Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 56 of 236 (668679)
07-23-2012 6:14 PM


Weaponry covered by the 2nd Ammendment
The writers of the Consititution and the Bill of Rights, could not fathom that the 2nd Ammendment would later allow automatic and semi-automatic weapons with such deadly accuracy and lethality to be legal. I believe they would be the first to ammend it to prevent such lethal weapons from being legalized. The Ammendment stated the right to form militias and bear arms not the right to have weapons of mass destruction.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:36 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 57 of 236 (668680)
07-23-2012 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2012 5:27 PM


Re: Gun control question
What we're dealing with is people who know nothing about guns trying to write laws about them. Its like the people who back SOPA not knowing anything about the internet.
There are many people who have experience with weapons who want tougher gun laws, myself included. Stop speaking from ignorance.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:45 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 59 of 236 (668683)
07-23-2012 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2012 5:27 PM


Re: Gun control question
The AR-15 is the predecessor to the military's now adopted M-16. It is the semi-automatic version of the M-16 which is used in all branches of service.
Again. There is no reason this weapon should be able to be purchaced legally in the same way you should not be able to legally purchace an RPG launcher or live hand grenades. These are not covered under "the right to bare arms" of the 2nd Ammendment.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 11:27 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 63 of 236 (668688)
07-23-2012 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 6:26 PM


Re: Gun control question
Rifles are legitimately used for target shooting and hunting. The .223 caliber that the AR-15 is chambered for is a perfectly legitimate hunting round; it's not a weird military round or something.
It is not the size it is the speed at which you can refire that makes it more lethal. In fact, the round is sometimes considered too small for deer hunting.
The point is, why the hell do you need a military semi-automatic rifle to shoot a deer.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:39 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 65 of 236 (668690)
07-23-2012 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 6:30 PM


Re: Gun control question
You're not making the case that there's anything wrong with it, though, except that militaries and SWAT use a similar weapon. And I don't see how that's supposed to justify a ban.
Militaries and SWAT also use MagLites. Does that make them "assault flashlights", and therefore unsuitable for civilian use? Should a civilian be able to own a Swiss Army knife, given its military origin?
There's no such thing as an "assault rifle", is the problem, at least not in a legal sense. You're talking about banning a weapon not for what it is - because a rifle that shoots .223 in semi-auto mode is not more dangerous than any legal handgun - but for what it looks like. I don't understand that reasoning. Can you explain?
I mentioned nothing about it being an "assault" anything. My reasoning, is that military weapons are made specifically for killing lots of people in battle. That is their purpose and that is why they are so fast to fire, accurate and deadly. Saying this is a weapon civilians should have access to, is ridiculous.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:50 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
(1)
Message 74 of 236 (668699)
07-23-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 6:39 PM


Re: Gun control question
The AR-15 fires no faster than any handgun.
Bullshit. The sem-automatic AR-15 has a rate of fire of rds much more than a manual handgun.
Why is the AR-15 a "military semi-automatic" just because the military uses something that looks like it? Again, you've not pointed to any legitimately, uniquely dangerous aspect of the AR-15 except that it was used in this shooting. And sure, we could ban the AR-15. What's to stop Colt from simply releasing a gun called the "Not an AR-15" that is completely identical to the AR-15 in every way? What exactly are you trying to ban, here, beyond a brand name?
No, I am saying bring back the Federal Assault Weapons ban on semi-automatic weapons that expired in 2004. The AR-15 was designed specifically FOR the military before it was sold to Colt, who then modified it and sold it to the military as the M-16. The restrictions should be on the average joe blow purchasing a rapid fire i.e. semi-automatic weapons to massace 30 people in one wac (the shooter would have killed more if his magazine did not jam). Why we let this ban expire is beyond my understanding. Absolutely ridiculous.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:14 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 75 of 236 (668701)
07-23-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 6:41 PM


