The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting

[Deamonbane]

Frankly, I'd be quite down with the suggestions that THH makes at the end of his post - although as Glyph says, it would require legislation that seems to be difficult to get the legislators to even entertain. 

I would like to know how many mass killings have been committed with baseball bats and/or hand-held bladed weapons?  For sake of argument, defining 'mass killing' as a dozen or more victims in a single incident.

https://ijr.com/2015/12/487774-13-mass-killings-where-no-guns-were-involved/

Most of the above involve either bombs (Or fire accelerants like gasoline), poison, or multiple assailants.

[Lustful Bride]

https://ijr.com/2015/12/487774-13-mass-killings-where-no-guns-were-involved/

Most of the above involve either bombs (Or fire accelerants like gasoline), poison, or multiple assailants.

I think Vehicle attacks should also count as a Mass Killing. Anything that involves more than 5 people killed is a Mass Killing, i feel.

[Deamonbane]

I think Vehicle attacks should also count as a Mass Killing. Anything that involves more than 5 people killed is a Mass Killing, i feel.

There are a few of those, most recent was in New York, I believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

That list includes the use of car bombs as well.

[Oniya]

I would like to know how many mass killings have been committed with baseball bats and/or hand-held bladed weapons? 

THH specifically brought up that in the UK, there were more killings with baseball bats and stabbings.  Therefore, I'm not asking about bombs (car or otherwise), poison, or vehicle attacks.

[Deamonbane]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-stabbings-new-years-eve-killed-murder-number-2017-knife-attacks-met-police-enfield-tulse-hill-a8137836.html

This was as close as I could find to a source on the stabbings. Still looking for baseball bats. No mass murders so far as I can tell.

I do feel that we are straying a bit off topic here.

[marauder13]

There is a lot of mythology going on in this thread, from what I've seen. And I've seen comments from a full ban on the AR-15 (which is absurd) to statements of how if the government went full evil empire there is nothing anyone could do (equally absurd).

I'm not going to call anyone out, but I am going to set some facts straight.

snipped

4) The idea that other countries are doing something right and the United States is doing something wrong because "gun crime" is also a myth. It isn't a lack of crime these places have. It is a lack of population and different definitions of what constitutes crime. The U.K. for example, has far more deaths by baseball bat and stabbing.

snipped

I find this point to be completely wrong. It has nothing to do with different definitions of crime. Killing someone with a firearm is still murder. In the US, England, here is Australia. Guns make it EASIER to kill people, a fact that is commonly overlooked.

As for lack of population, that is also a poor argument, since all comparisons are on a per capita basis. Going on what you have been saying, since Australia has 1/10th the population of the US, we should have 1/10th the number of shooting incidents, or deaths. But we are not even that close. In the last 20 years, since our biggest mass murder event, which at the time was bigger than anything in the US if I recall correctly, we have had zero mass shootings. So how is what we have done impossible to do over there?

We got rid of weapons with the capability of killing large numbers of people. Australians skill have firearms for hunting, and sport. But the number of fire arm related deaths has declined significantly since measures were taken to remove dangerous firearms from civilian hands.


If the US wants to change, then the people need to bring that about. Make the community safer by removing some of the dangerous weapons, like the AR-15, the weapon that has been used all too frequently to kill multiple people, try and have a population that cares about those in the community with them, and not just themselves. But, as sad as it appears to be, the general population of the US appears to be accepting of murdered children, murder people, going about their lives. More security isn't going to change things, except turn the country into a police state, which is something a lot of 2nd Amendment people quote as a reason for unrestricted gun ownership.

Remember folks, a firearm is designed for one thing, and one thing only - to make it easier to kill something.

[Lustful Bride]

Felt like I needed to respond to THH in more detail. From one gun owner and lover to another.

Also Gonna spoiler it due to size.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

There is a lot of mythology going on in this thread, from what I've seen. And I've seen comments from a full ban on the AR-15 (which is absurd) to statements of how if the government went full evil empire there is nothing anyone could do (equally absurd).

I'm not going to call anyone out, but I am going to set some facts straight.

1) The United States has a serious mental health problem. We can blame whatever we want, but ultimately, at the core, people who should be institutionalized walk the streets in record numbers. Statistics do not lie. The majority of these people come from broken, low income homes.

I can agree with this. My mother suffers terrible bouts of depression and the only help she can get where we live is not adequate.

2) There are hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of out of work veterans and retired police officers who would love nothing more than to make 15.00 bucks an hour protecting children...be the kindergarteners or high school seniors. The fact we are not doing this is insulting.

