ADVERTISEMENT

Buffalo Shooting

C

cernjSHU

All World
Gold Member
Jul 18, 2001
11,837
7,722
113
I observed the video of the shooting that the shooter made. He must have had some sort of go-pro attached. It is probably one of the most disturbing things anyone can witness as this guy methodically shoots people just standing in front of him. There are a few things that we should be all aware of. This is an example of what happens in no control so called "free speech forums." He was radicalized on 4 chan the site that QAnon eventually went to to spew his garbage conspiracy theories and is the place of all sorts of vile and hate.

Two, another example of why these assault type of weapons should be banned. They serve no purpose except to kill people. And you can't kill this many people without that type of weapon. These weapons should not be legal nor sold in the US. Does this solve all gun violence problems, No it doesn't. But just this ban will save lives.

There was a ban of assault weapons under the Clinton. This was supported by former presidents Carter, Ford and Reagan. There was a sunset provision in it when G W Bush did not renew. It is time to have an assault weapon ban in this country with no loop holes as did the legislation in 1994.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrooklynPirate and HallBall02
You’re trying to oversimplify an event into two neat guilty parties and it doesn’t work that way. What about Frank James? Was that about Qanon and an assault rifle? What about Darrell Brooks? I guess we should ban Ford Explorers. David Chou? Smiley Martin? Should I continue? None having to do with 4 Chan or assault weapons.

We have a serious mental health issue in this country and we have gun laws we don’t enforce. Peyton Gendron said he wanted to commit a murder/suicide upon graduation. How was he cured after a day and a half in the hospital and then being allowed to purchase three guns at 18 in a state that claims to have the toughest gun laws?

Technology and social media has sped up life and the human mind can’t keep up in many cases. Many people feel that they can’t keep up. Teen suicides and teens considering suicide stats have skyrocketed. Pandora is out of the box when you give a ten year old a smart phone with no control. Limiting free speech in a public forum is like pissing in the wind unless you put the tightest restrictions on all communication.
 
Last edited:
cernjSHU said:
I observed the video of the shooting that the shooter made. He must have had some sort of go-pro attached. It is probably one of the most disturbing things anyone can witness as this guy methodically shoots people just standing in front of him. There are a few things that we should be all aware of. This is an example of what happens in no control so called "free speech forums." He was radicalized on 4 chan the site that QAnon eventually went to to spew his garbage conspiracy theories and is the place of all sorts of vile and hate.

Two, another example of why these assault type of weapons should be banned. They serve no purpose except to kill people. And you can't kill this many people without that type of weapon. These weapons should not be legal nor sold in the US. Does this solve all gun violence problems, No it doesn't. But just this ban will save lives.

There was a ban of assault weapons under the Clinton. This was supported by former presidents Carter, Ford and Reagan. There was a sunset provision in it when G W Bush did not renew. It is time to have an assault weapon ban in this country with no loop holes as did the legislation in 1994.
Click to expand...

Why would you watch that?

Nightmare stuff I don't need to see.
 
HALL85 said:
You’re trying to oversimplify an event into two neat guilty parties and it doesn’t work that way. What about Frank James? Was that about Qanon and an assault rifle? What about Darrell Brooks? I guess we should ban Ford Explorers. David Chou? Should I continue?

We have a serious mental health issue in this country and we have laws we don’t enforce. Peyton Gendron said he wanted to commit a murder/suicide upon graduation. How was he allowed to purchase three guns at 18 in a state that claims to have the toughest gun laws?

Technology and social media has sped up life and the human mind can’t keep up in many cases. Many people feel that they can’t keep up. Teen suicides and teens considering suicide stats have skyrocketed. Pandora is out of the box when you give a ten year old a smart phone with no control. Limiting free speech in a public forum is like pissing in the wind unless you put the tightest restrictions on all communication.
Click to expand...
Nothing neat about it. Those are two big factors. Are they all inclusive? No. Do they solve all mass shootings and killings? No. is your point that since banning assault weapons does not end mass shootings that we should not do it? That what it seems your argument is. Which is a silly argument.

