Assault Rifle

[thrillhammer 683]

On 3/30/2018 at 5:47 PM, Heavy 6 said:

 

Probably not grosser than living in a shit-filled tent city in gun-free Berkeley.

 

you obviously have not seen the chicks in berkeley.  

[BabaYaga 15298]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Oh yeah, well, 52 years ago..." - How all great arguments begin.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know there was  statute of limitations on shootings.  I'm waiting on JimmyJizz to PROVE his statement that with enough gun control, we can prevent shootings outright.  All of them, that even a dedicated a determined individual with be thwarted.  This should be good.  

[bad_teammate 13195]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 I'm waiting on JimmyJizz to PROVE his statement that with enough gun control, we can prevent shootings outright.

I went back and read all his posts. He never said that. You made it up because you're mad on the Internet and bad at arguing in good faith. You lied. Stop lying. So many right-wing liars here. #sad

[BabaYaga 15298]

A broke, unemployed, 23 year old college dropout just made 8 bombs in Austin literally less than a week ago. They found the resources for him to make more.  But yeah, once we get all the guns it will be unicorns and leprechaun farts.  

[BabaYaga 15298]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I went back and read all his posts. He never said that. You made it up because you're mad on the Internet and bad at arguing in good faith. You lied. Stop lying. So many right-wing liars here. #sad

He said it was a provable statement.  So prove it.  Simple, right?

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

He said it was a provable statement.  So prove it.  Simple, right?

Quote him, liar.

[BabaYaga 15298]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Quote him, liar.

A true honor to see such a sharp mind at work:

No amount of gun control is going to stop someone hell-bent on killing someone.

BULL. SHIT.

That's a provably false statement. 

[jimmyjazz 45957]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know there was  statute of limitations on shootings.  I'm waiting on JimmyJizz to PROVE his statement that with enough gun control, we can prevent shootings outright.  All of them, that even a dedicated a determined individual with be thwarted.  This should be good.  

I didn't claim we could eliminate all shootings.  I'm disputing your claim that "someone" could not be stopped.   You need to read gooder.

[bad_teammate 13195]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

A true honor to see such a sharp mind at work:

No amount of gun control is going to stop someone hell-bent on killing someone.

BULL. SHIT.

That's a provably false statement. 

So he didn't actually make the statement you said he made? #sad

[Trey3216 15346]

On 3/30/2018 at 10:28 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I saw this argument coming and it all depends on the circumstances.  

If you’re shooting at a large groups of targets bunched together at relatively close range (as many mass shooters do), fully auto is much more devastating than semi automatic.

At mid to long range where more precision is required, fully automatic makes a nominal difference, if any.

The Las Vegas shooter likely would have killed more had he not used bump stocks.  He'd certainly not missed several dozen times by 5+ Vegas city blocks.  

[jimmyjazz 45957]

And I would like to congratulate you on being the 749th dumbass to come up with the name "jimmyjizz".  Zing!

[Hank Kingsley 20941]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

A broke, unemployed, 23 year old college dropout just made 8 bombs in Austin literally less than a week ago. They found the resources for him to make more.  But yeah, once we get all the guns it will be unicorns and leprechaun farts.  

This playbook is so fucking old.   Listen up:  EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU WILL NOT END ALL HOMICIDES WITH GUN CONTROL.   Stop peddling this silly, disingenuous bullshit. 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Hank Kingsley

[bad_teammate 13195]

Laws are only worthwhile if they solve the problem 100%. Anything less is a waste of time and freedom.

~very Libertarianishly~
"First we start with age of consent laws."

 

[BabaYaga 15298]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't claim we could eliminate all shootings.  I'm disputing your claim that "someone" could not be stopped.   You need to read gooder.

Gave this a lot of thought did you?  So if "someone" could not be stopped is incorrect - then they can be stopped, then how are you also not claiming that we are not eliminating all shootings.  We are stopping them aren't we.  After all, as you said, my claim that a determined individual will find a way is BULL.SHIT....and that the assertion is provably false.  Then again, prove it.  Should be simple for you.

[BabaYaga 15298]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This playbook is so fucking old.   Listen up:  EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU WILL NOT END ALL HOMICIDES WITH GUN CONTROL.   Stop peddling this silly, disingenuous bullshit. 

 

Old?  Everyone that knows anything about firearms understands that you will not end mass shootings with gun control short of banning the amendment outright and mass gun confiscation.  So step peddling this silly, disingenuous bullshit. 

This how it works?

[jimmyjazz 45957]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Gave this a lot of thought did you?  So if "someone" could not be stopped is incorrect - then they can be stopped, then how are you also not claiming that we are not eliminating all shootings.  We are stopping them aren't we.  After all, as you said, my claim that a determined individual will find a way is BULL.SHIT....and that the assertion is provably false.  Then again, prove it.  Should be simple for you.

