Calamari41
41 > 38
"Pray and spray" guns are illegal/nearly impossible to get, and have been responsible for almost zero deaths over the course of the past several generations.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fox News Gretchen Carlson 'taking a stand' to support ban on assault weapons.
- Thread starter theecakee
- Start date
- Status
"Pray and spray" guns are illegal/nearly impossible to get, and have been responsible for almost zero deaths over the course of the past several generations.
Ryan242004
Member
I'm sorry but this post makes no sense.
If you shoot an animal with an underpowered round it won't kill it instantly, and it will run off and suffer which is exactly what you don't want to happen.
Only a moron goes real hunting with a AR styled gun. If you show up to go deer hunting with an AR then you will be laughed at and left behind. The power of the round you need is based on what your target is. It doesn't matter what kind of gun the ammo is coming out of. .223 is the lowest caliber you can use to do real hunting which is what the gun was probably shooting. if it's varmit hunting then they are used more often but only because they travel in packs and you want to clear out as many as you can at a time so they don't become a nuisance.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Most people use "assault rifle," "automatic rifle," "machine gun," and loads of similar terms to mean the same thing. If you know they mean "guns that shoot large clips of big bullets really quickly with minimal pulls of the trigger."
Someone not being an expert on terminology shouldn't disqualify them from a conversation about safety.
Are you serious with this? Who gives a shit what the handful of gun owners you know do? The potential for accidental shootings by toddlers and kids who find their parents' gun would likely decrease if those idiot parents had a place to put their weapons that required a key or combination lock to be opened.
Calamari41
41 > 38
So "most people" calling for an "assault rifle" ban are calling for a ban on automatic rifles/machine guns, which are already effectively banned? What is there to discuss, then?
Not illegal, just very expensive and require extensive licensing and background checks. Minimum of $10k outlay for one.
Now if you don't have the papers to own one then that's a serious federal crime.
Link
The Autumn Wind
CrunchyFrog
Member
What a fucking surprise. About damn time. But I see this also as a symptom of Fox news no longer beholden to the Alt right audience they've lost who will almost certainly lash out.
No, they are calling for a ban on semi-auto rifles with the capacity for large magazines that fire high velocity rounds.
AR-15s with 30 round magazines, for example.
Gun rights advocates would be doing themselves favors to stop mixing up all these assault weapon terms. It's frustrating to see everyone conflating the terms so much they either lose meaning or cause people to focus on dead end legislation.
On one hand I want to see more gun control, but it seems like we can't go 2 minutes before something crazy gets said about guns. I do thing the lack of government research is partly to blame for the quagmire gun control has become.
Also the fact that there is only outrage after mass shootings highlights how far we have to go on this issue. Again though, the lack of national statistics about gun deaths probably contributes to why gun control only gets discussed around these events or around assault weapons (which is a shame)
On one hand I want to see more gun control, but it seems like we can't go 2 minutes before something crazy gets said about guns. I do thing the lack of government research is partly to blame for the quagmire gun control has become.
Also the fact that there is only outrage after mass shootings highlights how far we have to go on this issue. Again though, the lack of national statistics about gun deaths probably contributes to why gun control only gets discussed around these events or around assault weapons (which is a shame)
Calamari41
41 > 38
I was responding to someone who informed me that this is clearly not the case, though, and was hoping for an answer from them.
This is just proving my point that the term is uselessly ill-defined and misunderstood. People need to be specific when talking about this topic or else everyone will be talking about something completely different without realizing it.
Agreed completely, which is all I was trying to get across.
I understand what you were doing. I'm hoping he sees my reply as well.
It would be helpful if we all try to get on the same page here so we can have a reasonable discussion.
A lot of people engage in this debate and don't understand concepts like muzzle velocity, caliber, and even types of action(or even what an action is).
CrunchyFrog
Member
Allow me to point out again that we still have laws that make it illegal for the government to conduct scientific research on this subject.
http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7
In the subject of terminology, would it be preferable then to simply call for a civilian ban on all weapons capable of holding a magazine with x number of rounds or greater? Or at the very least restrict their usage/ownership to firing ranges/explicitly licensed hunting lodges?
A ridiculous anecdote gets its appropriate ridiculous counter-anecdote.
I could have argued that coyotes are more afraid of even 5 year old human beings than the other way around, but that would elevate the intelligence of the conversation quite dramatically.
