Assault Rifle

[jimmyjazz 45954]

36 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Calm your tits.  Take a deep breath.  And understand that your metric of 4+ (first defined by the Gun Violence Archive) victims is a modern metric.

The study I am quoting used a consistent metric from 1985 onward.  

Again,  you're deflecting.  Calm your pussy.

[jimmyjazz 45954]

42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Don't buy it.  Complex issue.  http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/feb/23/ted-deutch/did-mass-shootings-increase-200-percent-assault-we/

What an utterly silly response.  That article is about as devoid of intellectual honesty as a Tomi Lahren rant.

Jesus, man.  You're smarter than this.  

The data I cited was constructed solely from mass shootings (defined as 4+ fatalities not including the shooter) from 1985 onward.  The data is sound.  There is no getting around it, deflecting it, "well it's complex".  There just isn't.

The ONLY intellectually honest position to take is "mass shootings are such a small subset of homicides that to weigh them separately is not reasonable".  I don't agree -- my kids' right to life supercedes your right to an AR-15 -- but at least it's grounded in reason.

Y'all are continuing to make the same fucking mistakes that are turning you into a hard minority, and I continue to warn you:  don't do it.  You won't like the results.

[bernorange 8361]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What an utterly silly response.  ...

The ONLY intellectually honest position ...- my kids' right to life supercedes your right to an AR-15 -- but at least it's grounded in reason.

...

Your intellectually honest argument is that "your kid's right to life" supercedes every law abiding citizens right to self defense.  I don't think you really thought this through.  Would it be intellectually honest to extend that criteria to everything that kills kids at annually at a higher rate than AR-15s? Utterly silly response is correct.

[jimmyjazz 45954]

A ban on certain derivatives of military weapons would in no way deprive you of your right to self defense.  Silly strawman argument rebutted, and next time don't extrapolate to something I never advocated.  Really poor form.

You need to learn that there are a lot of people on the other side of the argument who understand weapons beyond "black bad, wood good", who also understand the history of our Constution, who have read the Federalist papers, who are knowledgable about our Supreme Court's rulings, etc.  Try aiming for higher ground . . . for once.

[Brian Fantana 6687]

11 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Your intellectually honest argument is that "your kid's right to life" supercedes every law abiding citizens right to self defense.  I don't think you really thought this through.  Would it be intellectually honest to extend that criteria to everything that kills kids at annually at a higher rate than AR-15s? Utterly silly response is correct.

Given that it is literally the first unalienable right defined in the declaration of independance, I would say that a child's right to life actually does supercede your need to own an AR-15.

[bernorange 8361]

@jimmyjazz - I could rephrase my post if it makes you feel better, but the essence remains that you asserted a justification for banning AR-15's because of it's potential threat to your kids life.  Is this a mischaracterization?  Am I putting words in your mouth?

 

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 hour ago, JBJ said:

 

The problem is that "assault rifle" does have a decent technical meaning even if it is somewhat fluid.  Anastatis (?) posted a good definition earlier.  It is easier to give examples than to give a technical description, but I'll try:

It's a long-barrel, magazine-fed, intermediate-caliber, select-fire rifle.

The M16 is an assault rifle, the M4 is not, the Mk14 is not.  The M249 can meet the description above but it is not because it is capable of being belt-fed.

But that's the only the technical term.  There's a general term that refers to magazine-fed rifles and isn't particularly clear beyond that.  Some people would consider the Mini14 an assault rifle, many wouldn't.  I would guess that the top-selling AR variation has the same specs as the Mini14.

But I do agree that the term just muddles the conversation.

This has always been my definition.  And I don't know anybody who owns an assault rifle.  I know a zillion who own an AR-style rifle.

[PatSolitanojr 518]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Bullshit it didn't affect anything.  Here are mass shootings broken down in decades to weigh the time frames equally:

1985-1994:  18 events, 158 fatalities (1.6 events per year, 12.5 fatalities per year, 7.8 fatalities per event)

1995-2004:  16 events, 101 fatalities (1.6 events per year, 10.1 fatalities per year, 6.3 fatalities per event)

2005-2014:  36 events, 299 fatalities (3.6 events per year, 29.9 fatalities per year, 8.3 fatalities per event)

2015-present:  27 events, 258 fatalities (8.3 events per year, 79.4 fatalities per year, 9.6 fatalities per event)

 

If you can't see at the very least the correlation with the Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2004), then I can't help you.