Wow.  If I stop one person I have proved that "someone" can be stopped.

The US reduction in mass shootings and killings per shooting and mass shooting fatalities between 1994 and 2004 proves my point.

[bad_teammate 13195]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So if "someone" could not be stopped is incorrect - then they can be stopped, then how are you also not claiming that we are not eliminating all shootings.

mother

fukken

brain

genius

 

[BabaYaga 15298]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wow.  If I stop one person I have proved that "someone" can be stopped.

The US reduction in mass shootings and killings per shooting and mass shooting fatalities between 1994 and 2004 proves my point.

Your data from Mother Jones.  Cute.  No.  We've gone through this.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

The data are irrefutable.  Carry on, no doubt there are some stupid people out there for you to indoctrinate.

[Hank Kingsley 20941]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Old?  Everyone that knows anything about firearms understands that you will not end mass shootings with gun control short of banning the amendment outright and mass gun confiscation.  So step peddling this silly, disingenuous bullshit. 

This how it works?

No fucking shit.  We are talking about having FEWER mass shootings. We are talking about wanting FEWER people to die.  Progress is not all or nothing.  But the gun-nut playbook is just that...if any person dies at the hand of a gun, then there is no point in gun control. It's fucking ridiculous.  Stop it. 

 

 

[BabaYaga 15298]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

No fucking shit.  We are talking about having FEWER mass shootings. We are talking about wanting FEWER people to die.  Progress is not all or nothing.  But the gun-nut playbook is just that...if any person dies at the hand of a gun, then there is no point in gun control. It's fucking ridiculous.  Stop it. 

 

 

And the false dichotomy is back.  Welcome.  You are right.  There are NO other options to look at beyond banning, and doing nothing.  Not a one.  Please carry on.  

[BabaYaga 15298]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The data are irrefutable. 

Except it isn't.  

[jimmyjazz 45957]

Data are plural, and yes the data are irrefutable.

[Hank Kingsley 20941]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

And the false dichotomy is back.  Welcome.  You are right.  There are NO other options to look at beyond banning, and doing nothing.  Not a one.  Please carry on.  

Some form of GUN CONTROL is an option. You disingenuous hack. Sorry that your synapses aren't firing. 

 

 

[BabaYaga 15298]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Some form of GUN CONTROL is an option. You disingenuous hack. Sorry that your synapses aren't firing. 

 

 

OK, what - tell me specifically what would have prevented this atrocity?  Funny how you don't seemingly give a damn about breakdowns in existing gun laws....let's just add new ones so you feel better.  Breakdowns at the state and federal law enforcement levels for a crackpot that was reported dozens of times.  No.  Let's not look at that.  Let's also not look at an incident a matter of weeks later when yet another copy-cat killer tried to ply his craft in MD, and then when faced with armed resistance took his own life before he could even get started.  But yeah, I'm being disingenuous.   Instead, let's impact the rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners who haven't done a damn thing wrong because you are too myopic to look at options beyond bans and additional regulation that even the most die-hard leftist pundits agree would have done NOTHING to stop this.  

[bad_teammate 13195]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Breakdowns at the state and federal law enforcement levels for a crackpot that was reported dozens of times.  No.  Let's not look at that. 

So if the enforcement had been done effectively... would it have stopped him? lol

Quote

Let's also not look at an incident a matter of weeks later when yet another copy-cat killer tried to ply his craft in MD, and then when faced with armed resistance took his own life before he could even get started.  But yeah, I'm being disingenuous.

You are. Did the MD shooter want to be a mass shooter or did he just want to kill the people he felt were responsible for his poor little broken male heart? Did he kill himself because he was confronted? How he hell would you know the answer to either of those questions?

[Hank Kingsley 20941]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

OK, what - tell me specifically what would have prevented this atrocity?  Funny how you don't seemingly give a damn about breakdowns in existing gun laws....let's just add new ones so you feel better.  Breakdowns at the state and federal law enforcement levels for a crackpot that was reported dozens of times.  No.  Let's not look at that.  Let's also not look at an incident a matter of weeks later when yet another copy-cat killer tried to ply his craft in MD, and then when faced with armed resistance took his own life before he could even get started.  But yeah, I'm being disingenuous.   Instead, let's impact the rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners who haven't done a damn thing wrong because you are too myopic to look at options beyond bans and additional regulation that even the most die-hard leftist pundits agree would have done NOTHING to stop this.  

Ok, I guess you are just clearly uninformed.  The shooting in Maryland was a kid that specifically wanted to kill his ex-girlfriend.  He shot her in the head and the bullet exited and hit another student.  Witnesses at the school said the shooter then put his gun to his head before encountering the resource officer.  All indications lead to it being a murder-suicide.  "Copy-cat killer?".  Nope.  "Good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun"? Nope. 

