Orlando shooting

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I agree with you here, but the problem is when getting bogged down in the debate over whether guns themselves kill, you're implicitly acknowledging that, if killing IS their purpose, they're therefore inherently bad things and that scores points for the gun grabbers' side.

Sorry, I'm not following this line.

We have too long yielded the semantic battle field to those who despise individual freedom.

We must put them on the defensive, where they belong, rather than defending the rational and natural position.

Lehi

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I see a big issue with the way this debate is framed.  People bandy about terms like "assault weapon" like that means something.  It's a tactic because a phrase like that sounds scary, so it's easy to talk about "reasonable limits" on "assault weapons" but there's one problem... That term means NOTHING.  It literally means nothing.  Nowhere in any military or gun enthusiast document is the term "assault weapon" defined.  It's a phrase that means a little something different to everybody, which is what makes it so valuable as a way of recruiting people to participate in the gun banning agenda...  Just say "Let's ban assault weapons!" and that sounds perfectly reasonable, because it's easy to stigmatize someone who supports private ownership of military weapons.  (Think of the children, people!!!)  It's kinda like when people start screaming for a ban on fully automatic weapons...   Tell you a secret, they're already banned unless you have an extremely expensive and difficult to obtain Federal collector's license.  It's all rhetoric.

In the '90s there was a Federal "assault weapons ban" which was just an arbitrary list of features on rifles that were restricted.  For instance, a rifle couldn't be sold with more of the following 2 features:  Pistol grip, flash suppressor, semi-automatic fire, ammo clip with a capacity greater than 5 rounds, etc.  Any rifle that had more than 2 of these features would be considered an "assault rifle" for the purpose of this law and was thus banned.  Also, imported rifles had to have a certain percentage of their parts made in the USA.

During the time of this law being in effect, I owned 2 rifles that would be considered "assault rifles" had they had but one more of those features:

An AR-15 .223 semi-automatic rifle with a 20" fluted barrel.  It had no flash suppressor, so it wasn't an "assault rifle."  It did have a pistol grip and 30 round magazines.  It was just as effective as it would be with a flash suppressor, but since it didn't have that little feature it was perfectly legal.

I also had a Maadi AKMR (civilian version of the AK-47) imported from Egypt.  It had a single stock, no pistol grip, fired 7.62mm ammo and was semi-auto.  It wasn't an "assault rifle" because it didn't have a pistol grip, even  though there was an opening in the single piece stock so that you still held it exactly as you would if it had a pistol grip.  I also bought a couple of 30 round magazines, made in the Czeck Republic, so technically every time I snapped one of those clips on, it became an "assault rifle" and thus illegal, even though it was exactly the same as if I'd bought U.S. made clips of the same capacity and performance.

These laws were utterly arbitrary and made to make gun control enthusiasts happy.  They expired in the early 2000s and the difference in the homicide rate in the U.S. changed not a whit for the law being in place.

Define or be defined... @LeSellers is right about that.

After the expiration of the assault rifle definition in the Bush era, it reverted back to the 1986 definition.

[NeuroTypical]

31 minutes ago, Godless said:

I know that this will be a very unpopular opinion here, but I would really like to see the assault weapons ban renewed. 

 

Ok, this is me, not automatically dismissing your idea.  This is me, a non-brainwashed non-NRA member, giving honest attention to it, and noticing several aspects that I believe warrant discussion.

1- Has this been tried in the past?  (Yes)  Did it have any discernable impact? (No)  So, what makes you think it would be different this time?
2- I notice in the Florida Statutes, Title XLVI Chapter 790, we already have not only an assault weapons ban, but also a handgun ban:  Section (12)(a) tells concealed carry license holders that “A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into: Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.”  Godless - dood already broke the law.  What do you think an assault weapons ban will actually do?
3-  Consider for a moment, the notion of legislation in our country.  Laws.  By definition, those who follow laws are called law-abiding people.  Also by definition, those who do not follow laws are called lawbreakers.  So, by the power of words meaning things, by definition, banning guns will only disarm the law-abiding, not the lawbreakers.