I see a correlation to internet access

[BabaYaga 15298]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

A ban on certain derivatives of military weapons would in no way deprive you of your right to self defense.  Silly strawman argument rebutted, and next time don't extrapolate to something I never advocated.  Really poor form.

You need to learn that there are a lot of people on the other side of the argument who understand weapons beyond "black bad, wood good", who also understand the history of our Constution, who have read the Federalist papers, who are knowledgable about our Supreme Court's rulings, etc.  Try aiming for higher ground . . . for once.

Every gun, knife, bow, and spear ever made could be considered a "certain derivative of military weapons".  

[Brian Fantana 6687]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Every gun, knife, bow, and spear ever made could be considered a "certain derivative of military weapons".  

There are direct, civilian derivations of military arms literally available on Academy.com.

You know what he's talking about, don't be an intellectually dishonest twerp.

[BabaYaga 15298]

29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The study I am quoting used a consistent metric from 1985 onward.  

Again,  you're deflecting.  Calm your pussy.

No, it isn't - dollars to donuts you're using either Mother Jones or Mass Shooting tracker (which goes back to 1982, not 1985).   Compare that to the FBI, which still doesn't have a official definition of mass shooting.  They have mass killing, which is three of more fatalities with an active shooter.  But again, in July of 2015 The CSR redefined a mass shooting as a homicide with which four or more people are killed.  And as stated, going back it is an ex post facto sampling as the data was never compiled.    I notice how you also conveniently glossed over how statistically gun crime has been a steady decline for decades now.

[BabaYaga 15298]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

There are direct, civilian derivations of military arms literally available on Academy.com.

You know what he's talking about, don't be an intellectually dishonest twerp.

You mean bolt-action rifles, revolvers, semi-auto pistols, and semi-auto rifles?  Be specific

[jimmyjazz 45954]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

@jimmyjazz - I could rephrase my post if it makes you feel better, but the essence remains that you asserted a justification for banning AR-15's because of it's potential threat to your kids life.  Is this a mischaracterization?  Am I putting words in your mouth?

 

 

In my dream world, I would study mass shootings and the weapons used in an intellectually honest manner, with funding from both sides of the debate, but that has already been kicked to the curb.  So, in the meantime, I would personally push for limitations on clip size, fire rate, and design intent. 

Yes, an AR-15 is great for killing feral hogs.  It was designed to kill 200 lb mammals.  Lots of them.  In short order.  

[jimmyjazz 45954]

7 minutes ago, PatSolitanojr said:

I see a correlation to internet access

Does that correlation explain fatalities per event?

[jimmyjazz 45954]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Every gun, knife, bow, and spear ever made could be considered a "certain derivative of military weapons".  

See, you just can't fucking help yourself.  You're quite literally pushing those who are currently in favor of your right to own most currently legal weapons to push for even heavier restrictions just because you're being a dick about it.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What an utterly silly response.  That article is about as devoid of intellectual honesty as a Tomi Lahren rant.

Jesus, man.  You're smarter than this.  

The data I cited was constructed solely from mass shootings (defined as 4+ fatalities not including the shooter) from 1985 onward.  The data is sound.  There is no getting around it, deflecting it, "well it's complex".  There just isn't.

The ONLY intellectually honest position to take is "mass shootings are such a small subset of homicides that to weigh them separately is not reasonable".  I don't agree -- my kids' right to life supercedes your right to an AR-15 -- but at least it's grounded in reason.

Y'all are continuing to make the same fucking mistakes that are turning you into a hard minority, and I continue to warn you:  don't do it.  You won't like the results.

Have you missed the part where I proposed banning semi-automatic center fire rifles with a magazine capacity of greater than five rounds?  Which, more accurately, would be banning the magazines themselves?

 

You are wound super-tight lately, my dude.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

There are direct, civilian derivations of military arms literally available on Academy.com.

You know what he's talking about, don't be an intellectually dishonest twerp.

The military rifles perform differently from the civilian rifles.  The military rifles have select fire and/or full-auto; the civilian rifles do not.  The military rifles are illegal. 