People need to watch this video to see the absolute killing power that an assault rifle has. Deadly accurate from distance. People can fashion all sorts of things into weapons in order to accomplish their goals. Yes, they can use a vehicle, a handgun a knife. But why make it easier with an assault weapon when it serves no function except to kill other human beings? Why make it easier to kill human beings at a distance? Wasn't the same type of weapon used by the DC snipers? They were killing people hundreds of yards away. A Bushmaster was used in the school shootings at Sandy Hook, Nashville Waffle House. Not to mention the AK-47's and other assault weapons used in mass shootings like Las Vegas. It is harder but not impossible to commit murder unclose. It is also more difficult to kill as many when you don't have assault weapons. Should we not as a society try to make it as difficult as possible?

I agree that mental illness is a serious problem in this country. It has been neglected for decades in this country. However, it is a difficult problem to solve when the standard to involuntarily commit someone is extraordinarily high. Thought crimes are not criminal. Mental illness, hate groups and assault weapons are a toxic cocktail.
 
cernjSHU said:
Nothing neat about it. Those are two big factors. Are they all inclusive? No. Do they solve all mass shootings and killings? No. is your point that since banning assault weapons does not end mass shootings that we should not do it? That what it seems your argument is. Which is a silly argument.

People need to watch this video to see the absolute killing power that an assault rifle has. Deadly accurate from distance. People can fashion all sorts of things into weapons in order to accomplish their goals. Yes, they can use a vehicle, a handgun a knife. But why make it easier with an assault weapon when it serves no function except to kill other human beings? Why make it easier to kill human beings at a distance? Wasn't the same type of weapon used by the DC snipers? They were killing people hundreds of yards away. A Bushmaster was used in the school shootings at Sandy Hook, Nashville Waffle House. Not to mention the AK-47's and other assault weapons used in mass shootings like Las Vegas. It is harder but not impossible to commit murder unclose. It is also more difficult to kill as many when you don't have assault weapons. Should we not as a society try to make it as difficult as possible?

I agree that mental illness is a serious problem in this country. It has been neglected for decades in this country. However, it is a difficult problem to solve when the standard to involuntarily commit someone is extraordinarily high. Thought crimes are not criminal. Mental illness, hate groups and assault weapons are a toxic cocktail.
Click to expand...
You obviously missed my point. My point was that we have a serious mental health issue in this country and that by far is the major reason for the increase in these mass attacks. My other point was that we don't even enforce the gun laws we have on the books, so maybe we should start there (which might prevent many of these attacks as well as gun violence in general that we are seeing an increase).

Just because mental health is a "difficult problem", why shouldn't we start there and focus our efforts. I'm interested in reducing the greatest number of loss of innocent lives. Banning "assault weapons" may make you feel good, but it doesn't really address the underlying issues in my original point. Your position proves my point....as you say, it's been "neglected for decades"...duh, that's why we have the problem and your solution is that it's difficult, which means lets continue to neglect it rather than prioritizing.

Here's a suggestion for a law (assuming that it gets enforced). What do Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold, Peyton Gendron, Dylan Roof, Nyklos Cruz, (I can keep googling) have in common? Maybe we should have age limits for the purchase of classes of weapons. Make the penalties for selling (or letting your child) use a class of weapons to punitive that it will force accountability from the supposed adults. How did Gendron get the weapon in the first place? NY has the toughest gun laws but an 18 year old who had been flagged was able to purchase an assault rifle (much less any weapon).

This kid was a mental health nightmare. Stories this morning that his family said he was spooked by COVID and was wearing a hazmat suit to school. The gun was just an instrument and social media gave him a way to stream it and get his 15 seconds of fame.
 
Last edited:
cernjSHU said:
Which is a silly argument.
Click to expand...

Cern, I don't know you so often take to make statements like that. It does nothing to foster healthy discussion. Can't you just state that you don't agree?