So tell me Godless, do you believe my three issues constitute a blanket brainwashed dismissal of your idea?  Am I an ostritch with my head stuck in the sand, totally unwilling to consider even the most common-sense notions?  Or, as I believe, have I raised several substantive points that warrant careful consideration before some gut-reaction legislation gets passed that makes it harder for law abiding folks to defend themselves?

 

I would also like to see more research put into the link between mental illness and gun violence. Anatess is absolutely right when she says that this would be a very difficult thing to put into practice, but why wouldn't we at least try it? Since when is doing the right thing easy? If it can save lives, then we should be pursuing it.

"If it can save lives, then we should be pursuing it".  Ok, let's evaluate that for a second.  We can save lives by curtailing freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution.  Easily.  So, do you want to maybe more carefully consider and state that claim there?  I'm assuming you don't want to violate people's rights here...  Or do you?

Quote

Most importantly, if there's anything we can do to empower the FBI and ATF to more easily investigate and prosecute black market gun sales, we need to be doing it. I'll admit that I'm no expert on what we're currently doing to fight illegal firearm sales, but it seems to me that this is the most important battle in our struggle to reduce senseless killing.

1- Ok, I'm all for catching and prosecuting more bad guys.  Illegal firearm sales should be stopped. Again, when talking about empowering good guys with guns to find bad guys with guns, it's a line we get to draw between individual liberty and collective safety.  For example, we currently go on X no-knock warrants a year.  Would you like it to be 2X?  Or 10X?  Another example, search warrants currently require authorities to reach a certain standard of probable cause before a judge will issue one.  Would you propose that standard be lowered?  Should "Dood was on the watch list, therefore we should be able to search his stuff" be a thing?  
2- Bad guy bought his guns legally.  If I'm a brainwashed blinder-wearing conservative, can you be a feelilngs-based gut-reactor who jumps to propose things that wouldn't have actually stopped whatever has your feelings in a twist?

 

 

First off, I'm all for research and study and learning, difficult or not.    Go for it.  It was through decade-long studies and research of conceal carry laws, that we all learned they work.  

Ok - here's my third not-dismissing-out-of-hand of your proposals.  Two thoughts occur to me:

[unixknight]

@LeSellers It's always about semantics when dealing with people who make decisions emotionally.  They see guns as inherently evil.  A necessary evil, some may concede, but evil nevertheless.  This is why they say things like "guns kill people."  So, their logic is if guns kill, then they're evil and should be banned/severely restricted.

We respond by reminding them that a gun is an inanimate object, and this doesn't kill anything because it isn't the agent making the decision.  While this is true, the moment you engage in that debate you've lost.  What you're doing by arguing against the notion that guns kill is you're tacitly admitting that if they DID  kill, then banning them might be reasonable.  From the gun grabber perspective, you've conceded their argument and are now just playing semantics to avoid admitting it.

When I debate about gun control, I ignore that argument because the question of whether guns kill or not is irrelevant.  What matters is A) is the fear of guns justified?  (The data says it isn't) and B) Should people have the right to own these tools (The Constitution says we do.) 

[LeSellers]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

the moment you engage in that debate you've lost.  What you're doing by arguing against the notion that guns kill is you're tacitly admitting that if they DID  kill, then banning them might be reasonable.

As I see it, however, ignoring the point only tacitly cedes the point. So, if you're right, we've lost. If I'm right we've lost.

How do we win? 'Cuz it ain't by giving up.

Lehi

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, LeSellers said:

As I see it, however, ignoring the point only tacitly cedes the point. So, if you're right, we've lost. If I'm right we've lost.

How do we win? 'Cuz it ain't by giving up.

