His point would be somewhat valid if the "Assault" rifles were actually used in crimes regularly. Even if we had them banned, George still seemed to be in favor of handguns which work just fine for crazy shooters.
That free and unrestricted access to large amounts of firepower does not, in fact, make it less likely that you will be killed by gun fire but more likely. That restricting and/or regulating access to said fire power is probably in the best interest of society, even at the high price of inconveniencing hobbiests and hunters who want to shoot a deer 30 times in 6 seconds without old man government looking over his shoulder.
If anyone has any facts or stats that contradict that statement, I'd love to see them.
Yo dawg, do any of the technical inaccuracies contradict the central point; that the only purpose of assault weapons is to make is easier to kill large numbers of people? Apparently not.
His point is that comparing these firearms to cars is invalid, because they don't have any other purpose than killing human beings more efficiently, unlike Hunting rifles, his other example, which have other purposes than killing people. His entire reasoning behind this conclusion is faulty, his every factual point false, so therefore, his argument is defeated, and his conclusion clearly erroneous.
That's kinda precisely how it works, dude. So yes, those technical inaccuracies contradict his central point, because his central point is essentially "These weapons are designed to kill more people more efficiently, because of these reasons", predicated on the "Facts" he provided, and every single one of those "facts" is demonstrably false.
Any sensible argument for gun control would start with increased training and testing requirements for concealed carry permits and mandatory psych evals (props to Jason) paid by the applicant. The vast majority of deaths are due to handguns. Period. Instead of focusing on specific technologies, you would be far more effective at screening applicants.
Arguments involving the term "Assault weapons" are ambiguous and purposefully obtuse. They make for good political speeches and get donations rolling in. But like most political arguments these days, have very little virtue in actually solving the problem.
I'll reiterate but if you wish to continue this argument please define "assault weapon" without the use of a brand or model name.
"These weapons are designed to kill more people more efficiently, because of these reasons", predicated on the "Facts" he provided, and every single one of those "facts" is demonstrably false.
So assault weapon are not designed to kill more people more efficiently?
I'll reiterate but if you wish to continue this argument please define "assault weapon" without the use of a brand or model name.
A firearm designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range.
I have a feeling that you could have 2 models of the same gun, one with a traditional wooden stock, and the other with a pistol grip and "Tactical" shit tacked on and a lot of people would look at the first and not care, but look at the other and go "eeek, Assault Rifle, ban it!"
Oh look, even more ambiguity! You pretty much defined any gun made in the 20th century.
Well, either any or none, depending on how you take that definition.
For example, it could easily be argued that no firearm is designed specifically to fire rapidly at specifically human targets from specifically close range. Even military firearms are designed for variable range, and variable rates of fire.
So, no matter if you take it at face value, treat it reasonably, or descend into pedantry, it's an absolutely useless definition.
Now, I don't know if that's true, and I don't have time to check it right now, but if it is true, wouldn't it weigh towards the argument that America is just a very, very violent place and the existence of guns, as such, is not quite the issue so much as that we're just a bunch of violent fucks?
Yeah that's pretty much my view. And with crazies like the Colorado shooter, who's to say they wouldn't have just made a bomb or something if guns were not available. You can take away guns and other weapons, but people will find some way to kill each other.
Yes, but my point was more like, AMERICANS will always find ways to kill each other. Guns, knives, sharp sticks - we kill more than anyone else.
Is this true? Is there something so fucked-up about us as a culture that we should just be considered a special case in arguments about any sort of weapon control?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the NATO 5.56mm round developed precisely because they wanted something less violent than the 7.62? A round that isn't as lethal, nor as violent when fired, but which still provides excellent capacity for incapacitation?
And doesn't that round lose a lot of effectiveness at range? I mean, I didn't think the 5.56 was designed for rather long-range combat.
I'm confident I can more reliably kill somebody with my grandfather's Springfield .30-06. Or the goddamn Marlin lever-action .444 my dad used to have.
Automatic firearms are designed, in part, to provide intimidation and suppression. If everyone has a rifle that fires a hail of lead, you're going to stay right the fuck where you are - otherwise, you're likely to get hit. And while a hit won't always kill you, it'll sure as fuck wreck your day - and that's all we need to happen in warfare.
So yeah, killing lots of people at long range? Not exactly what the AR is meant to do.
So I think the answer is that we actually need to ban handguns, because they're not as useful as rifles for sport shooting and can be concealed easily.
Or really we just need to make people take a 20-hour gun handling course instead of a 3-hour one.