Along those lines, I agree with one point in your original post and disagree with two.
I agree it was a heinous and despicable act.

I disagree that inhibiting free speech and banning assault rifles will help.

On the free speech platforms I'd rather see the chatter in readily available mediums. It is easier for more law enforcement to monitor the data and meta data to prevent these. I have direct involvement with law enforcement using a slew of social media sites to monitor gang activity. It has lead to enhanced sentences for convictions. You would be surprised at what the knuckleheds post on social media. Absent that, it will fall to the dark web and other media and make it more difficult to monitor.

Regarding a gun ban, it will do little, perhaps nothing to reduce deaths. There are many other weapons and things that can be used to kill. I doubt we ill ever outlaw shotguns or glocks and you can do a bunch of damage with those. I don't see outlawing budget rental trucks or fertilizer soon.

I could support some restrictions. For example, if you want an AR for home defenses then you can get it but only be allowed to have it at home and transport from your home to the gun range for practice. Any other location would be illegal. If you want want it for hunting, same thing. Legal in your house, your vehicle when traveling to and from a game land, in the game land, and that's it. If you own ranch and want to protect your livestock, you can have it on your ranch, etc.

I agree with 85 that more could be done with addressing mental health. The dude in Buffalo was sick and I suspect people knew about it.
 
Last edited:
HALL85 said:
You obviously missed my point. My point was that we have a serious mental health issue in this country and that by far is the major reason for the increase in these mass attacks. My other point was that we don't even enforce the gun laws we have on the books, so maybe we should start there (which might prevent many of these attacks as well as gun violence in general that we are seeing an increase).

Just because mental health is a "difficult problem", why shouldn't we start there and focus our efforts. I'm interested in reducing the greatest number of loss of innocent lives. Banning "assault weapons" may make you feel good, but it doesn't really address the underlying issues in my original point. Your position proves my point....as you say, it's been "neglected for decades"...duh, that's why we have the problem and your solution is that it's difficult, which means lets continue to neglect it rather than prioritizing.

Here's a suggestion for a law (assuming that it gets enforced). What do Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold, Peyton Gendron, Dylan Roof, Nyklos Cruz, (I can keep googling) have in common? Maybe we should have age limits for the purchase of classes of weapons. Make the penalties for selling (or letting your child) use a class of weapons to punitive that it will force accountability from the supposed adults. How did Gendron get the weapon in the first place? NY has the toughest gun laws but an 18 year old who had been flagged was able to purchase an assault rifle (much less any weapon).

This kid was a mental health nightmare. Stories this morning that his family said he was spooked by COVID and was wearing a hazmat suit to school. The gun was just an instrument and social media gave him a way to stream it and get his 15 seconds of fame.
Click to expand...
First, what is your suggestion about doing something for mental health? When a person does not want mental health care or keep on his medication, what does society do? 48 hour hospital evaluations are useless. All they have to do is say that do not have suicidal ideations or want to kill or harm people and they are released. Now what? You have a mentally unstable person walking the streets without psychiatric help? What is the solution to this? I would love to hear it. Because I am 100% agreement with you that mental health is a big problem. Perhaps the biggest issue with regard to criminal activity. but I have not heard of a solution to this. But, this should be a multi-prong solution instead of let's just tackle mental health and ignore assault weapons.

The assault was an instrument you say, then let's take away that instrument as well. I am talking about assault weapons that serve no purpose but to kill people. It is not about making me feel good. It is about taking a "tool" as you put it out of the hands of people who want to use it for its only real purpose which is to kill people.
 
cernjSHU said:
First, what is your suggestion about doing something for mental health? When a person does not want mental health care or keep on his medication, what does society do? 48 hour hospital evaluations are useless. All they have to do is say that do not have suicidal ideations or want to kill or harm people and they are released. Now what? You have a mentally unstable person walking the streets without psychiatric help? What is the solution to this? I would love to hear it. Because I am 100% agreement with you that mental health is a big problem. Perhaps the biggest issue with regard to criminal activity. but I have not heard of a solution to this. But, this should be a multi-prong solution instead of let's just tackle mental health and ignore assault weapons.