I can agree with that and even suggested as such a plan before of cops nearing retirement to be assigned to schools with their yeas of experience to make the school safer and to also have a more comfortable job before departing. As well as a program for soldiers in need of work being given a similar task. Either one of them could easily outshoot and handle most attackers unless they come in with a damn strike team :P

3) Safe, Gun Free zones do not work with a significant population. If say, just 1 in 10 is a bad apple, then 10 in 100 is logical. Now raise that population to 274,812. Do some math. How many bad apples do you have?

mmm I am unsure of the effectiveness of Gun Free Zones, but if someone really wants to bring a gun in or shoot a place up, a sign will not stop them. It will only stop those who actually obey the law. :/  So I am inclined to agree.

4) The idea that other countries are doing something right and the United States is doing something wrong because "gun crime" is also a myth. It isn't a lack of crime these places have. It is a lack of population and different definitions of what constitutes crime. The U.K. for example, has far more deaths by baseball bat and stabbing.

Gun Crime is not a myth. Any thug who uses a gun is committing a Gun crime. And any killer gunning down civilians to get a body count is committing a gun crime.

I feel the others answered this much better than me, but does it really matter? We aren't trying to solve Mass Stabbings or vehicle attacks elsewhere. We are trying to solve Mass Shootings here at home.

5) Gun violence statistics in the United States are inflated by leftist sleight of hand. The defender shooting the attacker is added to that list, but the situation needs to be detailed. It isn't all or nothing. Context and circumstance matters.

Please don't alienate people by pulling the Leftist card. We are all Americans and we all love our country, we just have different ideas of how to help it out. But yeah the statistics are slightly unfair but not much. :/ I think Suicide and accidents and an attacker being dropped shouldn't be included unless its specifically marked.

6) Tragedies happen. Yes. They are terrible. But they've also been happening since the dawn of time. Why is one tragedy any worse than another?

That is very heartless. What if it was your mother,father, brother, sister, son, daughter who was shot up? If it were me I would be pissed, kicking holes in walls, screaming. I would wish nothing but an eternity in Hell being skullfucked by demons for the mass shooter.

But I would also want to see actions taken properly prevent it from happening and looking into all ways to do so. If we have the power to affect positive change and do nothing, doesn't that mean we have some blood on our own hands?

7) I know it's been said before, and it sounds like a broken record, but it is no less true and no amount of grandstanding will change it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. This is important because it is a lead in for what follows.

A gun is a tool. It has no mind of its own and is only made good or evil by its user and will kill the user if they do not give it the respect it deserves.

It is a tool, but it is a tool designed to kill. And it is the best tool for killing. Whether to harm or to defend. I love guns but I know that they are dangerous in the wrong hands and too many idiots play with them or let their kids touch them, and too many killers get their hands on them.

I love them enough that I know we have to do something.

As we can see, I have not said anything one way or another about anyone else or their statements. I have not said what I think is appropriate or not. I have only stated actual facts. Some of my points might be a little colored by personal opinion, but I would like to think most of us can find some common ground there regardless of our personal beliefs. It is important, because I am about to ruffle a few feathers, I think.

A) The term semi-automatic sounds dangerous because people use it when talking about the AR-15. They alao use it when trying to seperate fully automatic military weapons from civilian models. *Le Sigh* Here is some insight. Semi-automatic means, you pull the trigger, a bullet fires. With a few noteworthy exceptions...That IS EVERY GUN PRODUCED SINCE THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. I know, shouting is a bit rude, but sometimes you have to shout to get a point across. If a gun were more or less dangerous because it was semi-automatic, we'd still be in the dark ages as far as firearms are concerned. By throwing the term around, you're only revealing you know nothing about guns, and thus, need to do some research, and in my opinion, hands on research.

Meh, I can agree to this to an extent. Though not every gun is Semi Auto. There are still quite a few single actions and some that are single shot, and bolt actions. I am unsure if modern revolvers count as Semi Autos or not.

And when people refer to Semi Autos they usually refer to the type of gun that can be fired in rapid succession by pulling the trigger as fast as you can.

B) The AR-15 is not a machine gun! Suggesting, let alone saying it is, is factually incorrect. Machine guns are fully automatic. You press and hold the trigger, and a lot of bullets come out. Please get this information correct if you are hoping to get somebody who is pro-gun to take you seriously. It is one of the biggest hurdles anti-gun people have. They come to the table and open up all wrong.

