Nikolas Cruz 'remorseful' as police report claims he confessed to Florida school shooting massacre

[Lonestar]

I wonder if that same argument was used when fully automatic weapons were (essentially) banned?

Considering that the NRA had to fight tooth and nail to prevent Machine Guns from being defined as "self loading and capable of firing 12 or more times without reloading" under the NFA, that might not be the route you want to take.

And, in fact, I am not anti-gun. I am anti-mass shootings. It actually pisses me off that every time those of us who want to be able to go someplace in public without fear of being shot try to quantify the problem guns those on your side start getting into minutiae to distract the conversation from the heart of the matter.

Pointing out that you are arguing from bad faith and using terms tailored made to be all encompassing isn't "distracting from the heart of the matter". You think we don't see what you guys are doing when you use the term "weapon of war"? That might fly for someone that has never seen a firearm outside of the movie or grandpa's lever-action, it doesn't with other gun owners.

If AR-15's are becoming the weapon of choice for mass murder then we need to consider making them much harder to get, or even impossible to get.

It's the most popular rifle type by far in the country. If it was truly the problem you claim it is the percentage of firearm homicides that involve AR-15s would be far, far, higher than what it is.

That's not taking everyone's guns away. That is removing from circulation a gun that has become a problem. If you don't want other guns targeted as a problem then it's time for your side to get serious about ways to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. Shrugging your shoulders and saying people being shot like fish in a barrel is the price of liberty isn't going to cut it indefinitely.

Everytime something like this happens I talk about fixing NICS, mandating that the states report to NICS, sending a cop out to interview someone if they attempt to buy a firearm but are on the prohibited list, cracking down on straw purchasing, etc.

And, very frequently, I get the NOPE BAN THEM in response.

You aren't looking for any solution that isn't "ban scary guns".

The US is the only country - outside of nations in a civil war - that has this problem. That means there is something wrong with us, not with everyone else.

I don't know why you're saying this as if I am unaware of this fact.

But since we're doing the American exceptionalism thing, I'll also point out that America has by far the biggest income inequality amongst develop nations, and our cops are far more likely to to whack random people on the streets while planting evidence.

Then it's time for your side to get serious about controlling access. Rights are not unlimited. Your rights end when my begin. My right to be alive is at least as important as your right to own a weapon.

Good news! It is statistically improbable that you will ever get killed by a AR-15. You're more likely to get killed by a .38spl that you just talked about acquiring in that other thread. Heck, you're more likely to be t-boned by a drunk driver(assuming you drive yourself) than shot.

Remember what I said about you arguing from bad faith? Because, you sure as heck aren't arguing honestly if you're ranking a fear of being popped by a AR-15 over a Saturday night special.

Limiting magazines and things like bump stocks isn't about preventing suicides or LEO fatalities, it's about mitigating the threat of mass death. It slows down the shooting, forces pauses to reload. But I guess your right to own a big fucking clip overrides the rights of others to go to school, church, concerts, or other places and survive to get home at night?

Got it, purely emotional response to black swan events. Not actual gun deaths.

I wonder what your feeling is on alcohol being available to everyone at 21? Maybe we ought to ban that because you're more likely to get killed by a drunk driver on the way home from going somewhere than getting shot. Right?

RIGHT?

Actually, my landlord was attacked a couple years ago by two people at a gas station - he never drew his .45, he subdued one with a piece of pipe after which the other ran off. Guns are not the only solution.

Great, fantastic. Glad it worked for him. It doesn't for everyone.

Home intruders? I'm not aware of the need to empty a gun into one intruder before moving on to the second.

I like that you're acting like you're Annie Oakley or some shit who'll drop individuals with one shot when you don't even own a firearm yet.

Most people don't know how successful they will be shooting under high stress situations. They certainly don't know if they'll be able to drop one person with fewer rounds. There are people who have broke into a house, taken 5 .357mag rounds, and escaped only to be picked up later at the hospital. The "6 rounds is all you need" thing is a myth that fudds perpetuate.

Allll the way back in 2000 when I was at A&M, I had a fish buddy whose family owned a large piece of land in the Valley and operated it as a ranch. About once a week they found trespassers on their property, and twice that semester that had multiple-intruder situations with them breaking into either their house or the ranch foreman's house. This was in the darkest days of the Federal AWB and they opt to spend $100+ for pre-ban mags for AR-15s to deal with it, because it took the cops too long to get out there(BP actually moved faster but they had a tendency to shoot their animals or something, so they called a direct number with the county LE).

There absolutely are people who have a need for standard capacity mags, and the scenario for most people is "multiple home intruders".

I've lived my life in big cities like St. Louis, Detroit, and Chicago, none of which are considered overly safe for a woman. I've been threatened, attacked, and shot at. It's only in the past year I've decided to opt for a gun, and that's largely because I am aging and no longer as able to run away or fight as I used to be. Also, no second person in the home to back me up at night.

If that's your situation, that's your situation.

However, it isn't relevant in the least to this conversation.

[Zixinus]

That doesn't mean taking ALL weapons away, as the ammosexuals and NRA fear. It means taking weapons of war out of civilian hands, it means limiting magazines, it means being more careful about who gets to own and use what. And I'm sorry if that pisses on anyone's parade, but it's becoming more and more apparent that the choices are either gun control and few/no mass shootings, or little gun control and unarmed people bleeding out in schools, churches, movie theaters, concerts, and wherever else people congregate in numbers.