The assault was an instrument you say, then let's take away that instrument as well. I am talking about assault weapons that serve no purpose but to kill people. It is not about making me feel good. It is about taking a "tool" as you put it out of the hands of people who want to use it for its only real purpose which is to kill people.
Click to expand...
We can be doing more about mental health and that requires more time in getting someone off the street, in an appropriate institution with appropriate treatment and after care. Yes, some people need to be taken off the streets for an extended time if that is what it takes (for their safety and the public's safety). You are the one who said we have neglected to deal with this problem, so what do you think we should we have done for the past few decades?

Both Pirata and I have provided some common sense suggestions on keeping assault weapons out of the hands of those that committed these heinous acts. My guess is that most law abiding gun owners would support those measures. Feel free to opine on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pirata
With regard to Assault rifles:

I have posted previously that I support restrictions on them. I support a requirement for training and certification including a mental health check. I don't believe any citizen should be able to simply purchase a AR with only a basic background check. I'd want to require owners to demonstrate they know how to properly and safely handle the weapon. I don't have a perfect solution but weaving mental health checks into the equation would go along away.

I recall taking a psychological test or two as I entered the Army. I specifically recall one question that asked to the effect, "Do you get a firm feeling when you hold a rifle". It may have been a multiple choice with "firm feeling" being one of the choices. I would be curious how they evaluated the answers. I suspect they were trying to determine whether I was afraid or comfortable using a weapon.

I do not agree that the sole purpose of an AR is to (maliciously and proactively) kill people. I flat out reject that.

A pesky little fact is that there have 273 mass shooting since 2009. 47 of those used an assault rifle. 221 used a handgun.

47 people out 258 Million adults in the US. An estimate 15 million of those own an AR.
 
FT_21.08.02_GunOwnership_01.png
 
Pirata said:
I do not agree that the sole purpose of an AR is to (maliciously and proactively) kill people. I flat out reject that.
Click to expand...
what could its sope purpose be other than that? its legitimately why it was created. no just to kill people but kill as many as possible.

theres not agreement or disagreement. its a fact.
 
Pirata said:
With regard to Assault rifles:

I have posted previously that I support restrictions on them. I support a requirement for training and certification including a mental health check. I don't believe any citizen should be able to simply purchase a AR with only a basic background check. I'd want to require owners to demonstrate they know how to properly and safely handle the weapon. I don't have a perfect solution but weaving mental health checks into the equation would go along away.

I recall taking a psychological test or two as I entered the Army. I specifically recall one question that asked to the effect, "Do you get a firm feeling when you hold a rifle". It may have been a multiple choice with "firm feeling" being one of the choices. I would be curious how they evaluated the answers. I suspect they were trying to determine whether I was afraid or comfortable using a weapon.

I do not agree that the sole purpose of an AR is to (maliciously and proactively) kill people. I flat out reject that.

A pesky little fact is that there have 273 mass shooting since 2009. 47 of those used an assault rifle. 221 used a handgun.

47 people out 258 Million adults in the US. An estimate 15 million of those own an AR.
Click to expand...
What is the definition of A mass shooting? Sometimes it means four or more people are shot. These stats can be a bit misleading. the stats of the 47 was shootings with an assault weapon -how many were killed and contrast that to the 221 with handguns and how many were killed? I don't have the stats. I have not looked for them. But logically there should be an inordinate amount of deaths with the assault weapon than a handgun. . It would be interesting to see if this stat exists.

Also, there is a difference between a shootout between rival gangs shooting at each other which normally involves handguns and the person who is going into a crowd to kill as many people as possible. Both considered mass shootings but they are. Or the same. The subway shooter used a handgun but so many others use the assault weapons. Could u imagine if the subway shooter had an assault weapon how many more deaths there would be. The point is that the stats that you posted are probably not telling an accurate story. There are more to those numbers.
 