The civilian rifles that look like military rifles work like other civilian rifles.  It's like taking a PT Cruiser, putting a fire decal and a number on it and calling it a race car.  It isn't.  It's still a PT Cruiser and it works the same as the one without the number painted on the side.

[BabaYaga 15298]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

In my dream world, I would study mass shootings and the weapons used in an intellectually honest manner, with funding from both sides of the debate, but that has already been kicked to the curb.  So, in the meantime, I would personally push for limitations on clip size, fire rate, and design intent. 

Yes, an AR-15 is great for killing feral hogs.  It was designed to kill 200 lb mammals.  Lots of them.  In short order.  

It amazes me how the self-professed "control" crowd know next to nothing on the subject they want to regulate.  The .223/5.56 round is a VARMINT round.  Designed for thin-skinned, smaller animals.  To this day, most soldiers HATE it.  Spurring massive debates on the merits of the 6.5, 6.8, and .300blkt.  The move was made in the late 50's to give soldiers the ability to carry more rounds with less recoil.  It's so small in fact, many states outlaw it's use in hunting deer-sized game.

[jimmyjazz 45954]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

No, it isn't - dollars to donuts you're using either Mother Jones or Mass Shooting tracker (which goes back to 1982, not 1985).   Compare that to the FBI, which still doesn't have a official definition of mass shooting.  They have mass killing, which is three of more fatalities with an active shooter.  But again, in July of 2015 The CSR redefined a mass shooting as a homicide with which four or more people are killed.  And as stated, going back it is an ex post facto sampling as the data was never compiled.    I notice how you also conveniently glossed over how statistically gun crime has been a steady decline for decades now.

*I* limited it to 1985 so I could break the data into decades (the last of which is only in its 4th year) around the AWB.

I don't give a flying fuck what the FBI defines "mass shooting" as.  For the definition of 4+ killings per event (shooter not included), the data are sound.  I have no idea what you mean by "the data were never compiled".  Just because certain law enforcement agencies have not been maintaining a database does not mean that the data do not exist.  Yeesh.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

In my dream world, I would study mass shootings and the weapons used in an intellectually honest manner, with funding from both sides of the debate, but that has already been kicked to the curb.  So, in the meantime, I would personally push for limitations on clip size, fire rate, and design intent. 

Yes, an AR-15 is great for killing feral hogs.  It was designed to kill 200 lb mammals.  Lots of them.  In short order.  

Design intent is a non-starter.  First of all, it cannot be discerned accurately, and even if you could, what is the "improper" or unlawful intent.  Every single firearm known to man derives from a weapon with a military purpose, to wit, killing or wounding someone.  Granted, some are more suited to punching paper and some are more suited to mayhem and murder, but both are lethal.

 

My proposal is based solely on functionality.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[BabaYaga 15298]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

See, you just can't fucking help yourself.  You're quite literally pushing those who are currently in favor of your right to own most currently legal weapons to push for even heavier restrictions just because you're being a dick about it.

Because you're so reasonable....as long as we agree with what you want to do....

[jimmyjazz 45954]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Because you're so reasonable....as long as we agree with what you want to do....

Well, I'm on the other side of the table, so you'd be better off actually paying attention to what people like me are advocating for instead of minimizing our point of view.

I want you to be able to own guns.  I think it's a core right.  I don't want you to be able to own all guns, and plenty of originalist Constitutional scholars (with whom I would rarely align) agree with me.  So stop obfuscating and enter the discussion, because right now it's an NRA-inspired circle jerk, and fuck the NRA.

[Anastasis 23469]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

*I* limited it to 1985 so I could break the data into decades (the last of which is only in its 4th year) around the AWB.

I don't give a flying fuck what the FBI defines "mass shooting" as.  For the definition of 4+ killings per event (shooter not included), the data are sound.  I have no idea what you mean by "the data were never compiled".  Just because certain law enforcement agencies have not been maintaining a database does not mean that the data do not exist.  Yeesh.

There is nothing wrong with the data that you presented.  To be able to make conclusions on that data, a sensitivity analysis on the definition of mass shooting is probably warranted, and more sophisticated analytic methods. These data are asking for an interrupted time series analysis, or a difference in differences analysis.  The potential confounders are many. Again, it's interesting data, and deserves further research.  