That article goes on to talk about 160 coyote attacks in the last 30 years and how they're losing their fear of humans. It also mentions several nonfatal attacks, including one child who was attacked on his front porch and a 13 month old that a coyote tried to drag away.
I'm kinda in favor of letting those people keep guns thanks to your source.
Thing is, any firearm with a removable magazine can hold a magazine of any size.
Shit, they make pistols with 100-round magazines - although that's a unique technical achievement.
Link
The Autumn Wind
So ~5 attacks per year justifies things for you?
Netherscourge
Banned
Thank goodness.
If we can't get an all-out ban, at least ban the fucking military assault rifles.
No civilian needs a gun that can kill 49 people in 15 minutes.
All automatic guns should be banned, IMO.
The only guns that should be legal are the 1 bullet-per-trigger-pull kind.
Not these, "Hold the trigger down until the clip is empty" guns.
If we can't get an all-out ban, at least ban the fucking military assault rifles.
No civilian needs a gun that can kill 49 people in 15 minutes.
All automatic guns should be banned, IMO.
The only guns that should be legal are the 1 bullet-per-trigger-pull kind.
Not these, "Hold the trigger down until the clip is empty" guns.
Calamari41
41 > 38
Another example
Number of problems with "banning all weapons capable of holding a magazine with x number of rounds or greater" is because any magazine fed weapon can utilize a magazine of any size. Even a standard hunting rifle can come with magazines, as can some shotgun variations.
My Glock 19 has a standard 15 round magazine, but I have extended 32 round magazines that I use on the range when I'm not working on magazine changes. In CA, NJ, NY, and other states, it would come with a 10 round magazine due to laws.
You'd basically be banning all modern firearms, which isn't going to happen.
Which would be every since weapon the average person in the US can buy, including the AR-15. Buying full auto weapons is insanely expensive and heavily, HEAVILY governed by the Federal government. And if you have one illegally, well you're a criminal anyway and law changes don't much matter to you.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
The gun used was not an automatic. You can absolutely kill 49 people in 15 minutes with a 1 bullet-per-trigger-pull weapon. These weapons are called semi-automatic.
Automatic weapons require jumping through hoops to obtain, requiring special licenses. For all intents and purposes, they are illegal to the vast majority of the population.
Iorv3th
Member
Well I know they used to have a ban on magazine size. It was like 10 rounds max in a magazine.
Alex_Mexico
Member
If there's any lack of government research its because the GOP and the gun lobby successfully passes a law that prohibits any gun violence research from even being attempted. Thats how much power the NRA has in America. It's pathetic.
What this guy said.
The Lamonster
Member
I guess the only Republicans that still want legal access to assault rifles are the ones taking money from the NRA. They'd better start writing some checks to Fox News anchors soon.
AstroNut325
Member
How about taking a stand against hand guns? Those kill more people than any other type of gun.
Abstrusity
Member
1 pull of the trigger = 1 bullet. This isn't hard to understand. None of it is hard to understand, which is why people get kinda mad and stop listening to "gun-grabbers" when they talk as if they know what they're talking about, mixed with the contempt of the moral high ground.
So people use "assault weapon, assault gun, assault rifle, machine gun" to talk about semi-automatic weapons, because they look like automatic counterparts.
If it were a simple mistake like confusing "clip" and "magazine," then that's one thing. But calling a semi-automatic rifle a word meant to convey "full automatic," then you are either doing it on purpose(misconstruing your point so people are on your side), or you don't know what you're talking about.
It makes it prohibitively hard to actually discuss when the definitions of terms are different on both sides.
If you just ban a certain class of weapon, say full automatic rifles of a certain caliber, then you don't have to address underlying regulatory concerns like licensing standards.
That way you can appear to be doing something while avoiding the real underlying issues.
Seems like a win-win-(minor loss) for hardliners.
That way you can appear to be doing something while avoiding the real underlying issues.
Seems like a win-win-(minor loss) for hardliners.
So what? It's the kind of talk that should be encouraged.
Yes, we should encourage something that that has already proven to be ineffective based on emotion, anger, ignorance, and misinformation rather than actual facts and statistics. Great idea!
It's pointless because the vast majority of people aren't going to carry long guns around with them everywhere they go, even if that was totally legal and they got the gun for free.
Frustrating thing is even people that want gun control, can't even agree on what to control. Even people that agree that the second ammedmant isn't gospel still are divided!