I agree on this point. Proper terminology is important. Even those who despise guns with all their heart should learn them intimately. As my father always said, if you are going to hate someone or something, you need to learn it intimately, and understand it as much as you understand yourself. This goes both ways and for every topic and debate.

C) Here is some insight on the AR-15. It's what the media won't tell you. It is what people on both sides of the gun argument won't tell you. But I will, because I believe in the distribution of correct information. The AR-15 is a civilian variant of the M4, which is the M-16A2's kid sister. Yes. But the M4 was designed from the ground up to replace the AK-47 as the best rifle in the world. It's designed, on purpose, so anybody can pick it up and use it. It doesn't matter if you are tall, short, skinny, fat, strong, weak, left or right handed, out of shape, athletic, a good or bad shot. It has all of those bases covered. It can also cheaply and easily be modified to a specific shooter's tastes. Think about that. It is the perfect tool. It is "the best." I put put it in quotations because I personally prefer the AK-47, but that is just me. The gun has no recoil to speak of. It is highly accurate, easy to use and easy to modify. Knowing that, my question is this. Why would you want to deny someone access to best just because you don't like it? Would you deny a patient the best medicine? A painter the best paint? A farmer the best plow? A kid the best education? Of course not. You want people to have access to the best tools available. Yes, that includes AR-15s to gun owners. So long as guns are legal, so too shall remain the AR-15.

mmm I suppose. Though this was true of the old Soviet AK, those new modern Chinese AKs are crap, made with inferior parts and jam if you so much as shake it wrong. (I think I spend too long with dad at the gunshop, listening to everybody whine about AKs.)

But do gun owners really need AR 15s? I mean shit, if you cant drop an intruder with anything less than .556 you have a bigger problem. And really lets be honest I don't we will really have an evil American empire on our hands. The government isn't competent enough for that. At most our weapons would be better for fighting as Resistance fighters/Partisans if an outside force invaded and we were behind enemy lines.

D) The vast majority of gun crime is committed with a handgun. Let's also get that fact straight. I really get annoyed when people want to clump the AR-15 into the group most responsible. The AR-15 is not the big bad wolf.

This is true, but the AR is popular for mass shooters and that is where the problem is.

Taking a break, I'm switching gears. I know I've lost some of the audience already. And honestly, it's kind of sad. I am quite reasonable and do not mind intelligent discussions on this topic.

You can be reasonable at times but there is this poison and harshness to your words at times that makes debate difficult.

I am not for more gun legislation. I think it's stupid and a waste of time. We haven't seen anywhere that laws stop criminals from doing what they are going to do anyway. I also am against the thing in Australia about buying back guns and what have you. The reason for this, to be perfectly honest is as follows. "Who are you to tell me I can't have, and subsequently, should sell my gun?" It is not my fault you don't like them. Your personal tragedy has nothing to do with me either. Add to it, I'm not breaking any laws, or causing some sort of fuss that gives you any reason to force me into that position.

This really reminds me of this line for Repo Men.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPeqoWzZE5I

Laws give us society, order, and protection. We need them, especially gun laws. Do you want any gangbanger or mafia member, or rapist or killer getting a gun without a problem? Even if they get it from black market dealers we have to do what we can to make it difficult for them to get their hands on them.

What I am for is this.

Unless you have a specific occupation that could require it, such as a bodyguard, or the demolitions expert in a rock quarry, you don't need a machine gun. Ironically, to get one, it's already ridiculously difficult. So what more legislation can you really present that will keep them out of the hands of people already breaking the law? Tell me. I'll entertain it.

I am also for psyche evaluations in addition to the already required background check.

In places where they are not required already, I'm down with fingerprinting / DNA testing.

I'm down with drug testing too. I have to be able to pass a drug test to keep working. I have no problem having to pass drug tests to own and keep a gun.

I also think there should be mandatory training and safety courses. Proper education and all. When I was a kid, I had to pass a hunter's safety course and demonstrate proper knowledge and handling techniques.

And perhaps most importantly, I think... anti-gun, or even, concerned citizens should go get a gun, learn to use it, and become properly educated on the topic at hand so when this sort of debate comes up, it can be done intelligently and reasonably.

All of this sounds very reasonable to me.

I do not think that a shooting, regardless of where and when or how tragic, is ever a time to step up on a soal box and start a gun debate or belittle the people who say something like, "In my prayers." How bad of a person are you for trying to take a tragedy and turn it to your own agenda, or worse, faulting someone not even related to the situation or persons involved for trying to be nice, or at least sympathetic, and barring that, civil and empathetic?