This means turning the owning of firearms from a right into a privilege.

This is what countries that have far less or no spree shootings have that the US doesn't. That's "what's wrong" with the US, albeit I think it's only the biggest branch of far deeper issues.

The "weapon of war" bit doesn't work. I largely agree with you (and I don't live in the US or own guns), but this distinction does not work and a point where this argument kind of brakes down (and where gunnuts or even people somewhat knowledgeable in firearms groan).

Two main problems:

1. "Weapon of war" is far more fluid than you think, just as "assault weapon" is. What fits a military definition of "suitable for war" and "suitable for assault" is not completely set in stone and changes as ideas about warfare changes. In some situations, shotguns are good assault weapons and in others, they are not. There are military versions of shotguns that are barely substantially different from civilian versions. What makes a rifle a military rifle changes as warfare evolves. This is not even getting that what most changed in military weapons in the last 50 or so years is not killing power.

Anything used in a relatively recent war (or used in or since WW2), or for an assault in one, would qualify. With guns, any firearm made upwards from WW1 is good for assault and/or war. It would not be GREAT or even the first choice of a soldier, especially compared to top-of-the-line gear available, but would still work and still kill people. But WW1-era rifles can still kill a soldier just fine. An AR-15 uses the same ammunition as its military, full-auto/burst capable M16* brethren and a single shot can kill just as well.

2. The second, bigger problem is that war/military/assault weapons are not the problem. You already cannot just buy military weapons, you can't just buy a machine gun (okay, you technically can, but not easily) and no actual machine gun has ever been used in spree-shooting.

From what I know, spree-shooters get civilian guns and can kill lots of people with them fine. They either just buy them or steal them from those that did buy them. They use the same ammunition. What can kill a bear/deer/hog/large animal will kill a human being. There is no real way to make a gun that works just on the former. What were once military weapons can and (occasionally) have become civilian weapons (the AR15 itself was originally a civilian weapon that got militarized, while .303 rifles in Canada became popular choice). As far as I know, the same goes for ammunition. Spree-shooters use what you can buy in gun stores, not from what's inside military armories.

Trying to remove magazine sizes is just misguided and a mitigating measure akin to making bulletproof doors. You are trying to stop the shooter killing people once they are already armed. Trying to remove "assault" features is ridiculous and ignorant, it's chasing after minor technical features while ignoring what's important. Fore-grips give you an advantage but their lack will not stop a psychotic person from shooting a gun at people. And so on.

This is what you have to understand in this debate. What you say is about compromise and trying to find a solution that just fixes the problem, but the problem is bigger and the proposed solution would be a big deal. Gun control looks like a simple, quick fix from the abstract, just remove the guns the shooters use, right? But it's not because spree-shooters use the same guns that legitimate, responsible gun owners use. Which is why what you want is this: make gun ownership a privilege, not a right.

In your country, it is a right. You have to change that if you want gun control worth a damn. You are trying to find compromises that the pro-gun crowd has ceased to be amiable with (because they got fed up with them) and they want to practice the right they have in their entire lives. This is not going to be a quick fix that your favored candidate can make happen under one presidency cycle. This is going to be a long-term measure that involves changing your country and its relationship with guns. This is not a small thing you can just push through and spree-killings will disappear. This is a big thing that needs a long-term plan and support to happen, not just a cried-for quick fix whenever a spree shooting happens.

* I am not going to look up which variant of the M-16 has full-auto or burst capacity and what designation they have.

If AR-15's are becoming the weapon of choice for mass murder then we need to consider making them much harder to get, or even impossible to get

Sidenote: I'm going to just answer this and ignore the rest of your new post, because I believe I addressed the rest.

Now: this attitude IS the problem with gun control debate. It is purely reactive and (I don't like saying this) ignorant of what you are asking of.

AR-15 are one of the most popular rifles in the US. I don't live in the US and even I know this from the top of my head. There is nothing specially inherent in an AR-15 that makes it great for spree-killing. They are just a semi-auto rifle. There are unique features to it but it is not effectively different from any semi-auto rifles used for hunting. The reason recent shooting used AR-15s, or similar, is simply because they are popular. If one were to pick a reason for this particular choice, for this model then the simple, evident answer is that they are the most advertised. Not just by gun companies but by Hollywood, by TV shows, by video games (I can recall several games where this rifle was named and shown as the best or one of the best) and so on. Hell, it is a gun that has historical significance.
Banning this particular model is not a small thing. You have just banned, or severely restricted, one of the most popular rifles in your country. This is not a small, minor law to fix a loophole, this is a wide, mayor change in gun ownership you just have instated with implications of country-wide disarmament.

And if you do it, you ban AR-15s and take all the ones in the country, do you know what happens? Your average spree-shooter will grab the NEXT type of semi-auto rifle that is available to them. Spree shooters are not that picky connoisseurs, they are not going to go "oh I can't get an AR-15 of my dreams, I'll guess I'll just abandon my planned massacre that I have been obsessively planning for a long time and seek counseling instead".
They'll grab whatever is available, however it is available. Legally or illegally. If you want to deny them any access to guns altogether, you are going to have to truly change what they can find in their country.

[MKSheppard]

What works is limiting access to weapons. That doesn't mean taking ALL weapons away, as the ammosexuals and NRA fear. It means taking weapons of war out of civilian hands

Congratulations, you just banned everything that exists, other than weird one shot break open rifles; because virtually everything is descended from a "weapon of war" you silly twit.