"In the abstract, putting the massacre aside for a moment, who do you fear more?"
The crazed asshole who is googling jihad. More Jihadists have succeeded than crimes have been comitted with automatic weapons in the US - Last I remember, it's two. And one of them was a cop, and he obtained the weapon through the department, and tried to rob a bank with it. And every owner of an AR-15 and "High capacity clip" - which is apparently 30 rounds, in other words, the standard magazine - is quite responsible, sensible, and in all respects, upstanding as both people and citizens.
I also find it telling that nobody is addressing the mental health angle, or at least, very few. Improving mental health resources and availability of them would be trivial, compared to banning guns.
But I guess giving two shits about your fellow man and helping far more people than you'd ever save by banning firearms is not a consideration, compared to punishing millions of law-abiding citizens for the actions of a single person who probably could have done with some of those currently piss-poor mental health resources.
Your fact needs qualification. Since 1934, there have been two homicide convictions against people who used legally-owned automatic weapons in the U.S.
"In the abstract, putting the massacre aside for a moment, who do you fear more?"
The crazed asshole who is googling jihad. More Jihadists have succeeded than crimes have been comitted with automatic weapons in the US - Last I remember, it's two. And one of them was a cop, and he obtained the weapon through the department, and tried to rob a bank with it.
Actual automatic weapons are very tightly regulated in the U.S., as far as I know, so that's not the question at hand. The concern is over someone buying a large amount of firepower in a short period of time.
Also, you can't just have "crazed asshole" for free - if you want to add that in there, the appropriate comparison is crazed asshole googling jihad vs crazed asshole buying guns.
Also, you can't just have "crazed asshole" for free - if you want to add that in there, the appropriate comparison is crazed asshole googling jihad vs crazed asshole buying guns.
Oh, so we're assuming that these things will lead to action on both their parts, then? Because the question assumes they're going to do something that gives you cause to fear.
Also, in that case, my answer is the same. Guy with the rifle? He could be shooting targets, he could be hunting animals, whatever. Shooting is not limited to just killing people, the vast majority of it, in fact, has little to do with it. Chances are, he's not just wandering into a shopping mall and opening fire. Jihad, however, if he's planning action on that? Well, I've a little more cause to worry, considering.
If the guy is just googling jihad and making any action, he's no threat. If the dude owns a rifle, he's no more threat than the guy googling jihad, because neither of them are fucking doing anything.
Suggesting we should worry about people just because they own a firearm is idiotic FUD.
Your fact needs qualification. Since 1934, there have been two homicide convictions against people who used legally-owned automatic weapons in the U.S.
That's a far cry from the original statement.
Well robbing a bank is obviously a crime, so can you provide any information on the other - since homicide is not necessarily a crime, after all.
I also find it telling that nobody is addressing the mental health angle, or at least, very few. Improving mental health resources and availability of them would be trivial, compared to banning guns.
The current train of discussion is not about banning guns - it's about intelligence (as in "intel"). Moreover, improvements to mental health actually go hand in hand with this kind of suggestion - if the U.S. knew more about the mental health of individuals, it could more appropriately determine which individuals need to be watched, especially with respect to guns.
Oh, so we're assuming that these things will lead to action on both their parts, then? Because the question assumes they're going to do something that gives you cause to fear.
No. At the least, in the way I interpreted it, there is no such assumption at hand. Both activites have the possibility of being entirely mundane.
And every owner of an AR-15 and "High capacity clip" - which is apparently 30 rounds, in other words, the standard magazine - is quite responsible, sensible, and in all respects, upstanding as both people and citizens.
We're not just talking about the purchase of a rifle here. From what I gather, the purchases were two handguns, a shotgun, the AR-15, several 100-round drum magazines, lots of ammunition, a combat vest, and a knife; all within a period of two months or so.
Suggesting we should worry about people just because they own a firearm is idiotic FUD.
Going to throw this one into the mix before I spend the rest of the night building a baracade. It would be interesting to see, and most likely very hard or not even possible to gather, information on those who buy a gun for self defence, yet when push comes to shove were able to shoot someone. Its always been a rather interesting though to me, that there seems to be a lot of people saying that they need a gun to protect themselves yet I wonder if they had to whether they could.
Short version; Yes its all well and good it being your right to have a gun but if your not going to use it you might as well stop posturing and go play airsoft.
And every owner of an AR-15 and "High capacity clip" - which is apparently 30 rounds, in other words, the standard magazine - is quite responsible, sensible, and in all respects, upstanding as both people and citizens.