 

Moving on, YES, let's look at breakdowns at the state and federal level.   WHO IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT?  That absolutely contributed to the MSD tragedy.  Amazingly, other factors (including the choice of weapon) led to 17 students dying that day Parkland. 

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45957]

There is a particular class of legal weapons which are overwhelmingly the choice of mass murderers.  Eliminating legal access to those weapons directly correlates to a reduction in mass shootings.

Hmmm.

Somebody help me, this is a tough nut to crack.  Maybe we need to look at fluoride in the water?

[BabaYaga 15298]

9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Ok, I guess you are just clearly uninformed.  The shooting in Maryland was a kid that specifically wanted to kill his ex-girlfriend.  He shot her in the head and the bullet exited and hit another student.  Witnesses at the school said the shooter then put his gun to his head before encountering the resource officer.  All indications lead to it being a murder-suicide.  "Copy-cat killer?".  Nope.  "Good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun"? Nope. 

 

Moving on, YES, let's look at breakdowns at the state and federal level.   WHO IS ARGUING AGAINST THAT?  That absolutely contributed to the MSD tragedy.  Amazingly, other factors (including the choice of weapon) led to 17 students dying that day Parkland. 

 

 

 

Gaskill (the officer) shot the assailant (Rollins).  It wasn't post-mortem.  Gaskill, when he confronted him he still had the rifle and was not stopped with a gun to his head like in the movies.  He was moving.  And we have no idea what he may have done had there been no person to stop him.  And further, this isn't the first time a shooter withered when confronted by a determined individual.

And unless you are talking a complete ban on all semi-automatic weapons, then accepting of the fact that a kid with a backpack full of DA revolvers can still kill a dozen kids, then what are you proposing exactly?  You can't even define "assault" weapons beyond a sweeping characterization of all semi-auto rifle platforms.  So what are we talking about beyond limiting th rights of millions of gun owners that have done nothing wrong.  

[BabaYaga 15298]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There is a particular class of legal weapons which are overwhelmingly the choice of mass murderers.  Eliminating legal access to those weapons directly correlates to a reduction in mass shootings.

Hmmm.

Somebody help me, this is a tough nut to crack.  Maybe we need to look at fluoride in the water?

So you want to ban all semi-auto weapons in this country.  Fine.  Run on that.  Good luck.  Isn't going to happen.  Nor is it even feasible if you did pass it.  Hundreds of millions of gun exist.  Open borders.  Trillions of rounds of ammunition.  Hundreds of millions of magazines.  Or are you naive to think our influx of drugs and illegal substances wouldn't expand to guns overnight?  Then what?  

[jimmyjazz 45957]

You wouldn't support a workable solution to a partial gun ban if it existed.  You probably wouldn't even support tighter background checks, longer waiting periods, and elimination of certain proxy loopholes, but I suppose I should give you the benefit of the doubt there.

But you clearly would not support any restriction on weapon class beyond what we have now.

So no, I'm not really interested in wasting my breath on someone like you.  The rest of us will just continue to muster more support, and the laws will change without your input, and you'll be sad, and fuck you.

[Hank Kingsley 20941]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Gaskill (the officer) shot the assailant (Rollins).  It wasn't post-mortem.  Gaskill, when he confronted him he still had the rifle and was not stopped with a gun to his head like in the movies.  He was moving.  And we have no idea what he may have done had there been no person to stop him.  And further, this isn't the first time a shooter withered when confronted by a determined individual.

 

https://wtop.com/maryland/2018/03/student-describes-chilling-encounter-with-st-marys-co-high-school-shooter/

LeAire Livingston was on her way to class on March 20 when she accidentally bumped into another student — 17-year-old Austin Rollins — as he pointed a handgun at himself.

“When I looked up, I was getting ready to apologize, but I (saw) the gun to his head,” Livingston said at a school safety event Wednesday at the People’s Community Baptist Church in Silver Spring.

“I didn’t know what to do, so I just stood there first for a little bit,” Livingston said. “But once I realized that this was actually happening, I turned around and I ran into a classroom.”

Soon after, armed school resource officer Blaine Gaskill confronted Rollins and fired a round that hit the boy’s weapon at about the same time that Rollins shot himself. The teen was later pronounced dead at a hospital.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

So you want to ban all semi-auto weapons in this country. 

Let's start here:  let's ban private ownership of all weapons which do not require manual action to reload between shots.  Furthermore, let's ban all guns which could be considered "concealable", including all pistols, etc.  Legal ownership would essentially be limited to single shot long guns along with a select number of bolt action weapons, shotguns, etc.  All such weapons would be licensed and license renewal would be subject to passage of a safety course every 5 years.  Limits on possession of ammunition would also be implemented, and purchasing limits would also be instituted, both on a per-visit and annual basis.  Conformance would be tracked as we track Rx purchases of various legal narcotics, etc.  Attempts to circumvent those limits would subject the individual to felony prosecution.

