bad, undefined media invention that only really means "a scary intimidating rifle that I'm pretty sure is more dangerous that other guns".

Exactly this.

Ask yourself. Why are you even thinking an assault weapon ban instead of some other type of gun control. It's because your mind has intuitively assumed without you realizing it that everyone else is talking about that approach, so it must be the one that's worth discussing. But it's not.

Also agree. Well said.

This whole gun control debate annoys me because evidence shows there are other issues that directly affect homicide rates that are not being addressed by the media as much as the banning of certain firearms (which implies an agenda imo). But if you are going to argue for gun control then you need to be extremely specific about what you are trying to say. If you use the term "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" you expose yourself as not understanding what you are speaking about. If you are referring to military-grade weapons, they are already illegal.

 

[JessFR]

Ehh. As has been brought up before, military grade, by which I'm assuming we mean automatic rifles and such, largely aren't illegal. Not federally anyway. But they are expensive, involve lots of red tape, and don't offer nearly enough benefit to criminals to offset that effort.

If criminals really want automatics for some reason they'll modify a semi auto to full auto. It's not hard. But it hardly matters. The point is the legal automatics don't contribute to virtually any of the crime stats. They aren't a problem. No action needs to be taken because there's no problem we need to fix. And really, in real life automatic small arms just don't offer that much greater ability to cause destruction. The idea that automatics are so much worse is just an impression of Hollywood. In untrained hands they're probably a little less destructive. Because they're far less accurate. There's a reason the marines for a while took away the full auto option on their rifles.

Buy Hollywood depicts automatics as endless instead of running out in a about 2 or 3 seconds and being as accurate as the plot demands. And so that's what people imagine.

In reality there is a community of legal automatic rifle owners in America, but they're all law abiding employed middle class gun loving men in their 40s. The same type of people who collect cars and other pricy items.

But apology accepted. yeah my pm box is often full. Usually I try to leave at least one open space but sometimes I forget too.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

@JessFR: i would really like to hear what your thoughts on what a law is if you wanna PM me.

on the topic of guns and banning substances associated with meth... doesn't banning batteries have the same dilemmas as banning guns?

batteries are used to make the new form of meth called shake and bake (i seen it in a drug awareness piece done by the police for a news company in the states)

how do you keep someone from abusing something that everyone has a right to buy?

very complicated question, i thought that was why we had people we voted into office to help make informed decisions but that's what i get for thinking (stupid wishful thinking).

I don't see what the gun debate has to do with meth.

 

[SharedHalucination]

Just like with the silenced pistol where you can have a casual shootout in the middle of civilians and nobody hears a thing (John Wick 2). The only thing that irritated the hell out of me with that movie lol

 

[JessFR]

I don't see what the gun debate has to do with meth.

Then you're either not paying attention or you're very stupid.

I'm sorry, but that's how it comes out. The gun debate, like any argument, has parallels with other forms of prohibition and other government policies. If youre incapable of seeing that, you're either dumb, playing dumb, not paying enough attention, or being dishonest.

I've seen those response several times on this thread. I or someone else brings up a parallel to explain our point, then someone replies having ignored everything saying "this is nothing to do with that". It's using a similar explanation to make a point. You can disagree with the point, but in that instance you should explain how the comparison fails in detail. Not just say it fails because of the very thing that makes it a comparison. You can say that with any comparison.

Someone: prohibiting Marijuana is stupid, we tried prohibiting alcohol and it was a total failure.
Someone like you: this discussion isn't about alcohol!

It's a comparison to make a point. So please can we stop with this default and frankly very lazy response to it where someone points out what makes it a comparison and says "this isn't about that".

Man, I'm sorry for biting your head off here, it's just that this seems to happen every time anyone makes a comparison. So try not to take this post as directed at you, it's directed at all the times I've seen it happen.

And I don't think any of the people doing this are dumb, I think they're making a lazy counter argument.