Lehi

By arguing facts.  People wet their pants over "assault rifles" but in an earlier post I showed data that proves they're used in only a minuscule portion of murders committed with guns.  In light of that, it's hard to sound rational when claiming that banning them will somehow make a real difference.  Compare the number of murders committed with guns in general and it's comparable to the number committed with bare hands and feet.

If you want to keep the gun grabbers on the defensive where they belong, make them explain why they focus their attention on one category of tools that don't even make up the majority of murder weapons.  Make them explain why they use "think of the children" as a rallying cry for gun control when more kids die each year in swimming  pools and bicycle accidents than from guns.

Demonstrate this:

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

By arguing facts.  People wet their pants over "assault rifles" but in an earlier post I showed data that proves they're used in only a minuscule portion of murders committed with guns.  In light of that, it's hard to sound rational when claiming that banning them will somehow make a real difference.  Compare the number of murders committed with guns in general and it's comparable to the number committed with bare hands and feet.

If you want to keep the gun grabbers on the defensive where they belong, make them explain why they focus their attention on one category of tools that don't even make up the majority of murder weapons.  Make them explain why they use "think of the children" as a rallying cry for gun control when more kids die each year in swimming  pools and bicycle accidents than from guns.

 

I was going to add the conversation but I realized everything I said wouldn't be as good as what Unixknight is saying. I agree with him 100%, for sure. 

[LeSellers]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Indeed. We're obviously heading down the same path and for the same reasons.

Lehi

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

If it can save lives, then we should be pursuing it.

Cars kill 300,000 per year in the US alone, several times as many as guns, and virtually never justifiably.  Aircraft haven't managed that many deaths in any single decade...even including the entire 9/11 death toll as aircraft fatalities.  Just think how many lives would be saved if it was as hard to get (and keep) a driver's license as it is to get a pilot's license.

Shouldn't we be dedicating more resources to pursuing the one that would save tens of thousands more lives?

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Cars kill 300,000 per year in the US alone, several times as many as guns, and virtually never justifiably.  Aircraft haven't managed that many deaths in any single decade...even including the entire 9/11 death toll as aircraft fatalities.  Just think how many lives would be saved if it was as hard to get (and keep) a driver's license as it is to get a pilot's license.

Shouldn't we be dedicating more resources to pursuing the one that would save tens of thousands more lives?

You mean 30,000.  Alcohol-induced deaths is 29,000, homicide (any weapon) is only 16,000 per year.  We should ban alcohol too... oh wait, we did!  And look where it got you!

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Cars kill 300,000 per year in the US alone, several times as many as guns, and virtually never justifiably.  Aircraft haven't managed that many deaths in any single decade...even including the entire 9/11 death toll as aircraft fatalities.  Just think how many lives would be saved if it was as hard to get (and keep) a driver's license as it is to get a pilot's license.

Shouldn't we be dedicating more resources to pursuing the one that would save tens of thousands more lives?

Yes, which is why cars have safety standards that have been enhanced and revisited constantly for decades. Imagine how many more automotive deaths there would be if cars weren't required by law to have airbags and seatbelts (among many other things, I'm sure). Imagine how many more DUI-related deaths there would be had it not been for the innovation of the in-car breathalyzer. 

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

Imagine how many more DUI-related deaths there would be had it not been for the innovation of the in-car breathalyzer. 

Not many, considering the only people who use those are court-ordered because they already have a DUI conviction.

Guns don't require the same level of safety features as a car because they're not nearly as complex.  A car is a 3,000 lb. vehicle moving at 60 mph with thousands of individual parts, surrounded by similar devices all operated by people of varying levels of competence.

Not exactly the same as a gun I can field strip in 15 seconds to its bare parts.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

[anatess2]

duplicate.

Edited June 14, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

Yes, which is why cars have safety standards that have been enhanced and revisited constantly for decades. Imagine how many more automotive deaths there would be if cars weren't required by law to have airbags and seatbelts (among many other things, I'm sure). Imagine how many more DUI-related deaths there would be had it not been for the innovation of the in-car breathalyzer. 