Cern,

This was the link for the data I cited.

its interactive and hence you can filter the data as you wish.

everytownresearch.org

Mass Shootings in the United States

Mass shootings haunt our nation’s collective conscience. Each breaking-news alert results in grief at the acts of preventable violence.
everytownresearch.org everytownresearch.org

I believe there was a stat in there supporting our comment about higher death rate on mass shooting with an AR. No argument there.

At the risk you calling out what-about-ism let me know what you think of this.

In the same link it states 486 people died in 50 mass shootings with an AR since 2009.

While that is tragic, why are we not as passionate for the 46,000 people who die in car accidents every year. over 13 years (since 2009) that is approximately 552,000.

450 vs 552,000. That is three orders of magnitude.

10,000 of the 46,000 are drunk driving. Are we going to go back prohibition? Are we going to ban automobiles.

I just don't see taking away the rights of millions because each year, 4 whack cases get their hands on an AR.

I don't say do nothing, but I do not support an outright ban.
 
The only thing that’s painfully clear regarding this subject is that neither party wants to do anything to change the laws. Why we cannot stop people with mental health issues from getting guns and assault rifles just doesn’t make any sense. We should really raise the age for people to own a gun to 25. We need a reporting system where anyone who receives mental health help is part of a data base and would need special clearance to obtain a gun. Democrats are in a position of power, nothing but crickets. Take some small steps to correct the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hallsome and HALL85
SHallguy2 said:
The only thing that’s painfully clear regarding this subject is that neither party wants to do anything to change the laws. Why we cannot stop people with mental health issues from getting guns and assault rifles just doesn’t make any sense. We should really raise the age for people to own a gun to 25. We need a reporting system where anyone who receives mental health help is part of a data base and would need special clearance to obtain a gun. Democrats are in a position of power, nothing but crickets. Take some small steps to correct the process.
Click to expand...
Many brag here about letting science dictate the actions, so why not let the data dictate as well. Of those that have used an AR-15 (or whatever category you want to call it), what is the age distribution. It seems like most are under the age of 25. If the data supports that, I agree, why not limit the ability to purchase this type of gun to being over 25. Seems logical especially if you raise the penalties for someone who sold that gun to a minor.

It's a problem that politicians would rather not solve. I think that's obvious.
 
HALL85 said:
Can you site a source to refute Pirata’s article from NBC?
Click to expand...
The ArmaLite AR-15[note 2] is a select-fire,[note 1]gas-operated, air-cooled, magazine-fed rifle manufactured in the United States between 1959 and 1964.[9] Designed by American gun manufacturer ArmaLite in 1956, it was based on its AR-10 rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition.

en.m.wikipedia.org

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

first AR-15 made for military , then they made a civilian model also sold to police units. are we really trying to say semi automatic/automatic guns arent made to kill people? really?
 
Pirata said:
Cern,

This was the link for the data I cited.

its interactive and hence you can filter the data as you wish.

everytownresearch.org

Mass Shootings in the United States

Mass shootings haunt our nation’s collective conscience. Each breaking-news alert results in grief at the acts of preventable violence.
everytownresearch.org everytownresearch.org

I believe there was a stat in there supporting our comment about higher death rate on mass shooting with an AR. No argument there.

At the risk you calling out what-about-ism let me know what you think of this.

In the same link it states 486 people died in 50 mass shootings with an AR since 2009.

While that is tragic, why are we not as passionate for the 46,000 people who die in car accidents every year. over 13 years (since 2009) that is approximately 552,000.

450 vs 552,000. That is three orders of magnitude.

10,000 of the 46,000 are drunk driving. Are we going to go back prohibition? Are we going to ban automobiles.

I just don't see taking away the rights of millions because each year, 4 whack cases get their hands on an AR.