Just about every modern bolt action hunting rifle uses a Mauser-style action -- the Mauser action was designed for the Gewehr 98 infantry rifle in 1898.

Shotguns? Winchester Model 1897 pump action standardized as the M97 trench shotgun in WWI, so effective the Germans complained about it.

Pistols?

[MKSheppard]

Considering that the NRA had to fight tooth and nail to prevent Machine Guns from being defined as "self loading and capable of firing 12 or more times without reloading" under the NFA, that might not be the route you want to take.

http://alternatewars.com/Politics/Firea ... mplete.htm

MR. COCHRAN. Does not the Colt automatic pistol continue to shoot as long as you exert pressure upon the trigger?

MR. FREDERICK. No, sir. It requires a separate pull of the trigger for every shot fired.

Mr. HILL. If the Colt automatic pistol could fire 12 times, would it be a machine gun under this definition in the bill?

MR. FREDERICK. Under the definition as printed in the bill?

MR. HILL. Yes.

It wasn't just that. But they also wanted pistols and revolvers to be NFA items in themselves.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled, That for the purposes of this act the term "firearm" means a pistol, revolver, shotgun having a barrel less than sixteen inches in length, or any other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, a muffler or silencer therefor, or a machine gun.

.....

SEC 3. (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon firearms sold, assigned, transferred, given away, or otherwise disposed of in the continental United States a tax at the rate of $ [BLANK] per machine gun and $ [BLANK] per other firearm, such tax to be paid by the person so disposing thereof, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury; and the stamps herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, hereinafter provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on such firearm.

....

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS. Answering for the moment your question. Mr. Cooper. On page 3, line 5 of the bill, there is a special tax of blank dollars a year fixed upon importers or manufacturers, and an unnamed annual tax upon dealers. We hesitated to make any specific suggestions as to amount, because they are mere matters of opinion. But, for what it is worth, we would suggest that a tax on importers or manufacturers of $5,000 a year would be proper. There are only four basic manufacturers in the country, large manufacturers. I see no reason why it should not be $5,000 a year, and dealers $200 a year.

THE CHAIRMAN. General, would you not include for the record the names of those four large manufacturers you referred to?

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS. Yes; I will supply that.

MR. COOPER. Then, on the bottom of page 3, General?

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS. On the bottom of page 3, in line 23, there is the tax on firearms sold, and so forth. For machine guns, $200 and, any other firearms, $1.

MR. COOPER. That is $200 in the first blank in line 23, and $1 in the second blank?

Basically, they intended to kill pistols by requiring dealers to pay $200 ($3,755.56 today) per year in licensing taxes.

[MKSheppard]

I've lived my life in big cities like St. Louis, Detroit, and Chicago, none of which are considered overly safe for a woman. I've been threatened, attacked, and shot at.

Have you ever been assaulted so badly that a bone in your spine was broken? No? Then shut the fuck up about what you think is safe and not safe.

[Simon_Jester]

If she was in fact shot at (and missed), I'm not sure how her being lucky would disqualify her from having an opinion.

And getting missed by all the bullets is pretty much a 'luck' thing.

[Broomstick]

It's functionally the same as many other Mag-fed rifles, like the Mini-14, which the woodstock version gets a pass everywhere. So, you're basically saying not only ban an extremely popular weapon, even among non-gunnuts, but also banning mag fed rifles since there's no reason murderers wouldn't swap to another version of it. So, those are banned and shooters just.... stop shooting?

Negotiate.

This is all starting to remind me of the time immediately post-9/11 when there were calls to ban civilians flying airplanes. We pilots could have dug in our heels an whined, whined, whined but we didn't. We addressed people's concerns, accepted a few limitations, and went back to flying.

I think that's what some of you don't get - the survivors of the school massacres are growing up and either are or soon will be voting. They are fed up. The people who get shot up at concerts are fed up. A lot of the rest of us are fed up. We are tired of the blood and death. The people who are paying the price for your hobby are stick of being shot, they're sick of the bleeding and maiming and dying.

Eventually, the tide is going to turn and if you refuse to compromise you might find yourself in a much worse spot than you would be otherwise.

Maybe this isn't the massacre that turns the tide. Maybe it is.

You don't like what's proposed? Come up with something that will stop this from happening. What seems to work in the rest of the world is restricting guns - not necessarily banning guns, as many of those same countries do allow gun ownership.

[Dominus Atheos]

This is all starting to remind me of the time immediately post-9/11 when there were calls to ban civilians flying airplanes. We pilots could have dug in our heels an whined, whined, whined but we didn't. We addressed people's concerns, accepted a few limitations, and went back to flying.

Imagine if after 9/11 one side and the media the media kept showing pictures of Gulfstream IIs, calling them "single engine Cessnas" and saying that they were invented by the Nazis solely to bomb people, and figure out how willing your side would be to address those people's concerns then.

https://twitter.com/bmac0507/status/967545446913654784

(Turn the sound on)

[Broomstick]

I wonder if that same argument was used when fully automatic weapons were (essentially) banned?

Considering that the NRA had to fight tooth and nail to prevent Machine Guns from being defined as "self loading and capable of firing 12 or more times without reloading" under the NFA, that might not be the route you want to take.

I wasn't "taking a route". I was actually asking a genuine question. But hey, you're so used to painting anyone not wholly in your camp and a gun-banning adversary you can't actually read what I write.