A one-year buyback period would be implemented in which the government would purchase all banned weapons from the owner at current list price, or at a published price based on auction or resale prices for those weapons that are no longer being manufactured.  Following that one-year buyback period, possession of a banned weapon would subject the individual to felony prosecution with a minimum allowable sentence of 10 years in Federal prison.

How's that?

[Brian Fantana 6689]

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Then prove it.  Whitman killed more than a dozen people with a deer rifle and his parents with a knife.  

 

 

You watch too many movies. Whitman had a bunch of guns up there, not just a bolt-action hunting rifle like is often portrayed in media accounts.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Old?  Everyone that knows anything about firearms understands that you will not end mass shootings with gun control short of banning the amendment outright and mass gun confiscation.  So step peddling this silly, disingenuous bullshit. 

This how it works?

If only we had an example to follow of a large country that implemented gun control 22 years ago and hasn't had a mass shooting since.

You don't have to repeal the fucking amendment to do that so you can go ahead and fuck off with that scare tactic already. 

[Anastasis 23469]

22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let's start here:  let's ban private ownership of all weapons which do not require manual action to reload between shots.  Furthermore, let's ban all guns which could be considered "concealable", including all pistols, etc.  Legal ownership would essentially be limited to single shot long guns along with a select number of bolt action weapons, shotguns, etc.  All such weapons would be licensed and license renewal would be subject to passage of a safety course every 5 years.  Limits on possession of ammunition would also be implemented, and purchasing limits would also be instituted, both on a per-visit and annual basis.  Conformance would be tracked as we track Rx purchases of various legal narcotics, etc.  Attempts to circumvent those limits would subject the individual to felony prosecution.

A one-year buyback period would be implemented in which the government would purchase all banned weapons from the owner at current list price, or at a published price based on auction or resale prices for those weapons that are no longer being manufactured.  Following that one-year buyback period, possession of a banned weapon would subject the individual to felony prosecution with a minimum allowable sentence of 10 years in Federal prison.

How's that?

I am all for placing significant penalties on any firearm related criminal activity, but the rest of this is a total non starter and has zero chance in even our current amplified state of affairs.

[F250 28776]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am all for placing significant penalties on any firearm related criminal activity, but the rest of this is a total non starter and has zero chance in even our current amplified state of affairs.

He's high balling. You have to return with a low ball.

[Anastasis 23469]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

He's high balling. You have to return with a low ball.

OK, my starting is point is removal of suppressors from NFA. 

 

That's an equally ludicrous starting point for a discussion on gun control measures. 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Anastasis

[F250 28776]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

OK, my starting is point is removal of suppressors from NFA. 

 

That's an equally ludicrous starting point for a discussion on gun control measures. 

I would offer raising the age for purchasing rifles so that it is uniform to handguns by setting both to a required age of 20 or more years of age.

[Anastasis 23469]

I’d agree to that. But apparently we aren’t suppose to start there with the proposals and negotiations

[Hank Kingsley 20941]

Says who?

 

[jimmyjazz 45957]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I’d agree to that. But apparently we aren’t suppose to start there with the proposals and negotiations

Well, when the starting point is "no fucking way am I willing to consider anything" don't be surprised when people come back with what I proposed.  This isn't difficult.

[Anastasis 23469]

That's not my position, nor is it the position of most law abiding gun owners.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

I would wager that most people that post here are law abiding gun owners.

[jimmyjazz 45957]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That's not my position, nor is it the position of most law abiding gun owners.

It's a very vocal position.  I don't know what % it represents, but if it's the minority, then I would say the gun owners need to take control of the message.  Personally, I am pretty resistant to significant changes in our laws.  I think there are incremental changes that can be made on several fronts which together might have significant effect.

[F250 28776]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, when the starting point is "no fucking way am I willing to consider anything" don't be surprised when people come back with what I proposed.  This isn't difficult.

It works both ways which is probably why this issue has been bouncing around for over a couple of decades.

[Anastasis 23469]

9 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I would wager that most people that post here are law abiding gun owners.

Good, so most people here probably realize that  "no fucking way am I willing to consider anything" is not really the position of most people.  

[jimmyjazz 45957]

Seems to be the position on this board.

[Anastasis 23469]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's a very vocal position.  I don't know what % it represents, but if it's the minority, then I would say the gun owners need to take control of the message.  Personally, I am pretty resistant to significant changes in our laws.  I think there are incremental changes that can be made on several fronts which together might have significant effect.

Outside of some real wingnuts and people who like to argue from extremes at times (myself included), that is just not the reality.  It's not the reality in congress and its not the broader reality.  It's not even the reality at the NRA.  Maybe the GOA.  But see also, wingnuts. 

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Seems to be the position on this board.

link?