And look... we still get to drive cars... even criminals.

So, how do yo propose legislating guns again?

[zil]

47 minutes ago, Godless said:

Anyone who doesn't have this thought somewhere in their mind when making the purchase is ignorant of what a gun is designed to do: kill. A gun is a deadly weapon. That is its designed purpose.

I'm with Lehi on this one - a gun is designed to shoot bullets.  The end.  (If you're gonna wet your pants over something, it should probably be the bullet, BTW.)  What a person does with it is controlled by the person.  (Better to wet your pants over the human, if you're gonna wet your pants over something.)  The modern world has too much of a tendency to blame non-sentient-entities for bad (and good) things: "Acme, Inc. [did something]..." Nonsense.  Humans did something.  They may have done it as employees or representatives of "Acme, Inc." but the company itself is nothing more than a descriptor for a bunch of people.  "Guns kill people."  Nonsense.  "Battle axes are dangerous."  Nonsense.  "Fast food is causing a health epidemic."  Nonsense.  "Christianity teaches hate."  Nonsense.  "Islam teaches hate."  Nonsense.

Until and unless we start holding humans responsible for their actions, we cannot have a true conversation about what people are doing and how to alter what people are doing.  Banning guns won't work any better than banning 32oz soda cups or drunk driving.

7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

@LeSellers It's always about semantics when dealing with people who make decisions emotionally.  They see guns as inherently evil.  A necessary evil, some may concede, but evil nevertheless.  This is why they say things like "guns kill people."  So, their logic is if guns kill, then they're evil and should be banned/severely restricted.

This is NOT why they say things like "guns kill people".  They say things like that because it's easy.  They don't have to accuse a person.  They don't have to consider whether a person will be impacted for good or ill by their words / actions / laws.  They don't have to admit the much more difficult fact that someone(s) failed to produce a good person, or failed to identify a bad person soon enough, or some other equally difficult thing.  They don't have to admit that the problem is extremely difficult to solve because people are, well, humans.  Destroying inanimate objects, on the other hand, is comparatively easy.

Some people say these things because they know the shock value will work in their efforts to gain power, destroy good, brainwash the populace, or whatever other evil they have in mind.  Some people say these things because it lets them artificially (and falsely) create an enemy, claiming, "those who want to keep these evil things are themselves evil, therefore I'm good".

Fighting the semantic battle (if done right) is NOT confessing that if indeed guns are designed to kill (not what they say, BTW), then we ought to destroy them.  It's the first step in fighting the real battle, which is about human choices.

NOTE: I'm not at all opposed to fighting the battle on other fronts, but we cannot give in to the tendency (across the board, not just in gun-related issues) to put the blame on concepts and inanimate objects.  Guns may indeed be designed to fire projectiles which, if they hit a living being, will injure or kill said living being, but their design and existence are not the problem.

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Until and unless we start holding humans responsible for their actions, we cannot have a true conversation about what people are doing and how to alter what people are doing.  Banning guns won't work any better than banning 32oz soda cups or drunk driving.

Perfect!!!

Lehi

[David13]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

We will never stop tragedies like this completely, but if we can prevent one every now and then through legislation, then we need to pursue that course

Well, there is your problem. 

LEGISLATION DOES NOT, CANNOT AND WILL NOT STOP THESE THINGS.

California, Chicago and many other places have laws up and down the pine tree, and yet, you have drawn the real conclusion.

"We" can never stop this.  The legislation does not stop it. 

Maybe, let me suggest to you that it could be stopped WITHOUT legislation beyond what is on the books today IF THE LAW WAS ENFORCED.

California has undertaken a serious program of releasing violent offenders from prison.  On a wholesale basis.  Guess who commits the crimes.

Why is it that people like you believe you have the solution to every ill in the world in your pocket?  You don't. 

Your very own William "Slick Willie" Clinton has stated that one of his greatest political errors was ... the ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 1994!  Why!?  It lost him a great many political allies in the government AND ... IT HAD NO EFFECT ON CRIME.  He understands that.  Why can't you?