And, in fact, I am not anti-gun. I am anti-mass shootings. It actually pisses me off that every time those of us who want to be able to go someplace in public without fear of being shot try to quantify the problem guns those on your side start getting into minutiae to distract the conversation from the heart of the matter.

Pointing out that you are arguing from bad faith and using terms tailored made to be all encompassing isn't "distracting from the heart of the matter". You think we don't see what you guys are doing when you use the term "weapon of war"?

And what "you guys" do you think I belong to? I don't belong to either a pro or anti gun club.

If AR-15's are becoming the weapon of choice for mass murder then we need to consider making them much harder to get, or even impossible to get.

It's the most popular rifle type by far in the country. If it was truly the problem you claim it is the percentage of firearm homicides that involve AR-15s would be far, far, higher than what it is.

Then, if the problem isn't the particular rifle but the sort rifle then you better be prepared for the real anti-gun crowd to argue that no one should own a semi-automatic rifle period. Or anything semi-automatic - and I have indeed seen that argument put forward.

How are you going to answer that? "It's our right!" You do realize that the constitution has been amended 27 times, yes? Personally, I like having the option to own a firearm, or other weapon. But I also realize that if I don't respect the rights (like the right not to be shot) and opinions of others mine will not be respected, either.

That's not taking everyone's guns away. That is removing from circulation a gun that has become a problem. If you don't want other guns targeted as a problem then it's time for your side to get serious about ways to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. Shrugging your shoulders and saying people being shot like fish in a barrel is the price of liberty isn't going to cut it indefinitely.

Everytime something like this happens I talk about fixing NICS, mandating that the states report to NICS, sending a cop out to interview someone if they attempt to buy a firearm but are on the prohibited list, cracking down on straw purchasing, etc.

I'm totally on board with that. Why do you assume I'm not? If you can cure - or at least significantly mitigate - the problems we have with mass shooting by putting some teeth in the NICS then I'm all for it, but the NRA has done everything it can to stymie such efforts.

You aren't looking for any solution that isn't "ban scary guns".

I don't find an AR-15 "scary". But a lot of people do. Shouting at them that they're idiots is NOT going to win them over to your side.

And, I point out once again, that banning and/or severely limiting ownership of such guns actually does work to reduce gun violence and death. Which is why places like Australia haven't had a mass shooting since the 1990's. So... what do you have to offer the other side? They have a solution that will work - YOU have to come up with a believable alternative. With the NRA refusing to budge an inch, it's not helping.

The US is the only country - outside of nations in a civil war - that has this problem. That means there is something wrong with us, not with everyone else.

I don't know why you're saying this as if I am unaware of this fact.

But since we're doing the American exceptionalism thing, I'll also point out that America has by far the biggest income inequality amongst develop nations, and our cops are far more likely to to whack random people on the streets while planting evidence.

So... what are you saying? That you bought your guns because you feel a need to defend yourself from the police?

Then it's time for your side to get serious about controlling access. Rights are not unlimited. Your rights end when my begin. My right to be alive is at least as important as your right to own a weapon.

Good news! It is statistically improbable that you will ever get killed by a AR-15. You're more likely to get killed by a .38spl that you just talked about acquiring in that other thread.

On the other hand, if I decided to buy an AR-15 then I'd be far more likely to be killed by an AR-15.

But here's the difference - when I buy a gun I am deciding to assume that risk, just as I assumed a higher risk of dying in an airplane when I decided to take flying lessons, or someone who buys a motorcycle is deciding to assume the risks that come with that. I decide.

When a mass shooter does his thing he decides for everyone else. People who have decided they don't want to assume the risk of owning/using a gun have their choice usurped, possibly with deadly results.

Heck, you're more likely to be t-boned by a drunk driver(assuming you drive yourself) than shot.

Never been t-boned. Have been shot at twice - which, by the way, is one of the reasons I left Detroit. Which worked, have not been shot at since around 1981.

There's statistics, and then there are things you can do to alter your chances. If you live somewhere like the UK you can pretty much avoid gun violence by simply not being involved in a gun club or hunting. Here in the US, though, it's not so easy. Given current demographic trends, the people who want to avoid that risk are going to outnumber the pro-gun camp within our lifetime. When they outnumber you, when they are able to out-vote you, if you haven't come up with a viable solution to the current gun violence inflicted on the unwilling you will find yourself in a very uncomfortable position.

Remember what I said about you arguing from bad faith? Because, you sure as heck aren't arguing honestly if you're ranking a fear of being popped by a AR-15 over a Saturday night special.

Me personally? I'm at a low risk for that because I'm not attending crowd events at this point in my life. I'm not in school. I actually do take steps to lower my risk beyond just acquiring guns.

I was not in the market for a semi-auto rifle - I don't need one. My local sheriff department recommended either a break-action or pump shotgun for a home defense long gun, or a handgun if I was interested in concealed carry or might be interested in the future. After talking to a number of friends in real life who are long time gun owners, and trying out various guns, I decided on a .38 because I can control it, and several people whose opinions I value recommended a revolver over semi-auto for a first time gun owner. Wow, I did some research instead of just rushing out and going "hurr, hurr, gimme what everyone else thinks is sexy" I have zero desire to assemble an arsenal, and if I was in a position to move somewhere I didn't feel a need to arm myself I'd do that instead.

Limiting magazines and things like bump stocks isn't about preventing suicides or LEO fatalities, it's about mitigating the threat of mass death. It slows down the shooting, forces pauses to reload. But I guess your right to own a big fucking clip overrides the rights of others to go to school, church, concerts, or other places and survive to get home at night?