 

[JessFR]

Just like with the silenced pistol where you can have a casual shootout in the middle of civilians and nobody hears a thing (John Wick 2). The only thing that irritated the hell out of me with that movie lol

Personally I'm both glad and surprised that we've gone this long without any attention coming onto silencers. Cause that's just opening a whole new complex pile of shit.

Hollywood makes them seem so sinister and evil, but in reality, they're a hearing safety device. And I can just imagine all the ignorant people bursting out laughing at that statement. But it really is true.

Fun fact, silencers are both legal and easily accessable within the gun owning community in, of all places, New Zealand. There they're essentially seen as the hearing safety devices they basically are.

They're legal in most of the US too. But you gotta go through the same class 3 permit system with the ATF as I previously described for automatic weapons.

 

[JessFR]

I read your whole post (my posts are frequently long so I'd be a huge hypocrite if I didn't read long posts by others) but I'm sorry to say I had trouble following some of it. But what I could I largely agreed with.

It saddens me that anyone would feel that these spree shooters don't have a right to a fair trial. You're right, a lot of people play very loose with the rules when it comes to the criminals seen as "the worst of the worst".

But it's not about them. Its about us. Making sure societies worst offenders have their rights acknowledged and protected is both a matter of practically preserving everyone's rights, and a powerful symbol. The symbol being that of we honor the rights of the spree killers and the pedophiles, you can know that we protect everyone's rights. Those rights truly are absolute and apply to everyone.

Society and human beings tend to be a world of gray. Enormously complex social systems. But every now and then you have something that really is pretty much black and white. Human rights is one of them. Either they're universal or they're not. If they're not, you shouldn't be surprised when someone some day feels you don't deserve them either for whatever reason. But if they are, they they apply to absolutely everyone.

You mentioned about how people end up becoming spree shooters. And indeed you're right that there are different causes. And not all of them are mentally ill.

A frequent frustration I have is that, while I sympathize with how appaulingly awful school spree shootings are. And the strong desire to do something about it. I mean, there are our societies children, gunned down for no reason. It's sickening. It's very understandable that it's the kind of thing that makes it hard to keep a level head. But in order to determine the best course of action in any situation, it's important to be realistic and scientific. We have to be rational and scientific in order to determine the best course of action to combat a social problem.

And my frustration is, school shootings statistically make up a very very small number of deaths. I know how horrible that sounds. It is horrible. Every human death is the death of a whole universe of possibilities. It's not something emotionally easy to see as cold numbers. But it's important to try. Because our emotions lead us astray. Many have died from bad policy born from emotional reactions.

So I have trouble reconciling a lot of proposed courses of actions with gun control that are only aimed at stopping a phenomenon that make up such a small proportion of the statistics.

It's difficult to be so cold about it, but I've seen so many examples of how societies made things worse by making policy as an emotional response.

Really making a difference, really saving significant numbers of people instead of a small emotionally charged group. It's totally thankless. They can't ever thank you for saving them because you can't ever see who was saved. It's all just numbers. Humans are emotional social creatures. We respond much better to knowing we've saved a couple visible people, and barely notice it if in doing so we've condemned thousands of faceless people in the future represented only by abstract numbers.

But as thankless as it is, I'd rather be hated for arguing a course of action that could save millions that will never know they were even saved. Than jumping on a popular bandwagon and fighting for a course of action that at best will save a much smaller but more visible number of people, and at much greater cost to freedom.

Id rather be hated and told that I'm happy to see children murdered, but know I fought for what I honestly believed was what the evidence said we should do. Than get a pat on the back and the social reenforcement for just copying and parroting what one of the popular mainstream groups believe should be done.

 

[JGrimez]

There Was ANOTHER Waffle House Shooting. But This Time It Was Stopped By Someone Armed.
https://truepundit.com/there-was-an...ut-this-time-it-was-stopped-by-someone-armed/

Leftists who used the heroic actions of James Shaw at a Tennessee Waffle House shooting to launch the argument that armed shooters should be confronted by unarmed victims rather than armed ones might recoil at this story: There was another Waffle House shooting.