We're not just talking about the purchase of a rifle here. From what I gather, the purchases were two handguns, a shotgun, the AR-15, several 100-round drum magazines, lots of ammunition, a combat vest, and a knife; all within a period of two months or so.
Further research suggests that the period of time was more like 4 months, and he may have bought only the one drum magazine.
Regardless, the point is that Holmes made these purchases without any monitoring, background checks, testing or training, and that this lies in stark contrast to the level of scrutiny people are put under for perceived terrorist leanings.
Unlike a simplistic ban, I suspect that (for example) mandatory training and psychlogical evaluation could be rather effective for prevention of this kind of event.
Your fact needs qualification. Since 1934, there have been two homicide convictions against people who used legally-owned automatic weapons in the U.S.
That's a far cry from the original statement.
Well robbing a bank is obviously a crime, so can you provide any information on the other - since homicide is not necessarily a crime, after all.
I'm not sure what you're asking. That's probably just me reading strangely because I'm tired. If you're asking what other types of crimes could possibly be committed with an automatic weapon other than robbery and homicide, then there are aggravated menacing, felonious assault, battery, aggravated rape, attempted murder, criminal damaging, aggravated arson (that would be a stretch, but I'm sure it's happened)....
If you're asking for clarification on why I say your earlier wording was weak, it's because:
"A New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services study of homicides in 1993 in New York City found that assault weapons were involved in 16% of the homicides studied. The definition of assault weapons used was from proposed but not enacted State legislation that was more expansive than the Federal legislation. By matching ballistics records and homicide files, the study found information on 366 firearms recovered in the homicides of 271 victims. Assault weapons were linked to the deaths of 43 victims (16% of those studied)." (Source: DOJ link posted previously)
We're not just talking about the purchase of a rifle here. From what I gather, the purchases were two handguns, a shotgun, the AR-15, several 100-round drum magazines, lots of ammunition, a combat vest, and a knife; all within a period of two months or so.
No, it wasn't in this case, he started purchasing in May, if I recall.
The term "Combat Vest" is a bit bollocks - It's just a civilian "tactical vest", which basically means "Vest with a bunch of pockets, that you'll pay $100 extra dollars for, because it's black and has tactical in the name." It's no different to my gonk vest, except mine is leather rather than nylon, and didn't cost me an extra hundred bucks for a word in the name.
He did have a fair amount of ammunition - but to be honest, I've spent days shooting where we've gone through a thousand rounds, in a day. Shit, I've been shooting in the states with a mate and his friends, and collectively gone though a thousand rounds before lunchtime.
I'm not saying 6000 rounds isn't a large amount of ammo, but I'm providing perspective - we do come from a country where firearms are uncommon outside of criminal circles, and I don't know how much experience you have with them, so I'm trying to give you some additional information. I feel it's not entirely unreasonable of an assumption that you may not have a large amount of experience with firearms because of that, like a vast majority of other people I know around our age, location and social strata.
The knife isn't terribly relevant. I don't recall that he used it, and either way, it's just a knife. You can use it to cut vegetables, or throats, it's not inherently good or bad, what matters is how you use it.
Also, when reading back when you quoted me, I should say, I absolutely forgot a word, there - I was intending to say "Every person I KNOW that owns an AR-15...", not just every person. That error of omission absolutely changes the intended meaning of that sentence.
Suggesting we should worry about people just because they own a firearm is idiotic FUD.
This is just a straight-up straw man. Of you, yes. Of the article, no. He is straight up asking which you should be more afraid of, the guy googling Jihad, or the guy with a rifle and "High Capacity" magazines, and who we should monitor - to quote:
"We're talking about what is more dangerous to Americans and more deserving of our monitoring resources: some jerkoff who knows how to google "jihad"? Or someone who has purchased an AR-15, big ass clip, and 6000 bullets?
In the abstract, putting the massacre aside for a moment, who do you fear more?"
I'm not sure what you're asking. That's probably just me reading strangely because I'm tired. If you're asking what other types of crimes could possibly be committed with an automatic weapon other than robbery and homicide, then there are aggravated menacing, felonious assault, battery, aggravated rape, attempted murder, criminal damaging, aggravated arson (that would be a stretch, but I'm sure it's happened)....
I think we're arguing across each other, here. I was saying that only two crimes(addendum: that have been prosecuted) have been committed with legally owned Automatic weapons in the US.
I know one of them was a bank robbery, and clearly a crime, and you said my statement needed qualification, and then noted "Since 1934, there have been two homicide convictions against people who used legally-owned automatic weapons in the U.S." Which, while adding another detail(the period of time), is extremely close to what I was saying.
But then, you said that this was a far cry from my original statement - so, I assumed you meant that one of the two wasn't a crime, as the cop robbing a bank is most definitely a crime, and I thought that was one of them - However, I was half wrong, as while it was a cop, he didn't rob a bank, he murdered an informant. There was another murder in ohio, but I don't have details of that to hand.
If you're asking for clarification on why I say your earlier wording was weak, it's because:
"A New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services study of homicides in 1993 in New York City found that assault weapons were involved in 16% of the homicides studied. The definition of assault weapons used was from proposed but not enacted State legislation that was more expansive than the Federal legislation. By matching ballistics records and homicide files, the study found information on 366 firearms recovered in the homicides of 271 victims. Assault weapons were linked to the deaths of 43 victims (16% of those studied)." (Source: DOJ link posted previously)
No, I wasn't asking that at all, because that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. An "Assault weapon" was defined as such :
"Any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, and a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher."
You'll note that this conspicuously excludes fully automatic firearms, which are considered Machine Guns, not Assault weapons. It's an illogical and idiotic definition, driven by politics and emotion rather than logic and sense, but that's a different issue.
Your suggested reading, while helpful for future reference, had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about, and told me very little I didn't already know.
Comments
If anyone has any facts or stats that contradict that statement, I'd love to see them.
That's kinda precisely how it works, dude. So yes, those technical inaccuracies contradict his central point, because his central point is essentially "These weapons are designed to kill more people more efficiently, because of these reasons", predicated on the "Facts" he provided, and every single one of those "facts" is demonstrably false.
Arguments involving the term "Assault weapons" are ambiguous and purposefully obtuse. They make for good political speeches and get donations rolling in. But like most political arguments these days, have very little virtue in actually solving the problem.
I'll reiterate but if you wish to continue this argument please define "assault weapon" without the use of a brand or model name.
For example, it could easily be argued that no firearm is designed specifically to fire rapidly at specifically human targets from specifically close range. Even military firearms are designed for variable range, and variable rates of fire.
So, no matter if you take it at face value, treat it reasonably, or descend into pedantry, it's an absolutely useless definition.
Note - Designed for firing multiple shots more rapidly than other firearms of the time, at close range, at human targets.
Yes, but my point was more like, AMERICANS will always find ways to kill each other. Guns, knives, sharp sticks - we kill more than anyone else.
Is this true? Is there something so fucked-up about us as a culture that we should just be considered a special case in arguments about any sort of weapon control?
And doesn't that round lose a lot of effectiveness at range? I mean, I didn't think the 5.56 was designed for rather long-range combat.
I'm confident I can more reliably kill somebody with my grandfather's Springfield .30-06. Or the goddamn Marlin lever-action .444 my dad used to have.
Automatic firearms are designed, in part, to provide intimidation and suppression. If everyone has a rifle that fires a hail of lead, you're going to stay right the fuck where you are - otherwise, you're likely to get hit. And while a hit won't always kill you, it'll sure as fuck wreck your day - and that's all we need to happen in warfare.
So yeah, killing lots of people at long range? Not exactly what the AR is meant to do.
Or really we just need to make people take a 20-hour gun handling course instead of a 3-hour one.
If they really wanted the government to not be able to change gun laws they'd become a well regulated militia. Constitution, not "Pick and choose".
The crazed asshole who is googling jihad. More Jihadists have succeeded than crimes have been comitted with automatic weapons in the US - Last I remember, it's two. And one of them was a cop, and he obtained the weapon through the department, and tried to rob a bank with it. And every owner of an AR-15 and "High capacity clip" - which is apparently 30 rounds, in other words, the standard magazine - is quite responsible, sensible, and in all respects, upstanding as both people and citizens.
I also find it telling that nobody is addressing the mental health angle, or at least, very few. Improving mental health resources and availability of them would be trivial, compared to banning guns.
But I guess giving two shits about your fellow man and helping far more people than you'd ever save by banning firearms is not a consideration, compared to punishing millions of law-abiding citizens for the actions of a single person who probably could have done with some of those currently piss-poor mental health resources.
That's a far cry from the original statement.
Suggested reading: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF
Also, you can't just have "crazed asshole" for free - if you want to add that in there, the appropriate comparison is crazed asshole googling jihad vs crazed asshole buying guns.