I feel like it is you who are lacking in empathy with that statement. A tragedy is a time for mourning, coming together, healing, but also for action to try and prevent it from happening again. I'm so sick and tired of arguing to keep guns, I am tired of people mocking my country for these shootings and stereotyping us for our guns. But I am a thousand times more sick of seeing so many dead kids and seeing politicians not give a damn about it beyond campaign promises. I want change.

I agree that it is rude and callous to mock people who offer up thoughts and prayers, because sometimes it is all a person can really offer. But when it comes from those who are in power with their silver spoons in their mouths, it is sickening and angering. They have the power to make change but all they do is offer their condolences and then get back to yelling at one another without ever doing anything.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Kind of went on a rant there and this feels kind of awkward, but hopefully some of my insane ramblings made sense. I shouldn't let myself get dragged into debates here on E but as someone leaning slightly to the Right on a variety of topics or sitting on the fence on others, I feel it is important to make my position and thoughts known so that E is a place of rational talk and discussion instead of an Echo Chamber. It has and always should be a place where we can learn more about one another and empathize. So that we can better humanity, even if it is in a small way.

Sometimes tensions can be heated and people can lash out, but so long as we extend that olive branch over and over again, we can come to agreements or at least understand one another and see eachother as people and not just Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal, Good and Evil. People are more complex than that.

[Aiden]

I stopped reading at paying vets/ex cops 15 an hour to protect schools.

Might as well start wishing for ducks that shit gold.

Schools are underfunded as is, sure lets find room in a budget for ARMED personal to be on watch.

I'm sure Betsy can can create some coupons for some armed guards.

[Lustful Bride]

I stopped reading at paying vets/ex cops 15 an hour to protect schools.

Might as well start wishing for ducks that shit gold.

Schools are underfunded as is, sure lets find room in a budget for ARMED personal to be on watch.

I'm sure Betsy can can create some coupons for some armed guards.

Sad but true. :/  Schools, cops, Soldiers, firefighters, all need more money :/  God the Veterans hospitals seriously need a rework. The horror stories you hear about them are all so true and it breaks my heart thinking of all the veterans so cruelly abandoned to a broken system.

But you should at least read much of what he had to say. Even if you don't agree everyone has a right to speak.

[Leki]

Corrections officers having their children threatened by convicted murderers and rapists isn't funny. I don't see why it warranted that emoji.

And I am fairly sure it wasn't the weapons of the prison that were being used to track them, but their home, personal weapons.

I apologies if that's how you interpreted it.
But while I think it's silly to have to clarify this, I don't find people (children or otherwise) being threatened is funny.
But I do think the argument you're trying to make is. xD

For starters, as I mentioned earlier (and you conveninetly ignored in order to pursue the outrage hype you seem to be expressing in this thread in general)...
I'd like to think there's quite a large difference between a registry of legal gun owners, and a registry of prison officers.
It's like you're arguing against all registries since they might be used to track someone down.
Doctors, Teachers, and Army personnel have registries? Should they be abolished because relatives of deceased patients, vengeful students, and terrorists might get ahold of their details?

Honestly, the biggest problem with this issue is that people want the perfect answer. It needs to make everyone happy with no compromise, and no cost. I guess you guys will need to start investing in ducks shitting gold then xD

[Lustful Bride]

I apologies if that's how you interpreted it.
But while I think it's silly to have to clarify this, I don't find people (children or otherwise) being threatened is funny.
But I do think the argument you're trying to make is. xD

Ok.

For starters, as I mentioned earlier (and you conveninetly ignored in order to pursue the outrage hype you seem to be expressing in this thread in general)...
I'd like to think there's quite a large difference between a registry of legal gun owners, and a registry of prison officers.
It's like you're arguing against all registries since they might be used to track someone down.
Doctors, Teachers, and Army personnel have registries? Should they be abolished because relatives of deceased patients, vengeful students, and terrorists might get ahold of their details?

Outrage hype?

Im not sure how i actually feel about registries. If it were government/police only i guess id be fine. Id have to see howt he registry itself would work. But that only works for people who buy and legally get their guns. If they steal it or get it off the streets then it wont be as useful. Though i guess they can be of use to see who has what though just registering guns wont stop a person from picking them up one day and shooting a place up.

Its more of a stopgap to stopping other gun crimes i think.