Got it, purely emotional response to black swan events. Not actual gun deaths.

We seem to be having an inordinate number of black swans in this country. Stop trying to divert to conversation to suicides or accidents at gun ranges or whatever - this thread started because of a mass shooting. Stopping firearm suicides or those other deaths is a different category.

And, by the way, you might want to consider that the people dead in the "black swan" mass shooting are actually fucking dead. They are "actual gun deaths". Just as much gun deaths as suicides, accidents, jealous lovers, or bad cops.

You want to know the difference between suicide by gun and death by mass shooter? The mass shootings are what scare the shit out of the anti-gun folks, those are the ones that are going to get guns banned. The anti-gun crowd can tell themselves they can protect themselves from committing suicide with a gun by... not using a gun to commit suicide. Or just not killing themselves. They feel they can control that. Someone else shooting them? They don't control that. That's why it scares them.

I wonder what your feeling is on alcohol being available to everyone at 21?

Hell, I remember when the drinking age was 18.

Maybe we ought to ban that because you're more likely to get killed by a drunk driver on the way home from going somewhere than getting shot. Right?

My feeling about alcohol is simple - you can enjoy it as long as you don't endanger anyone else.

My feeling about guns is similar - you can enjoy your hobby as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else, and also use it in genuine self defense. The problem is that in the US we have a problem with "doesn't endanger anyone else". We've made significant inroad into drunk driving and drunk driving deaths. You might want to consider ways to do the same for gun deaths as well.

Actually, my landlord was attacked a couple years ago by two people at a gas station - he never drew his .45, he subdued one with a piece of pipe after which the other ran off. Guns are not the only solution.

Great, fantastic. Glad it worked for him. It doesn't for everyone.

No, it doesn't. Guns aren't a guaranteed win, either. There are no guarantees.

Home intruders? I'm not aware of the need to empty a gun into one intruder before moving on to the second.

I like that you're acting like you're Annie Oakley or some shit who'll drop individuals with one shot when you don't even own a firearm yet.

No, I don't have any illusions my aim is that good. It's a last-ditch move. I would much prefer to run away.

However, I have been in some extremely high-stress situations. I know that retain the ability to act even when frightened. In my home, the longest line-of sight is about 10 meters, and usually more like 1 or 2 - you don't need great aim to hit someone that close.

I also know that there's a possibility that someone will sneak into my home and manage to slit my throat or put a bullet in my head before I can wake up. If a bunch of gang-bangers decide to have a firefight on my street I might get shot by a stray bullet going through a wall or two of my home before I even know there's a problem out there. I know that own a gun, or a bunch of guns, does not guarantee my safety. Nothing is going to guarantee I'm going to wake up tomorrow. Owning or not owning a gun alters the odds a bit, but it's not decisive, any more than locking your door, or lighting your property, or sleeping with a phone next to the bed so you can call for help is going to guarantee anything.

Most people don't know how successful they will be shooting under high stress situations. They certainly don't know if they'll be able to drop one person with fewer rounds. There are people who have broke into a house, taken 5 .357mag rounds, and escaped only to be picked up later at the hospital. The "6 rounds is all you need" thing is a myth that fudds perpetuate.

If I can't drop and/or scare off an intruder with 5 or 6 shots I'm probably fucked because I have no illusions that I'm some sort action hero. I'm going with .38 because that's what I can control. For damn sure a gun isn't going to do me any good if the damn bullets are going every which way. I've fired .22s, .38s, .45s, and 9mm. I'm a hell of a lot more accurate with the smaller calibers.

If I'm dealing with someone who can take 5 rounds of .38 or larger I'm just out and out fucked, it's that simple. Owning more guns or a bigger gun isn't going to save my ass in that situation. Which is why I've got solid locks on solid doors, sleep with a phone next to the bed, and have given some thought as to escape routes of this place. My odds are better if I can flee - but you can't always do that.

And no one knows how they'll fare under high stress until they are actually under high stress.

Allll the way back in 2000 when I was at A&M, I had a fish buddy whose family owned a large piece of land in the Valley and operated it as a ranch

Skippy for him. I live in an apartment in a city.

[Broomstick]

This means turning the owning of firearms from a right into a privilege.

No doubt this is going to make some heads explode, but I'm actually OK with turning gun ownership into a privilege. We have a lot of privileges in this country that are widely used - driving a vehicle, for example. I decided to learn to fly airplanes. I would have no problems making gun ownership as difficult (or easy, depending on your perspective) as either one of those.

Banning this particular model is not a small thing. You have just banned, or severely restricted, one of the most popular rifles in your country. This is not a small, minor law to fix a loophole, this is a wide, mayor change in gun ownership you just have instated with implications of country-wide disarmament.

So... what happened after Australia made changes to their laws?

Of course, in the US you do have some folks who have vowed to go down fighting. I acknowledge that's a problem. But they're ridiculous, maintaining they'll somehow take on the US government. They aren't. Or if they do, it will be curb-stomp battle. The time when civilian rifles could take on a government like the US are past. That reason for maintaining civilian gun ownership is no longer relevant in today's world.

[Broomstick]

What works is limiting access to weapons. That doesn't mean taking ALL weapons away, as the ammosexuals and NRA fear. It means taking weapons of war out of civilian hands

Congratulations, you just banned everything that exists, other than weird one shot break open rifles; because virtually everything is descended from a "weapon of war" you silly twit.

So is the crossbow hanging on my wall.

You want to define it that broadly we'll have to outlaw rocks, which won't happen.

And I'm already on record that I'd be OK with gun laws more like Australia's than what we have. I doubt we'd be able to achieve it, but I'd be OK with it.

Frankly, I fear the gun nuts swearing to go down fighting more than I fear the Federal government.

[Broomstick]

Have you ever been assaulted so badly that a bone in your spine was broken? No? Then shut the fuck up about what you think is safe and not safe.

No, but I did have the ribs on my left side broken so badly that the former break sights are visible without need of x-rays, you can see where the bone is deformed even now, 40 years later, by looking at my side. I do get tired of explaining to medical people it's an old injury, it's healed, it's not bothering me, no, you don't need to do an x-ray now, I'm not coughing up blood or anything like that, thank you very much. That's just one assault, there were others. You have no right to judge me, or tell me to shut the fuck up you miserable piece of shit.

[Broomstick]

This is all starting to remind me of the time immediately post-9/11 when there were calls to ban civilians flying airplanes. We pilots could have dug in our heels an whined, whined, whined but we didn't. We addressed people's concerns, accepted a few limitations, and went back to flying.

Imagine if after 9/11 one side and the media the media kept showing pictures of Gulfstream IIs, calling them "single engine Cessnas"

The media actually does do shit like that.

and saying that they were invented by the Nazis solely to bomb people, and figure out how willing your side would be to address those people's concerns then.

Except no one is claiming the Nazis invented guns.

And we did have to address the concerns of people who were convinced every itty-bitty airplane was death from above and capable of blowing up a nuclear power plant or bringing down a skyscraper.

[TheFeniX]

Negotiate.

Meh. Wouldn't do any good.

This is all starting to remind me of the time immediately post-9/11 when there were calls to ban civilians flying airplanes. We pilots could have dug in our heels an whined, whined, whined but we didn't. We addressed people's concerns, accepted a few limitations, and went back to flying.

So, because the FBI, CIA, and Bush administration failed to act on information they had on hand about a group of suspects that were on multiple Law Enforcement radars, you accepted limitations on your rights even though your group was in no way at fault?

I don't do that. And I don't even own a fucking AR-15.

But it's nice we'll hold the innocent accountable before we hold law enforcement and the legislature accountable.

I think that's what some of you don't get - the survivors of the school massacres are growing up and either are or soon will be voting. They are fed up. The people who get shot up at concerts are fed up. A lot of the rest of us are fed up. We are tired of the blood and death. The people who are paying the price for your hobby are stick of being shot, they're sick of the bleeding and maiming and dying.

And banning AR-15s is going to accomplish something here, rather than give people a warm fuzzy? Columbine: Have you SEEN the piece-of-shit weapons they killed a dozen people with? The shotguns used were so light/short, they fucked their hands up and had to practice over the course of weeks to get used to the punishing recoil.

And it's possible those kids grow up and the tide turns. I'm not about to throw reason under the bus to placate the uninformed people who scream "DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!" even if I sympathize. It's also possible those kids grow up and realize there isn't some easy solution to why the U.S. has this specific problem. What works in other countries probably won't work here "just because."

You don't like what's proposed? Come up with something that will stop this from happening. What seems to work in the rest of the world is restricting guns - not necessarily banning guns, as many of those same countries do allow gun ownership.

If only I lived in a society where I elected people to come up with GOOD and INFORMED ideas to protect both citizens RIGHTs and LIVEs at the same time and empowered a body of law enforcement to enforce those protections. I mean, I don't, because people are involved and they fuck everything up. But this is another example of "It's your fault your representatives and law enforcement is so shitty, YOU FIX THE PROBLEM."

Off-topic rant: I'm so fucking disappointed in Gun Control pushers and shitty "for clicks" News Reporting for another reason, they are so misinformed, so gut-reactionary, so desperate for the Next Big Thing™: they totally just FORGOT about handguns to focus on the AR-15. Shits as bad as people who ignored video games, all the violence/etc, until they started making big money. Then it's "ZOMG, Mortal Kombat is bad. Ass Effect: The Porno Game."

I'm going out on a limb and saying, though they are entitled to it and I (and others) will have to deal with the consequences of that right: these people don't fucking deserve an opinion here.

[Simon_Jester]

Broomstick is still correctly pointing out a certain blunt reality; people are getting tired of getting shot. We've been living in the Age of the Sniper and the Age of the Mass Shooter since the '60s in one way or another. We are rapidly approaching the year when 50% or more of living Americans will have been of high school age or younger at the time of the Columbine shooting.

(Seriously, the median age American is 38, which means they graduated from high school in 1997 or '98)

If we can't compromise on gun regulation like the milder sorts of gun regulation found in other countries, sooner or later the pressure is going to result in the sort of gun regulation you find in harsher countries. The status quo of relatively minimal regulation is simply not sustainable, when it means that seemingly every year, sometimes more than once in a year, we have to go through this macabre circus in which dozens of innocent people die and most of our prominent political figures just shrug and say "well, whatcha gonna do?"

As a nation, if this kind of high-publicity death toll were being caused by foreigners attacking us, we wouldn't put up with that shit. We've only tolerated it so long because it's pitched as a domestic rights issue, but that's not going to last forever.

[His Divine Shadow]

So... what happened after Australia made changes to their laws?

Of course, in the US you do have some folks who have vowed to go down fighting. I acknowledge that's a problem. But they're ridiculous, maintaining they'll somehow take on the US government. They aren't. Or if they do, it will be curb-stomp battle. The time when civilian rifles could take on a government like the US are past. That reason for maintaining civilian gun ownership is no longer relevant in today's world.

Well to paraphrase the australian I know, most people took the money (they paid quite well for the guns, even if they were old pieces of shit) and bought shiny new guns. Statistically they have more guns in australia today than they did before the port arthur shooting, they just aren't semi automatics. Semi auto handguns are still allowed.

This is the problem I see with claiming australia banned guns and it stopped. I mean whut? Ok they banned semi auto rifles, but is that a pre-requisite for a mass shooting. It makes it easier to upp the kill count, but still there has been no shootings since that I know of. I find it hard to believe the absence of a particular type of gun is what did it.

[Simon_Jester]

I would expect that in general, the gun regulations that really do something to limit mass shootings aren't so much the bans as they are the controls. Restricting how you can and cannot transfer guns, who you can and cannot sell them to, and how they can and cannot be stored.

Along the lines of what I was getting at earlier, a society that controls guns effectively has much less need to ban them. A society that refuses to control guns effectively is very likely to see the unarmed majority try to rise up and disarm the armed minority, for their own safety.

[Broomstick]

This is all starting to remind me of the time immediately post-9/11 when there were calls to ban civilians flying airplanes. We pilots could have dug in our heels an whined, whined, whined but we didn't. We addressed people's concerns, accepted a few limitations, and went back to flying.

So, because the FBI, CIA, and Bush administration failed to act on information they had on hand about a group of suspects that were on multiple Law Enforcement radars, you accepted limitations on your rights even though your group was in no way at fault?

1) Flying is NOT a right, it's a privilege.
2) If general aviation had not accepted changes it would have been abolished.

As it turned out, it wasn't that hard. Gee, I am no longer allowed to fly directly over a nuclear power plant. Boo-fucking-hoo. Sure, it sucks for the foreign flight students - they're under a LOT more scrutiny these days - but lots of folks still find it cheaper to come here for training than anywhere else in the world. I have to carry a picture ID along with my pilot's license (didn't have to before), I'm carrying my driver's license going to and from the airport anyway. There is now much stricter separation between general aviation and passenger aviation on the ground.

By being willing to yield on such points we got to keep our favorite toys. Sure, some of it was cosmetic bullshit (there is no way anything I've flown could do more than scratch the paint on a nuke plant) but it kept the general public from wetting their pants.

You know who else compromised on their "rights"? Farmers, after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It got harder to buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which, by the way, is a pretty common and useful component of modern agriculture. Yeah, farmers were a little inconvenienced. Funny, though, we haven't had any big, homemade ANFO bombs blow up buildings since.

Black guns scare the public? Paint them all pink or yellow or sky blue. The anti-gun crowd don't like a certain type of grip? Og forbid you give on that point.

The results of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were mixed at best, but rather than dig in their heels the pro-gun crowd, in addition to talking point, could just accept even that weak-ass law (which most of them claim dealt with just cosmetics) to appease the anti-gun crowd and still keep their semi-auto "scary guns". Of course, really looking at the results might lead to the conclusion that real problem is high capacity magazines, which might lead to a different sort of ban. In this thread we have people saying that large magazines don't make a difference, you can just carry more of them. Yeah, OK, so if it doesn't matter why are you so opposed to compromise? Or does it matter? The pro-gun crowd also fails to acknowledge that the mass shootings with high body counts are the gun deaths most feared by the anti-gun crowd - sure, they're a small number and a small risk for the randomly selectd individual, but they're still what scares the pants off the non-gun public the most. If all it does it cut down on that number it's going to go a long way to eliminating the fears of the anti-gun people. It may be statistically small, but psychologically it's huge.

But it's nice we'll hold the innocent accountable before we hold law enforcement and the legislature accountable.

I'm all for improving law enforcement and the legislature as well.

I think that's what some of you don't get - the survivors of the school massacres are growing up and either are or soon will be voting. They are fed up. The people who get shot up at concerts are fed up. A lot of the rest of us are fed up. We are tired of the blood and death. The people who are paying the price for your hobby are stick of being shot, they're sick of the bleeding and maiming and dying.

And banning AR-15s is going to accomplish something here, rather than give people a warm fuzzy?

Even the weak-ass 1994 AWB seemed to result in a small reduction of crime using "assault weapons", so apparently it would do something. And it's not like the AWB was really a "ban" - it didn't take away the guns already owned, it grandfathered them in so they were still around. So how do you explain the drop?

And you really, really don't get it - eventually, if nothing is done, the anti-gun crowd isn't going to settle for a "warm fuzzy", they're going to get fed up enough to take your gun away. Won't happen next week, but if the current trends continue it will. If you let it get to that point what happens will be far more draconian than limiting your clips to 10 rounds or whatever.

Columbine: Have you SEEN the piece-of-shit weapons they killed a dozen people with?

Nope. And don't really care.

And it's possible those kids grow up and the tide turns. I'm not about to throw reason under the bus to placate the uninformed people who scream "DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!" even if I sympathize. It's also possible those kids grow up and realize there isn't some easy solution to why the U.S. has this specific problem. What works in other countries probably won't work here "just because."