There are so many possiblilities ranging from complete bans, to selective bans, to global restrictions, to selective restrictions, etc. at this point I would be happy with ANYTHING or else everyone will continue to talk in circles for what may or may not work. You have to start with one clear decision, even if imperfect, if you are going to start changing things
In design there is the concept of "failing fast." Attempt to prove out your design as fast as possible so you can amend and adjust it until it works, because odds are you did not have it correct the first pass. This analogy doesn't apply directly to gun control, but it's frustrating to see the literal polar opposite of the concept: not attempting any change while people argue endlessly about the intracacies of the solution.
The government needs to do SOMETHING. Anything to get the ball rolling so we can see some new data
It's that rifles are used much more in big shootings, which carry a completely different impact on the morale of the nation.
Preventing mass shootouts in public places isn't just a safety issue, it's a part of the right to freedom from fear.
That's stupid distinction to make. Most M16s don't even have a full auto mode (though they do have a 3-round burst). And full auto mode is rarely used in combat anyway. If you don't consider a semi-auto gas-operated rifle with a large magazine an assault weapon, I don't know what is.
I had to read this headline like three times to make sure it was correct, given it involves someone at Fox supporting the ban.
I think it's a step in the right direction. But like I said in another thread the ban is only a piece of a whole solution. Something will also need to be done about the massive amounts of firearms circulating right now, and no matter what the solution it won't be clean, pretty, or efficient. It's a messy situation no matter how it's handled.
A ban is ultimately just legislature - handling all the existing weapons is a nightmare of logistics.
I think it's a step in the right direction. But like I said in another thread the ban is only a piece of a whole solution. Something will also need to be done about the massive amounts of firearms circulating right now, and no matter what the solution it won't be clean, pretty, or efficient. It's a messy situation no matter how it's handled.
A ban is ultimately just legislature - handling all the existing weapons is a nightmare of logistics.
Rudelord
Member
I....what?
I never, ever said anything about vegetables. Some other clown implied that's what I was doing and I corrected him.
If you're going to blast me at least blast me for things I actually said.
I currently own one of these to deal with vermin that like to roam around on my property like raccoons, coyotes, the like.
Not very scary, right?
A modern handgun isn't exactly so much less lethal than an AR when it comes to killing unarmored targets, especially in the scenario that played out in Orlando where it's mostly inside. And it's far easier to conceal, use, etc.
As an aside, it's actually legal to own a rocket launcher, a flamethrower, or even a tank. It's just so exorbitantly expensive and has no practical use that no one really bothers.
I'm pretty sure there's limitations to that though, arnold has a tank but I'm pretty sure the barrel is sealed off or something
Rudelord
Member
It's not. It's just the rounds are restrictingly expensive.
Oh really? That's pretty crazy. Is it street legal too? Like, could you grocery shop? Haha.
Rudelord
Member
No.
SmackCrackleNPop
Member
I would like to buy a tank.
The Artisan
Member
It's not Trump that's pivoting
it's the Republicans
will America regain its ability for political compromise?
no, of course not
Absolutely. And you have to do something.
But they literally do nothing. It's total bullshit. Anything to keep an elected position.
It's not that rifles are used in bigger shootings. Largest mass shooting in the United States before Orlando was 32 dead by a Pistol. It's that there has been a false narrative established that "Assault weapons" are the cause of problems in America. "Assault Weapons" was not even a real designation for Guns. It was made up by the Government likely with the NRA's help to create a fake range of weapons to ban that would allow the real issues to be ignored.
Orlando's death toll was magnified by the fact the Club chained shut all their doors but the main entrance/exit. Club Goers were fish in a barrel for the gunman with no way to escape.
I think we all know how politics works in this country. If we pass another pointless bill the Politicians will say we did our job and made the effort and that will be it. Meanwhile another 500,000 people will die.
GreatestHits
Member
Gaf is quite a bit tilted on the subject. I'll say this; if there were no possibility of corruption in government, then a ban on assault weapons is mandatory.
If there is a possibility of corruption in our government, then the 2nd ammendment is mandatory. If this is the case you will always be either wasting time or starting a civil war with executive gun control.
It goes without saying my deepmost concern in coming to these conclusions are lives lost due to portable ballistics
If there is a possibility of corruption in our government, then the 2nd ammendment is mandatory. If this is the case you will always be either wasting time or starting a civil war with executive gun control.
It goes without saying my deepmost concern in coming to these conclusions are lives lost due to portable ballistics
It's not the GOP, it's Fox News, whose owner is not American.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked