Guns

[vampire]

The key point here is that he didn't.  We can muse all day about what an armed citizen or two in that theater would have changed the outcomes, but the truth is that it would depend upon the citizens.  The vast majority of concealed carry licencees wouldn't have been able to stop this rampage early because it was so quick and the odds of the licencees being able to properly identify the orginally shooter from another CC, and without getting shot himself, are long.  But that's not the point.  Rampaging lone nutjobs are hard to prevent in any case, and guns are old tech, easily reproduced by one machinist.  Making them illegal is not going to prevent people who are motivated to possess them from aquiring them.  After all, most guns are illegal in Mexico & Britain, and in both cases the culture has changed enough that wise police keep firearms nearby, if only in their squad car.  The greatest factor in the use of firearms in violent crimes is not the legality of the firearms, but the culture in question.   Gun violence is very rare in Canada, but that still isn't an argument in faovr of doing the same in the United States.  Canada is a relatively uniform culture, while the US is a mix of amny cultures of varying degrees of conflict.  Feel free to do whatever you think that you can to change that culture, but if your plan involves using the force of government to restrict my ability to defend my own family from harm, by restricting my access to the best tools for the job or by any other method, you are already wrong.

Let states decide what they want to do. Keep feds out. NYC is doing fine without guns.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Please define "assault weapon" for this conversation, because I'd wager that you don't really know what that means.

AR-15 is an assault weapon.

I asked for a definition, not an example.  What about an AR-15 makes it into an assult weapon?  What about an assault weapon makes it a different kind of weapon than, for example, a hunting rifle?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

AR-15's need reloaded after 30 rounds (with your typical magazine). A witness reported that everything would go quiet when he was reloading. Sounds like a great time to return fire to me. Imagine 3 people with concealed weapons in that crowd and we might have a very different outcome.

He had a drum magazine with 200 rounds.

I'm surprised it didn't jam.  Those things suck.  There is a reason that a US soldier will carry six loaded magazines of 30 rounds each, but are not even permitted to use a drum magazine of any size.

[vampire]

I asked for a definition, not an example.  What about an AR-15 makes it into an assult weapon?  What about an assault weapon makes it a different kind of weapon than, for example, a hunting rifle?

If you asked this question then you have no idea what is an assault rifle. AR-15 was mentioned BY NAME in the law.

LOL @ you.

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

[FirstAscent]

It sounds like your problem should be with misleading statements, not memes.

I don't have nearly as much a problem with a misleading statement which is not a meme. The reasons should be obvious.

[vampire]

I'm surprised it didn't jam.  Those things suck.  There is a reason that a US soldier will carry six loaded magazines of 30 rounds each, but are not even permitted to use a drum magazine of any size.

It did jam, he went back to his car to reload (or whatever) and got arrested there.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

The key point here is that he didn't.  We can muse all day about what an armed citizen or two in that theater would have changed the outcomes, but the truth is that it would depend upon the citizens.  The vast majority of concealed carry licencees wouldn't have been able to stop this rampage early because it was so quick and the odds of the licencees being able to properly identify the orginally shooter from another CC, and without getting shot himself, are long.  But that's not the point.  Rampaging lone nutjobs are hard to prevent in any case, and guns are old tech, easily reproduced by one machinist.  Making them illegal is not going to prevent people who are motivated to possess them from aquiring them.  After all, most guns are illegal in Mexico & Britain, and in both cases the culture has changed enough that wise police keep firearms nearby, if only in their squad car.  The greatest factor in the use of firearms in violent crimes is not the legality of the firearms, but the culture in question.   Gun violence is very rare in Canada, but that still isn't an argument in faovr of doing the same in the United States.  Canada is a relatively uniform culture, while the US is a mix of amny cultures of varying degrees of conflict.  Feel free to do whatever you think that you can to change that culture, but if your plan involves using the force of government to restrict my ability to defend my own family from harm, by restricting my access to the best tools for the job or by any other method, you are already wrong.

Let states decide what they want to do. Keep feds out. NYC is doing fine without guns.