[jimmyjazz 45954]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Design intent is a non-starter.  First of all, it cannot be discerned accurately, and even if you could, what is the "improper" or unlawful intent.  Every single firearm known to man derives from a weapon with a military purpose, to wit, killing or wounding someone.  Granted, some are more suited to punching paper and some are more suited to mayhem and murder, but both are lethal.

Yay, take design intent off the table (even though dipshits like someone above are actually arguing that the M16 round is meant for varmints).

What matters is capability.  My goal is to reduce the capability of a nutjob taking out large numbers of people before said nutjobs are killed themselves.  Focus on those aspects of the weapon that make them optimal for that job (I mentioned clip capacity and firing rate, weigh in as necessary).

[jimmyjazz 45954]

Just now, Anastasis said:

There is nothing wrong with the data that you presented.  To be able to make conclusions on that data, a sensitivity analysis on the definition of mass shooting is probably warranted, and more sophisticated analytic methods. These data are asking for an interrupted time series analysis, or a difference in differences analysis.  The potential confounders are many. Again, it's interesting data, and deserves further research.  

I certainly agree that it deserves further research.  Which, by the way, has been almost completely squelched by our government thanks to the NRA.  Funny how that works.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yay, take design intent off the table (even though dipshits like someone above are actually arguing that the M16 round is meant for varmints).

What matters is capability.  My goal is to reduce the capability of a nutjob taking out large numbers of people before said nutjobs are killed themselves.  Focus on those aspects of the weapon that make them optimal for that job (I mentioned clip capacity and firing rate, weigh in as necessary).

Why'd you leave off the part where we agree?  Although I think "firing rate" is kind of a slippery slope beyond automatic or semi-automatic.  Cut the mag size down to 5 rounds, the yahoos will have to change more often and so will the nutbags.  Hunters have always gotten along with five or fewer.

We'll see if that affects anything or just changes the weapon of choice.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45954]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why'd you leave off the part where we agree?

I quoted it in full.  It appears you edited it afterwards.

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by jimmyjazz
Because I'm a dumbass and spelled it "afterwords"

[TwiceHorn 31471]

Oh. Sorry. Lmao.

[TahoeHorn 107]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

In my dream world, I would study mass shootings and the weapons used in an intellectually honest manner, with funding from both sides of the debate, but that has already been kicked to the curb.  So, in the meantime, I would personally push for limitations on clip size, fire rate, and design intent. 

Yes, an AR-15 is great for killing feral hogs.  It was designed to kill 200 lb mammals.  Lots of them.  In short order.  

The cartridge is what you need to look at.  The killing power will be defined by the cartridge not the gun.

The bigger ones are used for bigger game and longer distances.  To shoot people, coyotes or deer you'd typically use one of the middle ones.  To shoot squirrel one of the small ones, and elephants one of the big ones.  To shoot something (e.g. people, deer)  at 50 yards you might use something small.  At a mile you'd need something big.

The "AR-15" (it's really an AR-style) shoot the same cartridges as other rifles.  And typically they are the medium size cartridges.  (That's the military definition.  If they shoot bigger or smaller ones they are called something else.) One of the reasons to buy an AR-style is that, because of the modular design you can but a few parts and have one rifle that can be used to fire different cartridges.  An AR-style shooting a .223 is almost identical to a so-called hunting rifle shooting a .223.  The difference is not function; it's quality.  A $1200 rifle is usually better than a $600 rifle -  more accurate, lasts longer, less likely to fail.  AR-style are typically better, but not necessarily.  As I've argued, I don't know what the fuck AR-style means.

[BabaYaga 15298]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, an AR-15 is great for killing feral hogs.  It was designed to kill 200 lb mammals.

You are wrong.  Flat wrong.  Again, it was designed as a small game varmint round.  This isn't a debatable topic.  

 

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

even though dipshits like someone above are actually arguing that the M16 round is meant for varmints).

Dig a little on the history of the .222/.223 family.  Then on hunting regulation in place today on it's usage hunting.  Then get back to us.  

[Anastasis 23469]

For the Nerdz, some links from RAND.

Overview with nice drill down graphic.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

 

Analysis of literature on AWB and mag capacity.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/mass-shootings.html

full text:

Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines on Mass Shootings

Summary: Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings is inconclusive.

 

We identified two studies that examined the effects of bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and met our inclusion criteria. Both used a two-way fixed-effects model, controlling for both state-specific and year-specific effects, to estimate the effects of state or federal assault weapon bans on mass shooting incidents or casualties.^[1]

Using a Poisson model and data from 1982 through 2011, Gius (2015c) tested whether state assault weapon bans influence public mass shooting fatalities or public mass shooting injuries, controlling for the federal assault weapon ban and state-level variation in demographic, socioeconomic, and criminal justice characteristics. Although the author found a large and statistically significant association between implementation of the federal assault weapon ban and reductions in mass shooting deaths and injuries, the analysis of the federal ban does not meet our criteria for inclusion because the model included an indicator for years prior to and after the federal ban as a control, but there was no comparison group. However, findings showed that stateassault weapon bans had a statistically significant but smaller effect of reducing mass shooting death rates to 55 percent of what would have been expected without the bans, but uncertain effects on mass shooting injuries (see the figure below). This report provided little detail describing variation in the timing of the state bans in relation to the federal ban, and it is unclear whether the estimated effects were confounded by correlation between the state and federal bans. The model did not account for serial correlation in panel data, which can result in large biases in standard errors (Aneja, Donohue, Zhang, 2014).

Using a linear probability model and data from a later period (1989–2014), Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) estimated the effects of state assault weapon bans on a binary indicator for whether a mass shooting occurred in a given state-year. In contrast to Gius (2015c), Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) did not control for the federal assault weapon ban from 1994 through 2004, but they controlled for a host of other state-level gun policies and for state-level demographic, socioeconomic, and political characteristics. Their findings showed uncertain effects of state assault weapon bans on the probability of a mass shooting incident occurring. However, the effects of gun policies on mass shootings were not the primary focus of Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016), and the authors intended the estimates to serve solely as a robustness check for their main specification (the effects of mass shootings on gun policy). Although the paper provided limited information to use in evaluating the reported statistical models (e.g., on how these policies were coded), it is clear that the analysis used a linear model to predict a dichotomous outcome. Therefore, model assumptions were violated, making confidence intervals (CIs) unreliable.

The figure below displays the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and CIs associated with the assault weapon ban policies examined in these studies. We exclude estimates of the federal assault weapon ban from Gius (2015c) because they do not meet our criteria for inclusion.

Incidence Rate Ratios Associated with the Effect of Assault Weapon Bans on Mass Shootings

HOW TO READ THIS CHART

 

Study, by Policy	Outcome Measure	Effect Size (IRR) [95% CI]
			0.212.6
Assault weapon ban	Mass shooting
Luca, Deepak, & Poliquin (2016) We have significant methodological concerns about this study.	State-year indicator (no political controls)	1.52 [0.60, 2.43]
Luca, Deepak, & Poliquin (2016) We have significant methodological concerns about this study.	State-year indicator (political controls)	1.56 [0.63, 2.49]
State assault weapon ban	Mass shooting
Gius (2015c) We have significant methodological concerns about this study.	Deaths	0.55 [0.33, 0.92]
Gius (2015c) We have significant methodological concerns about this study.	Injuries	1.35 [0.81, 2.23]
			0.212.6

NOTE: IRR values marked with empty circles indicate that we identified concerns with the study's methodology, and these concerns are described in the text above. Filled circles indicate that we identified no significant methodological concerns.

Conclusions

We identified two qualifying studies that estimated the effects of state assault weapon bans on different aspects of mass shootings. Gius (2015c) found that these bans significantly reduce mass shooting deaths but have uncertain effects on injuries resulting from mass shootings. Using a similar data set, Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) found uncertain effects of state assault weapon bans on the annual incidence of mass shootings. Based on an assessment of these findings and the relative strengths of these studies, we find inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.