And this one was stopped by a man with a gun.

Yup. Two days before James Shaw, who was unarmed, heroically disarmed an armed robber at a Tennessee Waffle House on April 19 in New Orleans, Louisiana, two men entered a Waffle House armed with semiautomatic handguns at approximately 10:20 p.m. One of the men, Ernest Thomas, stood by the counter as a lookout while the other man jumped over it and demanded money from the cashier. The other man also took $8 from a customer, but when he approached another customer, who happened to be armed, the customer drew his firearm, prompting the thief to flee. Thomas then pointed his gun at the armed customer, who fired several shots; he later told police he believed he had hit Thomas

 

[Jabberwocky]

^where more guns were involved there were more shots fired, or an i reading that wrong?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Today on the radio I heard one of the more sensible solutions to the question of gun ownership. Require insurance for gun owners. Think about it, if I get behind the wheel of a car I'm required to own car insurance. Most people are cool with that; even an excellent driver recognizes that they might make mistakes and that other drivers on the road may make mistakes and so we mandate insurance coverage as a condition to getting behind the wheel. Safe drivers that drive sensible safe cars tend to pay a lot less then drivers with many convictions for unsafe driving or someone who chooses to commute in a Yamaha YZF R1 crotch rocket. Over time ones driving record becomes the basis for a financial decision about the cost of insuring a particular driver.

Contrast that with guns. I can go to a store, buy an AR-15 and if I use that gun illegally in a mass shooting, now most likely society has to pay for it. In that case suing for damages may not make sense because the gun owner may not be able to pay. Furthermore, tax payers now need to foot the bill to convict and incarcerate the shooter. I've never owned a gun in my life, why should I pay for a gun owners public defender? Why should the victims be stuck with the medical bill resulting from some dick deciding to open fire on them?

I'm surprised nobody proposed this sooner. Stick gun owners with a monthly insurance bill. That's fair. We live in a litigious society, I want to be able to sue you and get paid if you shoot me. No exceptions for police, they pay too. Maybe they'll think twice before shooting first and asking questions later if their insurance rates go up. The captain may not cover his irresponsible ass knowing the cost of insuring the officers gun is too high, same way a doctor with 100 malpractice suits may seek out a different career because insurance is prohibitive. If one uses a gun in self defense, then insurance still covers the damages and expenses but ones insurance rate doesn't increase cause they used the gun legitimately. If your child plays with your gun and shoots themselves, then insurance pays for that too, but now if the courts don't take your gun away, your insurance rate goes up dramatically because you didn't behave like a responsible gun owner by securing your weapon. Or consider someone who wants to buy 5 AR-15's, well now they may think twice 'cause that gun is really expensive to insure, as it should be, cause it can kill a lot more people a lot faster than a 12 gauge shotgun.

Any thoughts? Should gun owners be mandated to insure their guns and the damages it may cause or is that an overly restrictive burden for gun ownership?

 

[mal3volent]

Something like that was proposed several years ago in Congress...and here we are.

 

[JessFR]

I find the insurance idea to be very much thinking about it the wrong way. It's the kind of thing that only makes any sense of you already assume that actually making a significant change to reduce the number of injuries is impossible. And I reject that premise. Just having the money to pay for medical expenses or be rich doesn't change the fact you got shot. And sure doesn't help you if you're dead. The only thing you truly have is your health. Money's a poor substitute.

Not to mention all the Healthcare politics this overlaps with. Many would argue, and I'd agree, that people should have an inherent avenue to at least reasonable medical care even without suing or this insurance idea.

So. In general no I don't think it's a great solution. I do approve in principle people thinking more outside the box rather than just going with the most popular ideas. But this particular one I can't say I'm very fond of myself. Largely because it feels like another solution that's trying to patch or bandaid the problem rather than actually fixing it.