Re: Gun control question
Military weapons are made to be accurate, reliable, easy to carry, effective, and versatile. Can you explain why these are illegitimate design goals for a civilian weapon, as well?
I am talking specifically about the increased lethality to large number of people at one time. Specifically the rapidity of refire. There was a Federal Assault Weapons Ban, I am saying that this law needs to be revisited.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 6:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 79 of 236 (668706)
07-23-2012 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 7:03 PM


Re: Gun control question
You haven't explained why owning a single AR-15 means that one has an "arsenal", or why its accuracy makes it an unusually dangerous weapon. For that matter, the AR-15 is not unusually accurate, and it's not clear why a hunter doesn't have a legitimate purpose and use for an accurate rifle. Indeed, hunting is unacceptably dangerous with unreliable, inaccurate weapons. That's how people get hurt.
Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle that can shoot dozens of rds a minute to kill a deer. You don't. That is a bullshit excuse. Why. Because a. it is bad sportsmanship to be able to shoot up your game with thousands of bullets and b. have you every tried removing that many bullets from a carcus.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 236 (668708)
07-23-2012 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 7:03 PM


Re: Gun control question
ere does this end, though?
It ends. When some deranged person LEGALLY purchases an AR-15 and a 100-rds magazine and kills innocent 12 men, women and children. That is where it ends.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:16 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 92 of 236 (668719)
07-23-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 7:14 PM


Re: Gun control question
No, it doesn't. The AR-15 can sustain a fire rate of only 15 rounds per minute, and as a single-fire weapon its ROF is determined by how fast you pull the trigger. Because the AR-15's reciever bolt is more massive, any short-recoil semi-automatic pistol will be able to fire much faster than the rifle.
The world-record holder for fast shooting shoots revolvers only.
Ridiculous. Bump fire, the AR-15 can fire much faster than the average person can pump his finger. 15 rds per minute is the average accurately fire semi-automatic weapon. Accuracy is not needed in a movie theater with dozens of people. In addition, finger fatigue would slow him down. The world-record holder shoots revolvers only because firing an automatic or semi would not be competitive. There is very little skill involved in rapid firing these weapons compared to that of a manual handgun or rifle.
You haven't explained why a ban on having one kind of grip versus another, or one kind of stock versus another, saves even a single life. 12 people didn't die in Aurora because a nut was able to install a pistol-shaped grip on a rifle
I am not talking about a specific grip or mere cosmetic differences. I am talking about rate of fire.
The weapons ban you refer to never banned the AR-15 so how would it have prevented the tragedy in Aurora?
Your wrong. Actually it did but the gun manufactures circumvented the law.
Why Merely Renewing the Current Assault Weapons "Ban" Will Not Stop the Sale of Assault Weapons from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) writes:
This bill merely continues the badly flawed 1994 ban, which is a ban in name only," states Kristen Rand, VPC legislative director. "The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994. At the same time, the gun industry has aggressively marketed new assault-weapon types such as the Hi-Point Carbine used in the 1999 Columbine massacre that are frequently used in crime. Reenacting this eviscerated ban without improving it will do little to protect the lives of law enforcement officers and other innocent Americans. Now is the time for Americans to demand that Congress and the Bush Administration roll up their sleeves and enact a truly effective assault weapons ban."
The problem was the law was not strong enough as the VPC states above.
Because it was a useless ban. Because banning a rifle on the grounds that it looks like a gun the military uses is ludicrous.
I agree that the ban was ineffective as I said above. The gun is similar to the M-16 with minor procedural changes (bump fire) or minor modifications ( which can be circumvented to make it as fast if not faster than the fully automatic M-16 as the video yourself attached earlier showed. Even, the military rarely uses the M-16 in fully auto. In the Navy, we train with it in burst mode usually.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 8:01 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 95 of 236 (668722)
07-23-2012 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 7:20 PM