BANS ON THE SALE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES MASS SHOOTINGS

Notes

1. The two studies adopted slightly different definitions for mass shooting (see the essay on mass shooting definitions and trends for further detail). Gius (2015c) focused on public mass shootings, which the author defined as incidents resulting in four or more firearm-related fatalities (excluding the offender), where the shooting occurred in a relatively public place, victims were selected indiscriminately, and the shooting was not related to criminal activity. Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) set the same casualty threshold and also excluded any incident that occurred in connection with criminal activity, but they did not restrict to public settings and excluded all events in which fewer than three of the fatally injured victims were not related to the shooter (e.g., family, romantic partner). Return to content⤴

References

• Aneja, Abhay, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang, The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Law School, Olin Working Paper No. 461, December 1, 2014. As of May 21, 2017: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681
• Gius, Mark, “The Impact of State and Federal Assault Weapons Bans on Public Mass Shootings,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2015c, pp. 281–284.
• Luca, Michael, Lahotra Deepak, and Christopher Poliquin, The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy, working paper, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School, 2016.

On the specific topic of the definition of mass shooting. Shows that the outcomes is quite sensitive to small variations in defintion, with 2015 estimate ranging from 7-371.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/mass-shootings.html

And discussion of methodological challenges.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/methodological-challenges-to-identifying-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

 

[Anastasis 23469]

Not sure why, but this portion of my post above got swallowed up by the spoiler tag

 

On the specific topic of the definition of mass shooting. Shows that the outcomes is quite sensitive to small variations in defintion, with 2015 estimate ranging from 7-371.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/mass-shootings.html

And discussion of methodological challenges.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/methodological-challenges-to-identifying-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

[TwiceHorn 31471]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

You are wrong.  Flat wrong.  Again, it was designed as a small game varmint round.  This isn't a debatable topic.  

 

Dig a little on the history of the .222/.223 family.  Then on hunting regulation in place today on it's usage hunting.  Then get back to us.  

For the record, I didn't say that about .223/5.56.  I find the whole argument that "black guns are meant to KILL PEOPLE!" to be fairly ludricrous and useless in the debate.  .50 BMG, ok, but .223/5.56 and .308/7.62, nah.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Brian Fantana 6687]

31 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

The military rifles perform differently from the civilian rifles.  The military rifles have select fire and/or full-auto; the civilian rifles do not.  The military rifles are illegal. 

The civilian rifles that look like military rifles work like other civilian rifles.  It's like taking a PT Cruiser, putting a fire decal and a number on it and calling it a race car.  It isn't.  It's still a PT Cruiser and it works the same as the one without the number painted on the side.

No fucking shit Tahoe, go look up what the word derivation means. The PT Cruiser comparison is, of course, another false equivalency. A PT Cruiser is to a race car as a BB gun is to an M4A1. Removing the automatic fire option does not turn an M4A1 into a BB gun.

[BabaYaga 15298]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

My goal is to reduce the capability of a nutjob taking out large numbers of people before said nutjobs are killed themselves.

If this really was your true goal, then you'd entertain outside options you have yet to mention that don't revolve around regulations and bans - none of which we could verify would have prevented anything.  I have yet to see anyone on the left even give an ounce of credit to hardening soft targets and preventing crime at the time it happens (see Maryland).  You talk correlation - correlate the one consistent factor in ALL these shootings:   Location consistency - no?  Theater.  School.  Night club.  College campus.  Military base Weapon consistency - no?  Semi rifles.  Semi auto pistols.  High capacity.  Low capacity (10).  Bolt action rifle   What is consistent - each and every target was a "soft" gun-free zone, where the assailant knew he had free range on an unprotected prey.  You say you want to protect your kids RIGHT NOW.  Then actually protect them.  Do you think there will ever be an attempted shooting at that MD school ever again?  be honest....

[Brian Fantana 6687]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

What is consistent - each and every target was a "soft" gun-free zone, where the assailant knew he had free range on an unprotected prey.  You say you want to protect your kids RIGHT NOW.  Then actually protect them.  Do you think there will ever be an attempted shooting at that MD school ever again?  be honest....

Greatest dog whistle ever.

[BabaYaga 15298]

4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

go look up what the word derivation means

All modern firearms are derivations of military weapons.  All of them.  So specifically, which derivation are you referring to?

[bernorange 8361]

@jimmyjazz- OK, so you didn't answer me directly, but you didn't complain about my understanding of your point, so I'm going to assume that you concede it was essentially correct.  If I'm wrong about that, please do explain because I don't want to create a straw man, play games or troll here.  I'm trying to establish a common ground of understanding.