If the government wants to find a person they are going to find them eventually. Not much they can do about it unless they go completely caveman.

Honestly, the biggest problem with this issue is that people want the perfect answer. It needs to make everyone happy with no compromise, and no cost. I guess you guys will need to start investing in ducks shitting gold then xD

I agree. There is no perfect answer, and everything we do is more just to decrease the suffering and better manage it. There will never be a magic cure. Life doesn't work that way. But through compromise and work we can make it better.

[HannibalBarca]

I've been trying to stay out of this thread for some time, and it just hasn't worked.  I have a vested interest in the subject, because I'm a teacher at an elementary school.  I live in the same poor community I teach in, which has allowed me to get to know a lot of the people here. 

We've had lockdowns before, where we've kept the kids in the rooms for over an hour, before we had the all clear from law enforcement.  Imagine having a room full of 30 eight and nine year olds, hiding under their desks, terrified, some crying, looking to you for guidance and support.  Both times I've had this happen it turned out that no one had tried to get into the school--there was someone spotted with a weapon near the school, but since no information is sent around during one of these lockdowns, we're left to wonder in our classrooms.  I've done what I can to give the kids peace of mind, but most of them, even at their age, have heard of school shootings.  They know what might happen.  This is something no child should have to fear for.

I grew up in the military.  My father taught me about guns.  I own a gun, though nothing as absurd as an assault rifle.  I don't plan on stopping a full-on gang trying to take over my home.  I also don't plan on fighting as a partisan in some Red Dawn-inspired fever fantasy of a guerilla war, or resisting the U.S. Armed Forces in some second Civil War.  There is crime in this town, more than most towns of ten thousand citizens, but nothing I wouldn't feel more safe about with an assault rifle.  I have a semi-automatic pistol, which is more than enough in the close quarters of a house.  I've never come close to having to use it.  I'd also never want to bring it to work, even if it was legal here to carry a concealed weapon at a school.  I'd more likely end up mistakenly shot by law enforcement as the shooter, than be the one to take the shooter down.

But I have had first aid training, including dealing with gunshot wounds.  I know what those wounds look like, and what they do to a human body, including the body of a child.  I've had a gun drawn on me, in my 20s, and I know what it feels like to think you're going to die.  What's worse than that, though, is I've had students who know what it is like to see a shooting, too...whether in their neighborhood, or in their own home.

I've often heard the saying, 'walk a mile in another man's shoes.'  It comes from a Native American saying, 'walk in another man's moccasins', and it is a direct appeal to feel a sense of empathy for another person.  I'd like every politician to spend time as a teacher, or a nurse, or a police officer, or any number of other fields where you have to deal with some of the darker aspects of humanity.  Not just a day, but a week, or more, to really, really get a sense of what it is like to experience life in a field where you see how horrible humanity can be.  In my field, it's writing child abuse reports for kids who I've found with adult-sized bite marks on their bodies, or healing lacerations from being whipped with something like a wire hangar or power cord...or worse things.  A relative who is a nurse in an emergency room in a big city has far more horror stories than I have to tell, as does my younger brother, who is a correctional officer.  The point is, politicians often don't have a clue how their laws and regulations--or the lack thereof--affect other people in the nation.  I'd like every single member of Congress to have to spend a week with one of the grieving families in Florida.  I'd like them to experience--over a course of days, hours, even minute by minute--the agony and pain of people who have lost children.  I want them to understand how their lack of action, or their choice of money or political expediency, has affecting living, breathing people.

The horrible thing is...I don't worry as much for myself, as I do my son. For all the crime and poverty in my community, I feel safer here than my son is where he lives, forty-five minutes away.  My community is evenly mixed as far as ethnicity, but he lives in a middle-class community where it's 90% white, and very conservative.  He happens to be trans and gay, and is open about it.  I worry more about a gun-toting white guy shooting up the high school where he lives, than someone shooting up a school here in my poor town.  The typical shooter is a white male, and there are a lot more of them where he lives than where I live.  Racial profiling?  How about sexual preference profiling?  He's been harassed and even had things thrown at him openly at his school, with little repercussions for those who did it.  Is it any wonder, in a mountain community with a lot of conservatives and a lot of guns, that I worry my ass off about him there?

There's been a school shooting every other day in 2018 in the United States.  There will be more, and more kids will die.  If it was your child in school, would you be lackadaisical about politicians doing something about the problem?  I know it's more than just gun laws.  It's our fucked-up culture in this country, too.  It's people who embrace fear far more than understanding.  It's people with mental illnesses and lack of support, but easy access to guns.  It's a lot of things.  The thing is, you shouldn't need to have a child to worry about them, if you are a decent human being.  But if you don't have a child, or a young relative, you may not feel the intense, gnawing worry, day after day, with what is happening.  And you may not have the sense of immediacy about doing something.  Now.

I usually spend a lot more time going over a post, intellectually speaking, at least.  But this one had a fair amount of emotion mixed in with it.  That's saying a lot, coming from me, if you know me.  I didn't even get to any possible solutions.  I just needed to get this stuff off my chest, after reading so much of other peoples' opinions.

[AmberStarfire]

I thought I'd just share this article here, as it's somewhat related.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/i-could-have-easily-sold-this-rifle-but-no-person-needs-this/news-story/b1eec24d94af4db3b82d4d52c8c4394e

[Retribution]

Have been trying to avoid this topic on all fronts because well it gives me a headache. That seems to not be possible. Lets just say I am an avid firearms owner and proud of it. But I can make it short and sweet as to what makes me cringe.

In the last week I have lost count of how many "news" articles and "opinion" pieces I have read that use the terms "assault weapon" and "semi automatic" interchangeably. Even if one believes the term "assault weapon" it is not an interchangeable term with "semi automatic." Please look it up I will spare you the details of giving you the description myself.

So in closing, if anyone wishes to restrict my rights [please note I did not say I oppose that cross the board] please know the difference in those terms and do not use them interchangeably. If one knows the difference between those terms I am willing to have this discussion. Unfortunately, I see a lot of talking heads and politicians who do not know the difference. So yeah, am not going to let them do anything that affects my way of life if I can help it because they are ignorant. Not dumb, ignorant.

Have a nice rest of your day all and feel free to refer to me as a knuckle dragging neanderthal that wants to kill children because that is usually how these things go. Thus why I do not even bother to participate in the discussion anymore.

[Blythe]

Have a nice rest of your day all and feel free to refer to me as a knuckle dragging neanderthal that wants to kill children because that is usually how these things go. Thus why I do not even bother to participate in the discussion anymore.

No one's going to call you that, but coming into a thread this defensive & assuming people will attack you....generally starts discussion on a kind of bad note, Retribution.

If you want to talk shop about guns & the differences in terms, definitely do so. It's a worthwhile thing to bring up. Just try to do it without making the worst possible assumption about the behavior of others in-thread.

[Retribution]

Point taken Blythe and bad form on my part. I have been attacked a lot recently, it makes one defensive as I am sure many can appreciate. I did take away from my point though.

As I have stated before I am open to more gun control. But well a semi auto is according to dictionary "of a firearm : able to fire repeatedly through an automatic reloading process but requiring release and another pressure of the trigger for each successive shot" I do not necessarily agree with the common use of the term assault weapon, but lets just say a black rifle in the AR15 configuration is an assault weapon. An AR15 happens to be semi automatic in action.

So when one uses assault weapon and semi automatic interchangeably and I have spent the last 40 years using various types of semi automatic firearms that are not AR15s for sporting purposes and these firearms are an integral part of my life I am not real keen on the lack of distinction. Then when someone wants to legislate using said terms interchangeably I respond they need to be a bit more clear. At that point I am often referred to [not here] but often in the bad form way I started my last post.

See the problem there? If we want to have some real discussion we need to get past those labels. I feel like I have legitimate concerns when it comes to such legislation. Calling me names like a lot have done recently in other places is not going to make me real receptive to the concerns of those who want more gun control. In fact my response is "okay we are done here."

At anyrate sorry for my initial tone.

[Aiden]

My main question to gun enthusiasts is.

Why do you need these guns?

And do you recognize the potential threat these create?

[Blythe]

Point taken Blythe and bad form on my part. I have been attacked a lot recently, it makes one defensive as I am sure many can appreciate. I did take away from my point though.

At anyrate sorry for my initial tone.

Thank you, much appreciated. :)

So when one uses assault weapon and semi automatic interchangeably and I have spent the last 40 years using various types of semi automatic firearms that are not AR15s for sporting purposes and these firearms are an integral part of my life I am not real keen on the lack of distinction. Then when someone wants to legislate using said terms interchangeably I respond they need to be a bit more clear. At that point I am often referred to [not here] but often in the bad form way I started my last post.

See the problem there? If we want to have some real discussion we need to get past those labels.

