For the most part, I don't have anything against gun ownership but it seems like commonsense that we shouldn't be selling high-capacity assault rifles to anyone. You don't need an assault rifle to hunt deer or for personal defense and, therefore, they should be extremely hard to acquire. It's fine to be an enthusiast but the average person should not be able to get a hold of them. These mass killings would be much more difficult for someone to enact with a knife.

Nope.

The only effective way is to practically eliminate the prevalence of guns beyond say a hunting rifle across the general population. Everything else is wack-a-mole, and won't solve the problem.

I'm a political moderate, and I generally gravitate towards moderate "common sense" effective regulations when needed. I don't see any point in regulations that don't do any good.

Universal background checks, banning assault rifles, three day waiting periods, banning bump stocks, stopping people who have been evaluated with psychiatric problems, all of it will insignificantly reduce gun violence.

I just don't see a way forward on this issue because what's needed is so politically impossible when people start declaring armed insurrection when a Democrat gets elected President.

I don't really have a problem with owning guns and it's certainly not "all or nothing".

My issue with the gun arguments in the states is that they're asking the wrong questions. The problem isn't the guns, it's why you seem to think you need them.

No other developed nation has this issue. The rest of the world all have guns, we're just responsible with them. We're ok with reasonable legislation and we don't have a lunatic fringe screaming about tyranny if we can't own assault rifles.

Most importantly, no civilised country thinks you need a gun for self-defence. A) we have police for that and b) most of us just aren't afraid that someone is coming to kill us... because they aren't.

I don't think there's an easy fix to America's gun problems. Fundamentally I think the issue is cultural rather than regulatory, but honestly, at this stage, you're like a bunch of kids, who need their toys taken off them until they can prove they're mature enough to use them properly.

If someone is an alcoholic, the most important thing isn't taking the booze away, it's getting them to admit there's a problem. But sometimes, you need to take the booze away long enough for them to sober up and admit there's a problem.

All good points, but that's another problem.

I don't think the vast majority of gun owners have government overthrowing in mind when purchasing guns anyway.

Why can't I own bombs & shoulder mounted firing rockets? That's because governments are sensibly enough to think these weapons don't belong in the public.

Should that bar for publicly-available weapons set above or below these AR-15 type assault rifles? I think that's the legitimate discussion. It's not "all or nothing."

The intent of the 2nd amendment was so that The People could rise up against a tyrannical government and overthrow it, should the need arise. That was practical back then, when both sides were just a bunch of dudes with muskets.
Nowadays, it would be impossible to rise up and overthrow the military (and militarized police), even with the best assault rifles. So an overthrow-by-violence just isn't practical.

I think it would be OK for active military or SWAT police to own and practice with AR-15, but I support a ban for everyone else (similar to what was in place 1994-2004). I like your idea about allowing them at shooting ranges too, where they are rented, not owned.

Some AR-15 owners say they use them to hunt coyotes, but give me a break- you can use any rifle for that.

One way to resolve the issue might be to redirect some of the immense intelligence focus from Islamic terrorism to domestic terrorism.

That is what this is, domestic terrorism. It may not always have a manifesto behind it, but that is not relevant. There were numerous people who said this person was probably a school shooter in the making. He was doing things with white power groups and militias. Why didn't our mass spying that we do catch that? Because it wasn't an Islamic group.

We can ban assault rifles or put limits on them, we can make mandatory psych evals required for gun purchases, or we could do any number of things. While we look into what we can legislate, we should also be looking into how we can use resources we have in place to STOP JUST THIS SORT OF THING.

As anyone who knows me knows, I am a hardcore supporter of the right to bear arms. I am not an NRA member, because they aren't really concerned about the right to bear arms, just that they keep getting money from gun manufacturers. I still think we can keep AR type rifles, but we should have a national mandate on clip size, number of clips allowed, and we should have a mandatory psych eval required if you plan on purchasing anything other than a hunting rifle. Yes, that includes handguns.

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

Does it bother any one else to hear politicians and news reporters incorrectly calling things "machine guns," "assault rifles" and "clips?" It makes them look ignorant, just like watching Fox News report on anything scientific.

Machine guns are primarily support weapons for sustained automatic fire. They usually have an active or passive cooling mechanism to prevent the barrel from overheating during sustained fire.

An assault rifle is a rifle which has a select fire mechanism that allows it to switch from semi-auto to burst or full automatic fire. An assault rifle can overheat if fired fully automatic (or even semi-automatic) without letting it cool, which can lead to failure of the weapon (if you can even hold on to it when it's that hot).

A magazine is simply something that holds bullets. Guns can have internal magazines or external detachable magazines. A clip is a mechanism used to load bullets into a magazine.

It's been a while since I posted. I also rarely spew politics on the Internet anymore, but the arguments in the video are just weak.

Most gun control arguments amount to a bunch of cherry picked statistics, and then a complaint about other cherry picked statistics supporting the other argument. For example, you can't cherry pick the Chicago argument, that's just showing a lack of nuance, but let's go ahead and cherry pick the Australia and CDC arguments.

There was a ban on assault rifle sales in the US. Violent crime has dropped since it was repealed. How's that for a cherry picked argument?

Chaos's reasoning is aligned with my own. The issue is cultural, not legislative.

I'm also particularly peeved about the defense of a free state argument. I believe in the second amendment for this reason. You can't hold a block of houses with f16s. You do it with boots on the ground worn by soldiers bearing arms. To me, the second amendment is one of the last remaining checks on executive authority in this country. Tell the black panthers that bearing arms did nothing to protect them against abuses of state. Any policy maker considering a radical and unpopular extension of executive authority (ahem, Trump) needs to consider the logistical ramifications of an armed populace, wielding millions of firearms, the locations of which are unknown. That's a deterrent, plain and simple. Spend all you want on the military. The military is made up of people just as hesitant to wage war against their own countrymen as you or I. Especially so if there is a real possibility they are putting themselves at considerable risk in the process.

I can't understand the "assault rifle" thing. It's already illegal to have a fully automatic without a special license, and any semi-auto gun fires one bullet per trigger pull. What difference does it make what the gun looks like if they all work the same?

Gee, there's a surprise...mo guns=mo gun problems. Who knew?

The "they protect us from our government" argument has been ridiculous since the advent of mechanized warfare. Your rifle can't stop their F-16. Just ask the Syrians.

It's not the cash that the NRA spends lobbying that their power comes from, it's the willingness of their members to jump when they say "jump". Their political power comes from the ability to push politicians out of power through voting, not cash.

The AR-15 is a red herring. My Ruger .22 can shoot well over 45 rounds per minute, as can almost any semi-auto rifle. It's the clip size that makes a difference. If you have to reload after every 10 shots, you simply can't shoot 45 rounds in a minute. I just don't get the outrage over guns that OPERATE exactly the same as nearly all other guns. Either these people simply don't understand guns at all, or they're total liars and they're trying to 'trick' us into banning all semi-auto firearms.

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

Assault rifles ( M16 rifle.) are illegal. People like you don't know what your are talking about.

There are rifles (Ar15)that look like assault rifles abut are just regular rifles.

The guy was on a mission to kill gays in the name of Allah. The gun was just a tool.

The no fly list is woefully flawed. YEs it gets some bad guys but a lot of good guys too.

Check you own name
http://www.no-fly-list.com/

Yep nothing gets fixed- so keep doing the same elect Hillary.

Vote for Trump - I mot saying he is perfect but - he is the only only one standing against the norm.

I think you're wrong about the root cause, but you'll continue to follow the same themes and nothing will get done.
Do you have or need an assault rifle? If not, why do you continue to support what's tragically killing these people. How about more money to mental health. What about the Republicans blocking legislation stopping people on the no fly list being able to get guns just recently. Nothing gets fixed. We just move on to the next tragedy which is a sure sign of stupidity as individuals and as a nation.

I agree that the restriction on the CDC shouldn't be happening.

As far as the limitation of what type of weapons we can have, I'm fine with the system in place. Civilians can own machine guns if they get the proper papers and tax stamp. If we want to classify semi auto rifles in the same class, sure. We can even go back to the Assault Rifle ban if we need to. I just don't see it stopping mass shootings, but that's my opinion.

As far as AR-15's specifically go, they aren't what I would consider to be the best weapon to kill people. At short range and with the shorter barrels most of the civilian ones have, the bullet isn't close to being as effective as a handgun. A Glock 22 has a 15+1 round capacity in a .40 caliber. Carrying 2 of them, firing one empty and then the other (not at the same time), assuming you are remotely able to aim, would net you far more DRT people than a 30 round .223 rifle. Tuck one under your arm, swap clips, release the slide catch, repeat for the second, and you are ready to go. Heck, even a pump or semi auto shotgun with the limiter tube removed and using buckshot is likely to get you more dead people.

Okay, Libertarians stand for:

End to the endless wars: This is much more important than any social policies they might hate. Those programs will fail if we cannot control this bullshit, and then what? Austerity.

Gay rights: (Liberal view.) Not just marriage, but all gay rights. Get the government out of the marriage / contracts etc. and give full rights to people who are different.

Abortion: (Small government, get out of a woman's right to choose. Liberal/conservative point of view.)

Gun rights: Let the States limit gun rights. What works for California might not work in New York. Not my style, but less than conservatives want, more than liberals want. Honestly we have a shit policy out there now. With terrorism building, getting rid of all handguns is seeming ominous, as they will have access to guns despite bans. They have that support in droves, unlike the average criminal would. However, conservatives want ASSAULT rifles for everyone, which is stupid and dangerous. The paradigm has changed. Liberals taking guns from average people (who are most often responsible) and yet not preventing assault rifles from terrorists hands.

Libertarians won't solve the problem but at least their view that states, not an open-access ordered by the Federal Government, would put more restrictions than most conservatives would, and still offer handguns since times have changed.

War on drugs: Failure, stop punishing people, limit laws that predominantly punish minorities, and reduce prison population.

Where the fuck have liberals gone that they no longer support a party that supports their positions so much? Oh social programs...would suffer. Get over it. Programs will suffer from every party. And conservatives shouldn't complain either. For fuck sake people, change with the times. Stop viewing this party as the party of 1920....