The crux of your assertion is that guns kill people, so they are a problem that needs to be addressed.  It's true that guns (and AR-15s in particular) can kill people (or kids if you want to narrow it down to your original statement), but so can a lot of things.  The AR-15 was designed to kill people.  Most weapons are, but guns don't kill people all by themselves.  They are a tool and in the wrong hands, a deadly one.  There are a lot of things (and useful tools) that kill people (even kids)with much greater frequency than AR-15s year over year.. 

A common rebuttle when this point is made is that, yeah, but those things have utility to society.  Here is where a lot of folks demanding bans on AR-15s and magazines lose sight of the forest (IMO).  There is an implied argument that AR-15s have no utility aside from murder and that's wrong on many levels.

[Brian Fantana 6687]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

All modern firearms are derivations of military weapons.  All of them.  So specifically, which derivation are you referring to?

Nope, that's not how this works. If you present literally any good faith argument I will respond. I'm not interested in playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon here.

[BabaYaga 15298]

10 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Greatest dog whistle ever.

And there's your "compromise".....

[Brian Fantana 6687]

It's okay, I understand. Words are hard.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

14 minutes ago, bernorange said:

@jimmyjazz- OK, so you didn't answer me directly, but you didn't complain about my understanding of your point, so I'm going to assume that you concede it was essentially correct.  If I'm wrong about that, please do explain because I don't want to create a straw man, play games or troll here.  I'm trying to establish a common ground of understanding.

The crux of your assertion is that guns kill people, so they are a problem that needs to be addressed.  It's true that guns (and AR-15s in particular) can kill people (or kids if you want to narrow it down to your original statement), but so can a lot of things.  The AR-15 was designed to kill people.  Most weapons are, but guns don't kill people all by themselves.  They are a tool and in the wrong hands, a deadly one.  There are a lot of things (and useful tools) that kill people (even kids)with much greater frequency than AR-15s year over year.. 

A common rebuttle when this point is made is that, yeah, but those things have utility to society.  Here is where a lot of folks demanding bans on AR-15s and magazines lose sight of the forest (IMO).  There is an implied argument that AR-15s have no utility aside from murder and that's wrong on many levels.

I'll bite for the sake of expository debate.  I'm probably more on your side than jimmy's.  But, while I acknowledge a great deal of personal utility in shooting sports and related activity to include hunting, both licensed for game and unlicensed for varmint/pest species, I am willing to concede that blasting 20 rounds in 30 seconds from any firearm has limited utility and therefore ought to be within legislative reach.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll bite for the sake of expository debate.  I'm probably more on your side than jimmy's.  But, while I acknowledge a great deal of personal utility in shooting sports and related activity to include hunting, both licensed for game and unlicensed for varmint/pest species, I am willing to concede that blasting 20 rounds in 30 seconds from any firearm has limited utility and therefore ought to be within legislative reach.

I am genuinely open to a proposal.  But all the proposals I hear are from people who know even less than I do about what an assault rifle is.  And their proposals make no sense.

[jimmyjazz 45954]

I'm not really all that concerned with "utility" because I believe that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible people, and I don't have a problem with them using guns for "fun".  By that I mean target, skeet, whatever.  Throw in hunting, no problem.  Throw in self defense, no problem.

But the continued deflection and obfuscation about weapons that are ADMITTEDLY "fun to shoot" but are optimal for killing a lot of "things" in a short amount of time is troublesome.  

I honestly believe the biggest concern among the gun enthusiast crowd (disregarding the NRA which pretty much serves exclusively to jack the profits of gun manufacturers) is the "slippery slope" argument.  I think that's an intellectually bankrupt position.  I don't like it when it comes to DUI, I don't like it when it comes to drugs, I don't like it when it comes to guns.  I am wholly in support of Joe Public's right to own weapons -- rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. -- up to the point where their killing rate becomes so high that mass shootings are inherently enabled.  You can believe that I'm lying -- I'm not.  You can believe that I want to take all your guns -- I don't.  I want to stop mass slaughter of innocent citizens.  Your right to own a gun would not be abridged by a limitation on that functionality.  Your hand-wringing about "we couldn't possibly stop them all" is tantamount to saying "let's take all the laws off the books because we can't stop everyone from committing crimes".  