The problem with your second statement is that all those kids have access to the internet and they're starting to ask why the UK doesn't have this happen, why Australia doesn't have this happen, why [insert other country name] doesn't have this happen. What are you going to do when they say "hey, we're voting now, and this set of laws worked in these other countries, why don't we do this?"

You're "just because"? American exceptionalism. Which is just a pretty way of saying as a society we're stupid and cruel, just like on the health care issue. We'd rather see our fellow citizens die than change. That says nothing good about us.

You say you sympathize, but you dismiss the other side as ignorant and hysterical. Know what the problem with that is? They can vote just like you can, and ignorant and hysterical voters make bad decisions. Rather than calling them stupid and hysterical you can try to actually address their concerns and fears instead of stamping your feet and screaming "YOU CAN'T TAKE MUH GUNS!!!" in turn. That requires constant attempts to educate and soothe, and no, it's never going to end. Welcome to life.

But this is another example of "It's your fault your representatives and law enforcement is so shitty, YOU FIX THE PROBLEM."

Yes. Yes it is. Because there's no one else who is going to fix the problem.

Off-topic rant: I'm so fucking disappointed in Gun Control pushers and shitty "for clicks" News Reporting for another reason, they are so misinformed, so gut-reactionary, so desperate for the Next Big Thing™: they totally just FORGOT about handguns to focus on the AR-15.

Yes. Maybe the fact that the Las Vegas massacre, which was only last October, involved 10 AR-15's. Then the very next month an AR-15 was used in shooting up a church. And then another one was used to shoot up Stoneman Douglas high school.

The muck media are concentrating on AR-15's because they've been used multiple times in the past 5 months to kill a hundred or so and injure multiple hundreds more. If that kind of body count was being racked up by, say, a "weeglocky" the media would be hammering at that. The media concentrates on the AR-15 because that's what's been used in mass shootings lately. They didn't just pull it out of their ass, there is some basis in reality for their focus. Which the pro-gun crowd refuses to acknowledge.

I'm going out on a limb and saying, though they are entitled to it and I (and others) will have to deal with the consequences of that right: these people don't fucking deserve an opinion here.

Sorry - everyone is entitled to their opinion. You don't get to dictate how other people think.

[Broomstick]

So... what happened after Australia made changes to their laws?

Well to paraphrase the australian I know, most people took the money (they paid quite well for the guns, even if they were old pieces of shit) and bought shiny new guns. Statistically they have more guns in australia today than they did before the port arthur shooting, they just aren't semi automatics. Semi auto handguns are still allowed.

This is the problem I see with claiming australia banned guns and it stopped.

I actually said "changes" rather than "ban" because I know very well that guns are available to the public in Australia. For that matter, if you live in the UK you can own a gun... but under a lot more controls than the US. I think Japan comes closest to an outright ban, but I'm not really knowledgeable about their gun laws.

I mean whut? Ok they banned semi auto rifles, but is that a pre-requisite for a mass shooting. It makes it easier to upp the kill count, but still there has been no shootings since that I know of. I find it hard to believe the absence of a particular type of gun is what did it.

Maybe the access to semi-autos rifles is a part of the equation? Of course, since the NRA has stopped research into the consequences of guns in society that makes the question nigh unanswerable.

I have no doubt that Australia continues to have deaths from accidents with guns, suicides with gun, and continues to have some gun crime. But it's not having mass shootings anymore. What if limiting access to semi-auto rifles IS a key component to limiting/avoiding mass shootings?

Right now the kill/maim counts seem to be going up. Doing something that brings that down would be regarded as a positive, don't you think?

Unlike some in the anti-gun crowd I don't pretend to have all the answers. Which, I guess, is why I get called an idiot here because I dare to ask questions and sometimes I change my mind. I also don't ignore the evidence, shrug my shoulders, and say nothing can be done - clearly something CAN be done, and has been done elsewhere, it's just that the pro-gun crowd doesn't like some of those answers. I get that. But Simon Jester made some very good points about why the status quo can't be maintained.

[His Divine Shadow]

I said ban because that's what they did in Australia. As for the answer, I think the answer is socialism and killing the 24/7 news cycle.

[Crazedwraith]

I said ban because that's what they did in Australia. As for the answer, I think the answer is socialism and killing the 24/7 news cycle.

So gun bans are politically impossible that's... totally doable?

[His Divine Shadow]

No I didn't say it was doable. I don't actually think there's any solution, that's not gonna end in some painful societal upheaval and longterm conflict anyway, maybe even destroy the US as you know it.

[Simon_Jester]

I said ban because that's what they did in Australia. As for the answer, I think the answer is socialism and killing the 24/7 news cycle.

Do other countries not have the 24/7 news cycle?

I mean, I can buy the part where other countries have more socialism than us, granted.

[His Divine Shadow]

Not quite like the american one no, it's... exceptional.

[aerius]

I would expect that in general, the gun regulations that really do something to limit mass shootings aren't so much the bans as they are the controls. Restricting how you can and cannot transfer guns, who you can and cannot sell them to, and how they can and cannot be stored.

Along the lines of what I was getting at earlier, a society that controls guns effectively has much less need to ban them. A society that refuses to control guns effectively is very likely to see the unarmed majority try to rise up and disarm the armed minority, for their own safety.

Question. Considering how completely broken every system is in America, do you really think you guys can come up with an effective gun control system?

Your education, healthcare, judicial, law enforcement, environmental protection, and damn near every large scale system is dysfunctional compared to other countries. I would be shocked if whatever gun controls you come up with is any less broken.