I do think you have a good point about terminology & its usage, especially when it comes to legislation. Proper legislation requires clarity of language and well-defined intent, after all. And it does generally make it more difficult to have a more meaningful dialogue when people are not using terms in the same way.

[Oniya]

Here's a question for the people that know firearms:

It's been pointed out that both the rifle in this incident and some of the rifles in the Vegas shooting were modified to allow for faster fire.  I've read a little bit on these 'bump stocks', and I was wondering if this is something that a recreational (i.e., hunter or target) shooter would find useful, critical, or ill-advised for their particular gun-usage.  (The articles I read detailed a few problems, like jamming, 'slam-firing', and sometimes having insufficient recoil momentum to get the firing pin to trigger the primer.)

[AmberStarfire]

My main question to gun enthusiasts is.

Why do you need these guns?

And do you recognize the potential threat these create?

The truth is these are the same questions I find myself wondering. I either typically avoid discussing this subject or look for more diplomatic ways to ask questions about it, but that is what it comes down to. Some of these weapons - not all, but some - are weapons of war, and I still don't understand why these should be in the hands of non-police/military personnel.

Ret, I can understand your frustration, and I wasn't having a go at you or anything (just posting a semi-relevant article I found). I know very little about guns because I grew up in a place where we just didn't have them, but among some people in the US, they're a frequent part of the lives and culture of many people. So while I see things one way, I can also see merit in the views of others. I just don't think much is going to change unless people actively make it happen (by choice).

[Lustful Bride]

Here's a question for the people that know firearms:

It's been pointed out that both the rifle in this incident and some of the rifles in the Vegas shooting were modified to allow for faster fire.  I've read a little bit on these 'bump stocks', and I was wondering if this is something that a recreational (i.e., hunter or target) shooter would find useful, critical, or ill-advised for their particular gun-usage.  (The articles I read detailed a few problems, like jamming, 'slam-firing', and sometimes having insufficient recoil momentum to get the firing pin to trigger the primer.)

I don't know that much about bump stocks myself. I prefer older style weapons due to them being more reliable (the more parts the more hassle maintenance and cleaning is, as well as more likely something will go wrong). But Bump firing is a way to sort of trick the gun into firing much faster. It can be done without the bump stock as well, its just more difficult.

Perfect visual example. (Benicio del toro, sicario)

Accuracy will go absolutely down unless the person has a strong enough hand and arm, but anyone doing this trick probably doesn't care at all about any real accuracy, just spitting bullets. Any real shooter knows that is just a way to risk accidentally shooting yourself or causing a jam. Its like how real shooters don't tip their guns to the side, that is just a trick criminal use to slip the gun out faster when doing a drive by when the window is rolling down.

Theres no sport in anyone using a rapid fire AR 15 or the like to hunt deer. If they need that many rounds then they are a terrible hunter, unless its like bears or other very dangerous animals. But then, they wouldn't be going alone. I think I am overthinking it now.

[Quick Ben]

The truth is these are the same questions I find myself wondering. I either typically avoid discussing this subject or look for more diplomatic ways to ask questions about it, but that is what it comes down to. Some of these weapons - not all, but some - are weapons of war, and I still don't understand why these should be in the hands of non-police/military personnel.

Ret, I can understand your frustration, and I wasn't having a go at you or anything (just posting a semi-relevant article I found). I know very little about guns because I grew up in a place where we just didn't have them, but among some people in the US, they're a frequent part of the lives and culture of many people. So while I see things one way, I can also see merit in the views of others. I just don't think much is going to change unless people actively make it happen (by choice).

Ardent supporter and defender of the second amendment here. Generally I don't comment in threads of a political nature too often, but I feel like I can and should try to make the pro-gun perspective clearer. At the very least, I can speak for my personal side of the table seeing as I can't speak for the various individual perspectives on the 2A-advocate group.

I've always felt that the spirit of the second amendment is meant to serve as a protection from potential tyranny at the hands of the ruling government. A well-armed citizenry is more difficult to control than one that is not. I, for one, would not be comfortable if the military or police were the only ones to have access to guns. And, I still would not be comfortable if the military or police were the only ones to have access to other such weapons like an M-16. My reasoning is simple, this is too much power in the hands of a government. Too much power, to much potential for abuse.

[Retribution]

You got what I was talking about Blythe  ;)

As for need in the other posters need can be described in many ways, but I will answer you from my personal perspective:

Bump stocks hell I do not care about them. I had never heard of them before Vegas and I am pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Ban them, I do not care is the short version.