Your very own Gerald "Jerry, Governor Guru" Brown stated some years ago, after a casino extortion bombing "we don't need any more laws.  What we need to do is enforce the laws we have".

Of course you will never find that anywhere in the media.  Why not?  Because the agenda does not call for truth. 

In Orlando, the shooter UNDERWENT AND PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK.  What's your brilliant idea?  Two background checks?

At some point in time you have to put your feet back on the ground and accept reality.

The gun didn't commit the crime.

dc

 

 

[David13]

The gun is a tool in a crime.

Chasing the tool is a wild goose chase.  A fool's errand.

Imagine yourself as Dick Tracy on a burglary case.  Going after the screwdriver used to pry open the door.

There you are.

dc

 

Edited June 14, 2016 by David13

[zil]

9 minutes ago, David13 said:

up and down the pine tree

(never heard that before - I like it)

[Guest Godless]

59 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Ok, this is me, not automatically dismissing your idea.  This is me, a non-brainwashed non-NRA member, giving honest attention to it, and noticing several aspects that I believe warrant discussion.1- Has this been tried in the past?  (Yes)  Did it have any discernable impact? (No)  So, what makes you think it would be different this time?

 

It's already been mentioned that a crucial flaw in the last ban was that it allowed certain features on guns so long as they didn't feature others. So you could have a rifle with a pistol grip and collapsible stock so long as it didn't also have a 30 round detachable magazine. The way I see it, only one of those three features truly effects the lethality of a rifle. Let's put more focus on the features that aren't purely cosmetic and actually enhance the ability of a gun to kill a large number of people. But instead of trying this, we just shrugged our shoulders and gave up.

 

 

3-  Consider for a moment, the notion of legislation in our country.  Laws.  By definition, those who follow laws are called law-abiding people.  Also by definition, those who do not follow laws are called lawbreakers.  So, by the power of words meaning things, by definition, banning guns will only disarm the law-abiding, not the lawbreakers.

True. But the way I see it, there's an economic factor in play here as well. Banning assault weapons means a bad guy can't buy one legally. It also means that, since the product is illegal, its street value has now gone through the roof. Supply and demand. Take away legal supply and demand goes up. Prices go up. Common criminals and low-level terrorists now can't afford those weapons. The rest of them should be on the radar of the FBI and ATF and treated accordingly.

 

Quote

So tell me Godless, do you believe my three issues constitute a blanket brainwashed dismissal of your idea?  Am I an ostritch with my head stuck in the sand, totally unwilling to consider even the most common-sense notions?

 

Not even remotely. I truly appreciate the level of insight and intellect that you bring to this discussion. I'm not here to try to change anyone's mind. Ultimately, I'm just trying to find the middle ground between "DON'T TAKE MY GUNS" and "GUNS KILL PEOPLE. BAN ALL GUNS". Maybe we've reached that point, or are at least getting close. Won't stop me from questioning the status quo when tragedies like this happen (or before, because let's face it, this debate isn't exactly new).

 

 

Quote

Or, as I believe, have I raised several substantive points that warrant careful consideration before some gut-reaction legislation gets passed that makes it harder for law abiding folks to defend themselves?

 

 

See above. Though I wonder at what point this ceases to be an emotion-based "gut reaction" when this continues to happen with unsettling frequency.

 

 

 

Quote

"If it can save lives, then we should be pursuing it".  Ok, let's evaluate that for a second.  We can save lives by curtailing freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution.  Easily.  So, do you want to maybe more carefully consider and state that claim there?  I'm assuming you don't want to violate people's rights here...  Or do you?

 

 

Yes, I should have worded that better. As I've said, I'm looking for some middle ground that promotes public safety without violating anyone's constitutional rights.