I don't say do nothing, but I do not support an outright ban.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I think this article supports my argument with regard to assault weapons with this paragraph:

"Assault weapons are generally high-powered, semiautomatic firearms designed to fire rounds at a greater velocity than most other firearms, and, when combined with high-capacity magazines, they enable a shooter to fire a devastating number of rounds over a short period. In the 12 years from 2009 to 2020, there were at least 30 mass shootings (16 percent of those with known weapon data) that involved the use of an assault weapon, resulting in 347 deaths and 719 injuries. In other words, mass shootings that involved an assault weapon accounted for 25 percent of all mass shootings deaths and 76 percent of injuries. While not used in the majority of mass shootings, when they were, it left six times as many people shot per incident than when there was no assault weapon.15"

Moreover, most of the mass shootings involve a domestic violence or some sort of relationship between the victim and the shooter. For example, John List who killed his entire family in Westfield, NJ would be considered a mass shooting.

But I find that to be separate from the indiscriminate shooting that happens more times than not with an assault weapon.

I don't buy your car analogy. For example, cars are rarely used intentionally as weapons. It is either an true accident with or without negligence or there was a reckless act of DWI or high speeds. The utility of a car is transportation. What is the utility of an assault weapon other than to kill human beings?

The ban against assault weapons does not take any rights away from the citizenry. This does not violate the 2nd Amendment as Ronald Reagan and Ford supported the ban.

I am not saying we eliminate deaths, but there will be a reduction and isn't that something we want.
 
It might and of course we would want to reduce, better yet eliminate these senseless deaths.

However, if you are concerned about reducing needless deaths, do something about auto safety. You can make a bigger impact.

Your citing the number is about the increase in death was assault versus pistol is true but again given a three-order magnitude of difference in the death count, from a pure number standpoint it really is a moot point.

The reason people get worked up about this is that the media glorifies and profits on these events. Sadly, it's morbidly interesting for people to listen to 3 days of news coverage about the sensational killing of 12 people with a gun. Nobody wants to spend 3 days after the Labor Day weekend listening to news analysts talk every motor accident and death that occurred. It's just not that exciting. In addition to all the auto deaths we're fine with killing thousands of fetuses that are a week away from birth.
 
Last edited:
cernjSHU said:
The ban against assault weapons does not take any rights away from the citizenry. This does not violate the 2nd Amendment as Ronald Reagan and Ford supported the ban.
Click to expand...

"District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939)."

www.britannica.com

District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense...
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
 
cernjSHU said:
I don't buy your car analogy. For example, cars are rarely used intentionally as weapons. It is either an true accident with or without negligence or there was a reckless act of DWI or high speeds. The utility of a car is transportation. What is the utility of an assault weapon other than to kill human beings?
Click to expand...

That is not the point I was arguing. I agree, cars are not used as weapons.

The point is to counter the flawed logic that : ARs kill, ergo we should ban ARs.
 
cernjSHU said:
I think this article supports my argument with regard to assault weapons with this paragraph:

"Assault weapons are generally high-powered, semiautomatic firearms designed to fire rounds at a greater velocity than most other firearms, and, when combined with high-capacity magazines, they enable a shooter to fire a devastating number of rounds over a short period.
Click to expand...

I did not use the link to make any claims to the definition.

Now that you brought it up, the US army defines it as:

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[18] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]



Using the US Army definition, the AR15 available for civilian purchase does not fit the definition. It does not have selective fire.
 
cernjSHU said:
What is the utility of an assault weapon other than to kill human beings?
Click to expand...

I posted this article previously which speaks to that:

www.nbcnews.com

How the AR-15 became America's most popular rifle

The Instagram tag #ar15 has over 1.7 million posts, with updates by the minute
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com


Here is another:

www.vox.com

Why millions of Americans — including me — own the AR-15

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com www.vox.com

I respect your opinions and share your conviction that we should figure out away to stop events like Buffalo. However, there is ample evidence that ARs serve a purpose other than killing people.

I don't have the number but I'd venture a guess that a very very small percentage of ARs have resulted in killing someone. A very large number are purchase for home defense but thankfully never get used. The simple ownership of one and preparedness to use it if necessary provides many people great peace of mind.

Again, I fall back to the numbers. 4 whack cases per year use an AR in a mass shooting.
 
Last edited:
cernjSHU said:
Thanks for the link. I think this article supports my argument with regard to assault weapons with this paragraph:

"Assault weapons are generally high-powered, semiautomatic firearms designed to fire rounds at a greater velocity than most other firearms, and, when combined with high-capacity magazines, they enable a shooter to fire a devastating number of rounds over a short period. In the 12 years from 2009 to 2020, there were at least 30 mass shootings (16 percent of those with known weapon data) that involved the use of an assault weapon, resulting in 347 deaths and 719 injuries. In other words, mass shootings that involved an assault weapon accounted for 25 percent of all mass shootings deaths and 76 percent of injuries. While not used in the majority of mass shootings, when they were, it left six times as many people shot per incident than when there was no assault weapon.15"

Moreover, most of the mass shootings involve a domestic violence or some sort of relationship between the victim and the shooter. For example, John List who killed his entire family in Westfield, NJ would be considered a mass shooting.

But I find that to be separate from the indiscriminate shooting that happens more times than not with an assault weapon.

I don't buy your car analogy. For example, cars are rarely used intentionally as weapons. It is either an true accident with or without negligence or there was a reckless act of DWI or high speeds. The utility of a car is transportation. What is the utility of an assault weapon other than to kill human beings?

The ban against assault weapons does not take any rights away from the citizenry. This does not violate the 2nd Amendment as Ronald Reagan and Ford supported the ban.

I am not saying we eliminate deaths, but there will be a reduction and isn't that something we want.
Click to expand...
really pathetic and low that people above are actually trying to argue against it. completely ignoring the kill count during these mass shootings and the fact its exactly what the gun was designed for. disgusting, but not surprising.
 
Pirata said:
I did not use the link to make any claims to the definition.

Now that you brought it up, the US army defines it as:

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[18] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]



Using the US Army definition, the AR15 available for civilian purchase does not fit the definition. It does not have selective fire.
Click to expand...
its selective semantics, and a semantics argument. who cares about if its assault or not. the gun was designed to mow down people and nothing about the civilian version is different in that regard.

sick stuff from you trying to spin this.
 
Your post shows you no little about the gun.

It is not not semantics. It is a important distinction.

Selective means you can switch between semi and full automatic. There is a big difference between full and semi. You can "mow" with a fully automatic. Fully automatic means that when you pull the trigger and hold it, the gun will fire 15 rounds per second. Guns that do that are illegal unless you have a special license.

Your side is spinning this by calling a civilian AR15 an assault rifle.

Remember, 4 whack case per year do something bad.

Further, you want to ban "an assault style weapon" simply because it looks like an assault rifle (but isn't). However, you are not calling for a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. So you are saying, we will have legal guns that are just as deadly but that's OK as long as they don't look like an AR15.

BTW, Your name calling ("sick stuff from you trying to spin this") does not strengthen your argument and does not phase me. If anything, it makes you appear ignorant. Try to just discuss the topic. Do some research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HALL85 and SPK145
Pirata said:
I did not use the link to make any claims to the definition.

Now that you brought it up, the US army defines it as:

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[18] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]



Using the US Army definition, the AR15 available for civilian purchase does not fit the definition. It does not have selective fire.
Click to expand...
However, the 1994 Federal Ban did include semi-automatic weapons and that would include the AR-15. Under that law it fit the definition of an assault weapon even though it was a semi-automatic.
 
BLM was going to give money to families of those killed ,but they spent it all on homes,baby daddy etc.I wonder if some diehards will still be giving them money and marching with their signs.
 
cernjSHU said:
However, the 1994 Federal Ban did include semi-automatic weapons and that would include the AR-15. Under that law it fit the definition of an assault weapon even though it was a semi-automatic.
Click to expand...


Yes. Congress came up with its own definition in that ACT which was broader than the Army definition.

That was the beginning of the political spin of the "assault" term
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SPK145
Pirata said:
Yes. Congress came up with its own definition in that ACT which was broader than the Army definition.

That was the beginning of the political spin of the "assault" term
Click to expand...
Take a look at that video and tell me that’s not an assault weapon. The only difference is that you can’t switch it to fully automatic. I don’t thing that is a political spin. It’s looking at the reality of the the damage that this weapon can do.
 
My comment about political spin is based on the 1994 Act and its definitions. By their definition, the M1 Garrand is considered an assault weapon. That is a bit of stretch to say the least.

This thread has drifted a bit off the OP.

As I said before in agreement to your OP, we should find a way to stop these kind of acts, regardless of the weapon or means of destruction.

As 85 posted, the common threads is mental illness including radicalization.

Remember the Boston bombing. That was down with a kitchen pot.

A ban on the AR is too extreme and would not help much. I could support the restrictions I previously posted.
 
Ahhh yes. I tried but its seems it has been take down.

Nonetheless I am familiar with the weapon used and what it can do.

Note that he had a illegal magazine. Another case where the laws don't have any affect.

On the mental health side, the guy was taken into custody a year ago and sent for a 2 day in-patient psychiatric evaluation. Our current laws do not allow that info to show up on the background check.

We don't now the results of the evaluation. I get the issues with being careful about handling that info. As an example, you want a perfectly normal person to have that on their record just because of suspicious cop.

Then again, if the evaluation concluded that he had issues, then I would want that to immedicably hit NICS and disallow a purchase. Further, if a purchase was attempted, I want that to trigger policy notification.
 
I am adamant that it is way too easy for people to own these weapons. I am very much for implement measures to make it more difficult. Not for the sake of making it difficult but so as to keep them out of the hands of nut jobs as best we can.

Screw the NRA when they say that is an infringement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cernjSHU and anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
SHUSA said:
really pathetic and low that people above are actually trying to argue against it. completely ignoring the kill count during these mass shootings and the fact its exactly what the gun was designed for. disgusting, but not surprising.
Click to expand...
Ban ARs. Fine by me. Not surprising you don’t see other peoples points.
 
Pirata said:
Your post shows you no little about the gun.

It is not not semantics. It is a important distinction.

Selective means you can switch between semi and full automatic. There is a big difference between full and semi. You can "mow" with a fully automatic. Fully automatic means that when you pull the trigger and hold it, the gun will fire 15 rounds per second. Guns that do that are illegal unless you have a special license.

Your side is spinning this by calling a civilian AR15 an assault rifle.

Remember, 4 whack case per year do something bad.

Further, you want to ban "an assault style weapon" simply because it looks like an assault rifle (but isn't). However, you are not calling for a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. So you are saying, we will have legal guns that are just as deadly but that's OK as long as they don't look like an AR15.

BTW, Your name calling ("sick stuff from you trying to spin this") does not strengthen your argument and does not phase me. If anything, it makes you appear ignorant. Try to just discuss the topic. Do some research.
Click to expand...
i never called them an assault rifle, check again. you dont "no" what i said. semi automatic can definitely mow people down, as done in 25% of mass shootings.

and it is sick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H

Syria

Replies
7
Views
460
Life Off the Ship
HALL85
H
SHallguy2

Hell to Pay

Replies
2
Views
457
Life Off the Ship
Rockaway
R
SHallguy2

Drones

Replies
123
Views
4K
Life Off the Ship
knowknow456
knowknow456
J

SHU/Creighton Best Game of 2024?

Replies
9
Views
573
Pirate Hoops Chat
Seton75
S
F

Is Scotty ready to start?

Replies
28
Views
1K
Treasure Trove
Wolf11642
W
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back