Semi auto: aside from just plain working better in many sporting situations I have personal reasons for preferring them at this point in my life. For years I liked other actions better due to reliability as Lustful pointed out. In fact there are harsh environmental conditions in which I still turn to them. But in my case I am an older fellow while not old  :-) I had a long combat sport career, I got a lot of broken body parts that are catching up to me as I age.

As a result of all of the above I simply cannot handle recoil as I once did. My physical skills and stamina are just plain deteriorating with age. A quirk of a semi automatic is that it reduces what is referred to as "felt recoil." In a nut shell one cannot create or destroy energy, but by using gas at firing in a gas operated semi auto or using recoil energy reduces the recoil one feels behind the stock. In the case of someone like me with bad shoulders and neck that is a huge plus during a long day in the field. Couple that with the fact that semi autos are much more reliable than they once were and it was a no brainer for me to swich to one about 25 years ago. In fact two years ago I switched to a gas semi auto as opposed to a recoil operated one because it further reduced the felt recoil.

Or case in point last year I was on a trap range with an older woman. She was shooting a breech loader and it was turning her shoulder purple. I handed her my semi and used her breech loader the rest of the round in order to save her shoulder. Now this is in a setting where one can only shoot one shot at a time. It was all about the felt recoil. Also their are hunting situations where a faster [I am talking like a second faster] follow up shot is a good thing.

As for no sport as Lustful described she is correct in the hunting sense. But there is a sport called three gun competition. Feel free to look it up on youtube. Anyway, the gist is put as many rounds on target as one can in the shortest period of time. Obviously semi autos shine in this regard again measuring said time in seconds.

So I feel those are legitimate "needs" depending on how one defines need. Having said that, someone skilled with firearms can put a lot of rounds on target in a short time no matter the action. Another way a semi auto can help as I think on it is one of the main reasons for missing is a flinch. Anticipating the gun going off and jerking for recoil before recoil causes a miss. A semi auto reducing felt recoil often times helps diminish flinch. When one shoots correctly the trigger breaks with no movement on the shooters part. Thus they stay on target.

As far as nuts and bolts accuracy goes other actions are more accurate. But once again we are talking small amounts [less than an inch] that do not make much difference to the casual shooter. Or in the case of tragedies a human torso is a large target.

I think in the mass shootings we now have a copy cat problem as several shooters have described researching other shootings. As for carrying it out? I will not tell the next one how to do it better, but the information is out there. If I wanted to pile up bodies [believe me I do not] I would not select an AR15 and I think most with any knowledge would agree.

Hope that answers the questions.

[Oniya]

I'd rather think that bump stocks would be the equivalent of 'performance enhancers' in a competition like that.  XD

Semi-auto, I can understand.  One trigger-pull, one fire, gun's ready to go for the next shot.  I can see the usefulness of this in both target and hunting scenarios.  Something that increases the speed to (from what I can gather) closer to full-auto at a significant decrease in accuracy doesn't seem to have usefulness other than someone doing a 'spray and pray' tactic (not good for hunting or target.)

I do believe that there are responsible gun owners out there.  I think all sides would benefit from making sure that more gun owners are responsible.  The people that do these things have a tool that they can get without much effort, and without demonstrating that they are responsible for it (Spoiler alert - they aren't), or that they see it as anything more than a boost to their egos.

[Retribution]

Oniya you and I have discussed what I think would be worth wild legislation I will not rehash it for the sake of space since this thread is thick already. Suffice to say there are indeed regulations and laws I could live with an I think would be helpful. But a mistake in said laws such as a legislater using the term "semi automatic" instead of "assault weapon" makes me cringe and is a reoccurring nightmare. I would also like to note I feel like "assault weapon" is a term made up or used largely for media hype. If one looks up the dictionary term for it [I did] it says the action type is automatic. As in hold the trigger and it goes on rock and roll. Big difference, hell the point of a bump stock is to make a semi auto behave as a full auto.

As for Aiden I missed one of your questions sorry for that. I have more respect for and better understand the potential danger of firearms than most people talking on this thread.  I have spent a lifetime with firearms. I have a better understanding of what they are capable of than most casual observers could ever comprehend. Also I loath the term "professional" because my lifestyle does not pay any bills for me but instead makes said life style possible while working a day job. But clients arriving in camp often describe me as a professional hunter even though it makes me cringe. Spend a day making sure those muzzles are all pointed in the right direction and not shooting me or anyone else in the face and one has an appreciation of the threat.