I disagree on that point.  NYC is a police state, the cops can stop and frisk anyone on the street that they like.  That's not my America.  That wouldn't fly where I live, and I know a guy who was born and raised in NYC who moved to my home city, and would never go back.  I was bike/bussing for my commute, and was talking to this transplant (from the Bronx, IIRC, but didn't sound anything like those tv actors, I've never been anywhere near NY myself) and he was talking about going downtown and seeing a Tea Party rally, and being surprised about how many rednecks with rifles he could see in plain view and the police weren't doing anything.  I responded with a "have you met an unarmed white man since you moved here?" (he is black, and I'm white)  When he loked at me sideways I said "I bet you haven't.  You live in one one of the most heavily armed urban populations in America, and our violent crime rates are way under NYC's".  I said it plainly and loud enough that most everyone on the bus at the time (about 12 people) could hear me.  Other than myself, only the bus driver was white, and not a soul tried to contradict me or reacted at all.  Also, there is a plain as day "no weapons" sign at the front of the bus.  My buddy just looked at me, looked at the bus driver (who was only about 6 feet away) and started to laugh.  When he started to open his mouth with that look in his eyes, I cut him off and said, "Do not ask the obvious question.  I'm legally prohibited from answering it at this time."  And then the bus driver just laughed.

In my state, home invasions are rare, but often deadly.  Sometimes for the victim, sometimes for the attacker.  The same is true in 'no knock' police raids, because if a cop dies and it can be proven that 1) the cops didn't announce and 2) they made a mistake and ended up at the wrong house (this does happen, cops aren't very careful about such things) then the homeowner not only gets off for self-defense, but the department ends up buying them a new house over the damage done.  If the homeowner dies defending himself, there is a good chance a cop goes to jail for manslaughter.  So 'no knock' raids don't happen and regular raids are few and far between.  They are more careful here, too.

BTW, I live 15 miles from here...

http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I'm surprised it didn't jam.  Those things suck.  There is a reason that a US soldier will carry six loaded magazines of 30 rounds each, but are not even permitted to use a drum magazine of any size.

It did jam, he went back to his car to reload (or whatever) and got arrested there.

Wel thank God he was inexperienced with his equipment.  If he had been carrying mil-spec magazines things might have been even worse.

[RodeoX]

Please define "assault weapon" for this conversation, because I'd wager that you don't really know what that means.

AR-15 is an assault weapon.

I asked for a definition, not an example.  What about an AR-15 makes it into an assult weapon?  What about an assault weapon makes it a different kind of weapon than, for example, a hunting rifle?

Strictly speaking, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon as it is not capable of fully automatic fire. That makes an AR-15 a toy version of an assault rifle.

Can you name these 3 continents?

Africa, Europe, Central America. also the Caribbean

P.S. that is NOT a hunting rifle above. It was developed by Ruger as a military weapon to kill people.

[vampire]

Can you name these 3 continents?

Africa, Europe, Central America. also the Caribbean
[/quote]

What what I was afraid of. Out of these four, only two are continents.

[RodeoX]

Can you name these 3 continents?

Africa, Europe, Central America. also the Caribbean

What what I was afraid of. Out of these four, only two are continents.

Ok, do you want to call Central America part of North or South America? fixed

[vampire]

No, LOL @ whoever crafted this silly law.

Don't ask silly questions then? Also the question was about an assault weapon. You're describing assault rifles.

[vampire]

Ok, do you want to call Central America part of North or South America? fixed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America

[RodeoX]

Ok, do you want to call Central America part of North or South America? fixed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America

Huh, I did not know that. It does make sense when you see it on a map though.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I asked for a definition, not an example.  What about an AR-15 makes it into an assult weapon?  What about an assault weapon makes it a different kind of weapon than, for example, a hunting rifle?

If you asked this question then you have no idea what is an assault rifle. AR-15 was mentioned BY NAME in the law.

LOL @ you.