Also, in that case, my answer is the same. Guy with the rifle? He could be shooting targets, he could be hunting animals, whatever. Shooting is not limited to just killing people, the vast majority of it, in fact, has little to do with it. Chances are, he's not just wandering into a shopping mall and opening fire. Jihad, however, if he's planning action on that? Well, I've a little more cause to worry, considering.
If the guy is just googling jihad and making any action, he's no threat. If the dude owns a rifle, he's no more threat than the guy googling jihad, because neither of them are fucking doing anything.
Suggesting we should worry about people just because they own a firearm is idiotic FUD.
Short version; Yes its all well and good it being your right to have a gun but if your not going to use it you might as well stop posturing and go play airsoft.
Regardless, the point is that Holmes made these purchases without any monitoring, background checks, testing or training, and that this lies in stark contrast to the level of scrutiny people are put under for perceived terrorist leanings.
Unlike a simplistic ban, I suspect that (for example) mandatory training and psychlogical evaluation could be rather effective for prevention of this kind of event.
If you're asking for clarification on why I say your earlier wording was weak, it's because:
"A New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services study of homicides in 1993 in New York City found that assault weapons were involved in 16% of the homicides studied. The definition of assault weapons used was from proposed but not enacted State legislation that was more expansive than the Federal legislation. By matching ballistics records and homicide files, the study found information on 366 firearms recovered in the homicides of 271 victims. Assault weapons were linked to the deaths of 43 victims (16% of those studied)."
(Source: DOJ link posted previously)
The term "Combat Vest" is a bit bollocks - It's just a civilian "tactical vest", which basically means "Vest with a bunch of pockets, that you'll pay $100 extra dollars for, because it's black and has tactical in the name." It's no different to my gonk vest, except mine is leather rather than nylon, and didn't cost me an extra hundred bucks for a word in the name.
He did have a fair amount of ammunition - but to be honest, I've spent days shooting where we've gone through a thousand rounds, in a day. Shit, I've been shooting in the states with a mate and his friends, and collectively gone though a thousand rounds before lunchtime.
I'm not saying 6000 rounds isn't a large amount of ammo, but I'm providing perspective - we do come from a country where firearms are uncommon outside of criminal circles, and I don't know how much experience you have with them, so I'm trying to give you some additional information. I feel it's not entirely unreasonable of an assumption that you may not have a large amount of experience with firearms because of that, like a vast majority of other people I know around our age, location and social strata.
The knife isn't terribly relevant. I don't recall that he used it, and either way, it's just a knife. You can use it to cut vegetables, or throats, it's not inherently good or bad, what matters is how you use it.
Also, when reading back when you quoted me, I should say, I absolutely forgot a word, there - I was intending to say "Every person I KNOW that owns an AR-15...", not just every person. That error of omission absolutely changes the intended meaning of that sentence. This is just a straight-up straw man.
Of you, yes. Of the article, no. He is straight up asking which you should be more afraid of, the guy googling Jihad, or the guy with a rifle and "High Capacity" magazines, and who we should monitor - to quote:
"We're talking about what is more dangerous to Americans and more deserving of our monitoring resources: some jerkoff who knows how to google "jihad"? Or someone who has purchased an AR-15, big ass clip, and 6000 bullets?
In the abstract, putting the massacre aside for a moment, who do you fear more?" I think we're arguing across each other, here. I was saying that only two crimes(addendum: that have been prosecuted) have been committed with legally owned Automatic weapons in the US.
I know one of them was a bank robbery, and clearly a crime, and you said my statement needed qualification, and then noted "Since 1934, there have been two homicide convictions against people who used legally-owned automatic weapons in the U.S."
Which, while adding another detail(the period of time), is extremely close to what I was saying.
But then, you said that this was a far cry from my original statement - so, I assumed you meant that one of the two wasn't a crime, as the cop robbing a bank is most definitely a crime, and I thought that was one of them - However, I was half wrong, as while it was a cop, he didn't rob a bank, he murdered an informant. There was another murder in ohio, but I don't have details of that to hand. No, I wasn't asking that at all, because that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. An "Assault weapon" was defined as such :
"Any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, and a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher."
You'll note that this conspicuously excludes fully automatic firearms, which are considered Machine Guns, not Assault weapons. It's an illogical and idiotic definition, driven by politics and emotion rather than logic and sense, but that's a different issue.
Your suggested reading, while helpful for future reference, had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about, and told me very little I didn't already know.