• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

terrorist attack in Orlando gay club - 50 dead, another 53 wounded

Page 32 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Subyman said:
I think you get into strange debates about which guns need a ban and which don't. Fully automatic guns are an easy ban, but the AR15 is just a highly modifiable long rifle. Nothing special about it other than the market support for the design. Ban it and then you'd have to ban the AK and whatever else the manufacturers come up with to vary the design slightly to get around new regulations.

It turns into the semantics of banning synthetic drugs via formulation.
Click to expand...


Very true and a difficult task at a minimum, but I believe it's a task that's rather pointless or would be rather ineffective. I say this because, from the last stats I remember seeing, approx. 70% of mass shootings used semi-auto handguns, not long guns. I've never understood the fascination with long guns when handguns are the real problem.
 
SlowSpyder said:
A freedom was used with evil intent. Why is the answer to get rid of the freedom or greatly restrict it? Especially when it is one of the 10 pillars the country was founded on? (though there is that silly third amendment, not as pillar-y these days...)
Click to expand...

One of the pillars was also slavery... and that was in the body of the main doc, not in an amendment.

Not everything foundational is sound.
 
Meghan54 said:
Very true and a difficult task at a minimum, but I believe it's a task that's rather pointless or would be rather ineffective. I say this because, from the last stats I remember seeing, approx. 70% of mass shootings used semi-auto handguns, not long guns. I've never understood the fascination with long guns when handguns are the real problem.
Click to expand...

Basically the way it was with the last AWB. It banned a select list of scary looking guns and accessories. It was considered ineffective by almost every metric.

It's disappointing to see both sides of the political system descend into their usual rhetoric on this subject instead of coming together to write actual policy that might save some people's lives.
 
Meghan54 said:
Literally two examples.Literally there are more examples. Google is quite easy to use for this search. And there's another small town in GA that has/had a mandatory gun ownership law. Can you name it?
Click to expand...

Not to agree (or disagree) with any points to be made from that conversation, it reminds me of Switzerland which mandates gun ownership in a safe and responsible way.

Something to consider is if we followed the SuperLeft progressive demands to remove all public guns, what you ALSO remove is the ability to remove a bad government from power (isn't that in the constitution? I'm not American so a little rusty on that. I seem to recall it's in the Canadian constitution... or was 30 years ago.) Removing all public guns would also follow the islamic doctrine of removing their underlings' weapons, thus ability to revolt. Might not want to give people full power to control you.

If the rebuttal is; well, won't it also remove guns from bad guys? The answer is, mostly no. A few small-timers may no longer have access to guns, but anyone with real interest in crime will still be able to get illegal guns just like they do right now. Taking guns away from "everyone" doesn't take them from everyone, only law-abiders (who aren't usually the problem in the first place.)
 
Meghan54 said:
Literally two examples.Literally there are more examples. Google is quite easy to use for this search. And there's another small town in GA that has/had a mandatory gun ownership law. Can you name it?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with those laws but they don't literally contradict what I said.
 
K1052 said:
Basically the way it was with the last AWB. It banned a select list of scary looking guns and accessories. It was considered ineffective by almost every metric.

It's disappointing to see both sides of the political system descend into their usual rhetoric on this subject instead of coming together to write actual policy that might save some people's lives.
Click to expand...

thank you. If we could finally realize there is an underlying issue with all these mass shootings it would be helpful. Sadly, the absolutely only common thread in all of them is a gun, whether a handgun, long gun, auto, semi-auto, short of a flintlock pistol, nearly every type of gun has been used to commit these acts of cowardice.
I kinda gave up after Sandy Hook, if we couldn't pull together as a country after the slaughter of children, sadly, there really isn't much hope for any other tragedy to spark a meaningful, and productive debate.
 
buckshot24 said:
If the ban is completely useless in stopping shootings then it is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

All or nothing eh? That's certainly logical and I'm sure you apply similar thinking to all issues.