Edited March 30, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[VRHorn 718]

30 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

What is consistent - each and every target was a "soft" gun-free zone, where the assailant knew he had free range on an unprotected prey.  You say you want to protect your kids RIGHT NOW.  Then actually protect them.  Do you think there will ever be an attempted shooting at that MD school ever again?  be honest....

Ok, the first time this was posted, I assumed it was bad information. The second time, it becomes flat-out bullshit.

The school cop didn't shoot that guy - he shot himself. Stop lying.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

12 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I am genuinely open to a proposal.  But all the proposals I hear are from people who know even less than I do about what an assault rifle is.  And their proposals make no sense.

Well mine, probably buried, is ban semiauto centerfire rifles/long gun with mag caps greater than five rounds (plus one in the chamber).  What we lose from that is the ability to blow the shit out of watermelons or hogs or water jugs or whatever with 20-25 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger.  What we gain perhaps is some warm fuzzies that crazed maniacs won't be able to discharge those 20-25 rounds into teens or moviegoers or whatever, but will have to do it in five round increments.

Yahoos can still blast away with rimfires, and bird hunters keep their 1100s, 1187s, Benellis, Berettas etc.

It would also give us a vivid look into the problem of pre-existing large cap mags and black markets for same.  And probably also yield insight that the real problem may be handguns.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Brian Fantana 6687]

Anyone that needs to fire off 10 rounds at a fucking hog needs to put the fucking gun down and go look for a cure for their Parkinson's. I grew up hunting game with bolt-action rifles, and it's my opinion that if you need to hunt with a semi-automatic rifle, you're a fucking pussy. How bah dah?

[BabaYaga 15298]

4 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

Ok, the first time this was posted, I assumed it was bad information. The second time, it becomes flat-out bullshit.

The school cop didn't shoot that guy - he shot himself. Stop lying.

Suicide.  At the point he was directly confronted by an armed and determined officer.  You are making my point for me.  These cowards plan out their targets.  Again and again they fold at the slightest confrontation.  

[BabaYaga 15298]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well mine, probably buried, is ban semiauto centerfire rifles/long gun with mag caps greater than five rounds (plus one in the chamber).  What we lose from that is the ability to blow the shit out of watermelons or hogs or water jugs or whatever with 20-25 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger.  What we gain perhaps is some warm fuzzies that crazed maniacs won't be able to discharge those 20-25 rounds into teens or moviegoers or whatever, but will have to do it in five round increments.

Yahoos can still blast away with rimfires, and bird hunters keep their 1100s, 1187s, Benellis, Berettas etc.

It would also give us a vivid look into the problem of pre-existing large cap mags and black markets for same.

I get that this "seems" logical.  Are you also willing to concede the point that we already tried that with the Brady Bill unsuccessfully?  10rd mag limitations were a thing for an entire decade.  Statistically, as indicated it was inconclusive at best.  Now fast forward to today, where we have exponentially more firearms (hundreds of millions) and many multiples more of mags + trillions of rounds of ammo.   How do you enforce this?  Of all the accessories to a firearm, the magazine is the easiest to manufacture yourself.  There are hundreds of millions in circulation.  Visually, they "look" the same as most 20rd mags (in AR's).  So how?  A fine?  Jail time?  Confiscation?    Ok, at the range, I take my 5rd.  Keep the others at home (which you don't know how many I have).  At the ranch?  The one game warden that covers about 500sq miles and comes out once a season to say hi and have a cup of coffee?   Yeah, that's not going to work now any more than it did from '94-'04.  Then what?  We walk this path again?  Why is the platform the only factor the regulatory crowd is adamant about discussing?

[jimmyjazz 45954]

I realize this has moved into "gun control" and away from "assault weapons", but I don't want to wade into that other thread.

I recently had a conversation with a guy who made a pretty compelling point for his high-capacity high-rate weapons on his ranch, far removed from first responders, etc.  It led to a soft conclusion on my part that perhaps a better solution would be some sort of shift in graduated licensing where such weapons aren't completely outlawed but rather subject to stricter standards of ownership.  To say that I can assert the solution right at the moment would be lying . . . but it seems like it could be a reasonable compromise.