I think that you are missing the point.  Even those who wrote that law can't define an assault rifle.  That's because there is no way to define one that isn't also a hunting weapon.  Fully automatic weapons, such as are used in the military, are not (by law) assault weapons.  While that document was actually a law, I could get a selective fire AR-15 with little trouble and some more money, perfectly legally, as a Class III weapon; but I couldn't buy a semi-automatic AR-15 without mortgaging my house.  Furthermore, that document actually never banned even the 'assault weapons' that it defines, it only banned their manufacture & import.  It didn't stop private sales of existing weapons stock, nor even the sale of decommissioned semi-auto military firearms such as M-14's.  In effect, all this document did while law was make several firearms collectors I knew suddenly wealthy, as they could sell their stock on the open market for four times what they paid for them.  In the end, that document would have done nothing at all to prevent this nutjob, or any other, from buying an AR-15 (probably legally) from another private owner so long as he was willing to spend money that it took, which apparently he was.

In short, statutes passed by Congress cannot actually change reality.  Nutjobs can get guns in America and they can get guns in Russia, Canada, Australia and Britain.  

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Please define "assault weapon" for this conversation, because I'd wager that you don't really know what that means.

AR-15 is an assault weapon.

I asked for a definition, not an example.  What about an AR-15 makes it into an assult weapon?  What about an assault weapon makes it a different kind of weapon than, for example, a hunting rifle?

Strictly speaking, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon as it is not capable of fully automatic fire. That makes an AR-15 a toy version of an assault rifle.

As I already noted, by the law he referenced, a Class II or Class III weapon is specificly exempted from the definition of "assault weapon" under that law, due to the fact that they were already regulated by the BATF on a national level; and had been since 1934.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[vampire]

I think that you are missing the point.  Even those who wrote that law can't define an assault rifle.  That's because there is no way to define one that isn't also a hunting weapon.  Fully automatic weapons, such as are used in the military, are not (by law) assault weapons.  While that document was actually a law, I could get a selective fire AR-15 with little trouble and some more money, perfectly legally, as a Class III weapon; but I couldn't buy a semi-automatic AR-15 without mortgaging my house.  Furthermore, that document actually never banned even the 'assault weapons' that it defines, it only banned their manufacture & import.  It didn't stop private sales of existing weapons stock, nor even the sale of decommissioned semi-auto military firearms such as M-14's.  In effect, all this document did while law was make several firearms collectors I knew suddenly wealthy, as they could sell their stock on the open market for four times what they paid for them.  In the end, that document would have done nothing at all to prevent this nutjob, or any other, from buying an AR-15 (probably legally) from another private owner so long as he was willing to spend money that it took, which apparently he was.

In short, statutes passed by Congress cannot actually change reality.  Nutjobs can get guns in America and they can get guns in Russia, Canada, Australia and Britain.  

I am not missing the anything, I nailed the question perfectly.

If you're asking me if that law would prevent such massacres - don't know. Massacres are anomalies, they happen rarely and have no impact on crime statistics.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

If you're asking me if that law would prevent such massacres - don't know. Massacres are anomalies, they happen rare and have no impact on crime statistics.

Well, at least we can agree on that.

[RodeoX]

In short, if you want to be safe from nutters like the batman shooter... Get a F#%!ng gun.
Anything else is a joke. Honestly people, what your saying is that a rule would have saved those people. Oooh, a rule. That will keep people from doing wrong. If they do it anyway, you should shake your finger at them and say "no thank you". That should stop em.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

In short, if you want to be safe from nutters like the batman shooter... Get a F#%!ng gun.

And even that is far from certain.  Everything in life involves risk, and a statute cannot take that risk away no matter how much some people wish it weren't so.  A concealed carry license holder slightly reduces the risk of violent crime for the society in which he lives, because sane criminals respond to the increases in encountering an armed victim for what it is, and increase in the risks involved in their chosen occupation.  But the CC license holder does this also at the increased risk of accidental harm done to himself or to family members from the simple presence of a loaded (and not locked up) firearm.  It's somewhat like giving your little kid a Rubella vaccine; for Rubella isn't a significant risk to a healthy child, but a child infected with Rubella is a huge miscarriage risk for any expectant mothers that might come into contact with said child.  In other words, we don't give little kids the MMR vaccine because there is a great risk of harm to that particular child; we do it to protect other children.  In reality, the risk of harm is greater from complications of the MMR vaccine itself than from a natural infection of any of these childhood illnesses.