Subyman said:
I think you get into strange debates about which guns need a ban and which don't. Fully automatic guns are an easy ban, but the AR15 is just a highly modifiable long rifle. Nothing special about it other than the market support for the design. Ban it and then you'd have to ban the AK and whatever else the manufacturers come up with to vary the design slightly to get around new regulations.

It turns into the semantics of banning synthetic drugs via formulation.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would require effort and other bans.

Artdeco said:
I several bolt action rifles that could literally tear a human being in 1/2 with 2 or 3 shots, and a semi auto pistol with magazines, (and there are several hundred versions in current production) is just as deadly as an AR15 at close range.

To have a significant effect on the mass shootings, all semi automatic weapons need to be confiscated, then all speed loaders for revolvers, then all cartrtridge based weapons.

I don't know the answer, to be honest, but as I said looks like there'll be some feel good legislation making the AR15 and variants/similar types of weapons outright banned, or made so complicated to be compliant, the manufacturers will just give up...
Click to expand...

I am currently sitting in a room with several handguns, shotguns, bolt action rifles, and even, yes, semi automatic rifles. I am not anti-gun. I am pro-reasonable concessions.

I am not sure there is a single "good" answer. In fact, I'd argue there isn't one. But reasonable restrictions on the second amendment is a good start.
 
Meghan54 said:
Very true and a difficult task at a minimum, but I believe it's a task that's rather pointless or would be rather ineffective. I say this because, from the last stats I remember seeing, approx. 70% of mass shootings used semi-auto handguns, not long guns. I've never understood the fascination with long guns when handguns are the real problem.
Click to expand...
Because they aren't interested in actually solving a problem. They know they couldn't get the support for the hand guns.
 
buckshot24 said:
Security can pretty much guarantee 100% compliance at the convention so nobody can just walk in and start shooting. There is no way to do this at schools, realistically.
Click to expand...
Mrz. Runz is a substitute teacher here in the district for grades 1, through 12.
There are metal detectors at the entrance, and a full time cop at each school. YMMV, impossible on a large college campus.
 
K1052 said:
Basically the way it was with the last AWB. It banned a select list of scary looking guns and accessories. It was considered ineffective by almost every metric.

It's disappointing to see both sides of the political system descend into their usual rhetoric on this subject instead of coming together to write actual policy that might save some people's lives.
Click to expand...

Well that's what you're going to get when the government is literally banned from actually studying and researching the issue. If you want actual policy that might save lives there's the clear first step.
 
Blue_Max said:
Not to agree (or disagree) with any points to be made from that conversation, it reminds me of Switzerland which mandates gun ownership in a safe and responsible way.

Something to consider is if we followed the SuperLeft progressive demands to remove all public guns, what you ALSO remove is the ability to remove a bad government from power (isn't that in the constitution?
Click to expand...


Right....... cuz a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles could take on stealth bombers, main battle tanks, satellite guided missiles and apache attack choppers.......
 
bshole said:
Right....... cuz a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles could take on stealth bombers, main battle tanks, satellite guided missiles and apache attack choppers.......
Click to expand...

What makes you think all those weapons would be on your side during a revolution? If anything they would be more likely used to ensure your subjugation as unarmed you're the easiest target. As shown in other threads the progressive left is the most likely faction to use violence and intimidation to achieve their political ends, see the Milo speech protest or BLM for example.
 
bshole said:
Right....... cuz a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles could take on stealth bombers, main battle tanks, satellite guided missiles and apache attack choppers.......
Click to expand...

Well, a relatively small number of terrorists seem to thwart our military overseas. A few million armed Americans would probably put up a good fight. 😱
 
glenn1 said:
What makes you think all those weapons would be on your side during a revolution? If anything they would be more likely used to ensure your subjugation as unarmed you're the easiest target. As shown in other threads the progressive left is the most likely faction to use violence and intimidation to achieve their political ends, see the Milo speech protest or BLM for example.
Click to expand...

Both extremes resort to violence. You go all the way right and you get the mass murderer this thread is about (homophobia, religious indoctrination, etc.) You go all the way left and you get eco terrorists.

I think both extremes are just as likely to use weaponary and violence. Don't forget the abortion clinic murders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top