Re: Gun control question
An AR-15 can only shoot a dozen rounds in a minute if it can hold a dozen rounds. I propose a ban on magazines that can hold more than seven at a time.
Agreed. But again, why does the average citizen need a semi-automatic weapons that can fire much fast rate of fire for a longer amount of time than a manual weapon. What is the purpose?Again if you are going to limit magazine why not limited weapons that increase lethality to greater numbers of people. It is much harder to disarm someone with a semi-automatic weapon with a large magazine and higher rate of fire than one that with a manual handgun is it not?
The reason you need a semi-automatic weapon is that they're more accurate than bolt-action rifles.
Why are they more accurate? Because they are modeled off of military rifles, that is why.
Accuracy is a legitimate concern for a hunter. There's a legitimate need for the capacity of the AR-15 that has nothing to do with how many rounds it can fire in a minute, because an AR-15 fires only as many rounds as you choose to fire from it.
That is not a need. That is an unjustified want in my opinion. Public safety is higher than this desire for an 'accurate' weapon IMHO.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 8:12 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 96 of 236 (668723)
07-23-2012 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Briterican
07-23-2012 7:52 PM


Re: Gun control question
And the more I see your "anti-gun" side is really just a paroxysm of inchoate fear and rage. You don't know anything about what you're talking about, and you've simply chosen to assume that any time a person uses a gun to commit murder, that the government has failed.
No, some of us believe that reregulating areas of public safety outweigh someones want to have a cool military toy. Has nothing to do with fear (from someone who fires weapons on a regular basis in the military).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Briterican, posted 07-23-2012 7:52 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 8:15 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 100 of 236 (668727)
07-23-2012 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 7:47 PM


Re: Gun control question
Then that's a failure of imagination on their part. We don't justify freedom by popularity contest. Many people require and deserve freedoms that the majority of people do not intend to exercise. For instance, hardly anybody runs a newspaper. Is that a justification for overturning the freedom of the press?
Are you saying there are NO restrictions to freedom of press much less any other freedom (i.e. freedom of speach). Of course there are.
Can you publish anything you want without restriction? Of course not (i.e. slander, inciting violence and unlawful activity, etc). The question is balancing freedom with moral responsibility and the public good. It is a balancing act. All of our freedoms are restricted in one way or another. Why should the right to bear arms not also be restricted (in fact it is, you can't buy an RPG from your local gun shop).

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 7:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 8:14 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 107 of 236 (668734)
07-23-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Gun control question
Bump fire modifications to rifles are already illegal. Also you may be familiar with the practice of "fanning" a revolver, which is the world-record fastest fire rate of a singlefire weapon. Handguns are faster than rifles. That's just a matter of physics.
Granted. Do you think he could have put out over 100 rds within a few minutes and killed 12 and wounded over 70 people with a manual handgun alone? REALLY!?! Your off your rocker.
Yes, I know he had a hand gun, but it was the semi-automatic rifle that he did nearly all the damage with. If he only had a handgun or even a shotgun, it would be that much easier for him to be subdued.
And the AR-15 doesn't have a particularly high rate of fire, as I've demonstrated.
Slightly lower only compared to other automatic guns. High enough for him to wound and kill 71 people withing a couple of minutes.
Flawed legislation isn't going to solve the problem. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire precisely because it had no effect, precisely because banning a certain appearance of a gun does nothing to save any lives.
Agreed. It should be base on appearance but on lethality. Again military weapons are meant to kill lots of people. Why do we need to legalize that.
And you are wrong, the AR-15 was created and designed specifically by ArmaLite for sale to the Army. ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt who then marketed it to the Army as the M-16. The AR-15 IS the M-16 with some modifications to make it only a semi-automatic weapon rifle. There are a few internal differences between the two, to satisfy BATF requirements.
Login

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 8:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 8:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 114 by jar, posted 07-23-2012 8:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 109 of 236 (668736)
07-23-2012 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Briterican
07-23-2012 8:17 PM


Re: Gun control question
I would call for stronger gun laws and am not ashamed to say it.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Briterican, posted 07-23-2012 8:17 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Briterican, posted 07-23-2012 8:39 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 8:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024