 

Quote

1- Ok, I'm all for catching and prosecuting more bad guys.  Illegal firearm sales should be stopped. Again, when talking about empowering good guys with guns to find bad guys with guns, it's a line we get to draw between individual liberty and collective safety.  For example, we currently go on X no-knock warrants a year.  Would you like it to be 2X?  Or 10X?  Another example, search warrants currently require authorities to reach a certain standard of probable cause before a judge will issue one.  Would you propose that standard be lowered?  Should "Dood was on the watch list, therefore we should be able to search his stuff" be a thing?  

 

Again, I'm admittedly not well-educated on that aspect. If we're doing everything we can do within the parameters of the Constitution, then so be it. Maybe the answer is to keep the same procedures but with better funding and manpower. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by Godless

[David13]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

 ... when a person buys a gun, they do so with the knowledge that they may one day use it to end the life of human being.    

...

Anyone who doesn't have this thought somewhere in their mind when making the purchase is ignorant of what a gun is designed to do: kill.

 

See, now that right there makes me wonder if you ever handled a gun in your life.  Because I know a lot of people who own a lot of guns, and frequently buy and sell them, and go to gun ranges in many locations and shoot and handle guns, and reload, and work on guns, and I don't know of any instance where they think that. Nor did I.

And I guess all their guns were defective, cause I don't think any of them ever shot anybody with their guns, except for a few of the cops.

And most of the gun owners I know are not cops.

dc

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

It's already been mentioned that a crucial flaw in the last ban was that it allowed certain features on guns so long as they didn't feature others. So you could have a rifle with a pistol grip and collapsible stock so long as it didn't also have a 30 round detachable magazine. The way I see it, only one of those three features truly effects the lethality of a rifle. Let's put more focus on the features that aren't purely cosmetic and actually enhance the ability of a gun to kill a large number of people. But instead of trying this, we just shrugged our shoulders and gave up.

We already have that legislation.  It's called - no military grade full auto weapons.

[Guest Godless]

8 minutes ago, David13 said:

 

See, now that right there makes me wonder if you ever handled a gun in your life.  Because I know a lot of people who own a lot of guns, and frequently buy and sell them, and go to gun ranges in many locations and shoot and handle guns, and reload, and work on guns, and I don't know of any instance where they think that. Nor did I.

And I guess all their guns were defective, cause I don't think any of them ever shot anybody with their guns, except for a few of the cops.

And most of the gun owners I know are not cops.

dc

 

Honest question: why did you buy your gun(s)? 

[Guest Godless]

44 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Not many, considering the only people who use those are court-ordered because they already have a DUI conviction.

Guns don't require the same level of safety features as a car because they're not nearly as complex.  A car is a 3,000 lb. vehicle moving at 60 mph with thousands of individual parts, surrounded by similar devices all operated by people of varying levels of competence.

Not exactly the same as a gun I can field strip in 15 seconds to its bare parts.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

Yes, apples and oranges. Which is why I'm curious why automotive safety even came up in this conversation in the first place. Cars are designed to transport people. Oh, I'm sorry, that's not true. They're designed to use the combination of internal combustion, gears and axles, and four wheels to propel themselves forward at the whim of a human driver. Since design is such a hot topic here, I'll submit that intent is an important part of design. There are countless things you can kill a person or multiple people with. I'm more concerned with the items that are specifically designed with the intent to kill or harm people. We can save debates over speed limits and DUI laws for another time.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

Yes, apples and oranges. Which is why I'm curious why automotive safety even came up in this conversation in the first place. Cars are designed to transport people. Oh, I'm sorry, that's not true. They're designed to use the combination of internal combustion, gears and axles, and four wheels to propel themselves forward at the whim of a human driver. Since design is such a hot topic here, I'll submit that intent is an important part of design. There are countless things you can kill a person or multiple people with. I'm more concerned with the items that are specifically designed with the intent to kill or harm people. We can save debates over speed limits and DUI laws for another time.

They came up because the claim you're making is that this is about saving lives. 

If your intent is to save lives, and not about guns per se, then you're barking up the wrong tree.