LaxPower Back-Up Stick

And when you're talking about banning ARs, you're talking about banning basically any semi-auto pistol or rifle now.

holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:45 pm The mass shooting issue isn't an AR issue, it's a social issue with a number of causes. You're not going to solve it or even make a small dent in the killings by banning ARs or all "assault rifles".

Take away the rifle and you'll still have an angry white guy.

Take away the rifle and you'll still have an angry white guy.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:56 pm

holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:45 pm The mass shooting issue isn't an AR issue, it's a social issue with a number of causes. You're not going to solve it or even make a small dent in the killings by banning ARs or all "assault rifles".

Take away the rifle and you'll still have an angry white guy.

big rabbit hole to jump in I see...................why are WHITE guys angry?


Income inequality, if they even have an income? White guys willing to do "that job", but are boxed out by illegal, hence way cheaper than even the minimum wage, at $2-4 an hour sometimes, making them angry? When he tries to order something and the staff doesn't understand English very well, (happened to me the other day, all Russian speaking staff)

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:21 pm

Take away the rifle and you'll still have an angry white guy.

But without the rifle, it will be very very hard for a random untrained angry/crazy guy to shoot 26 people (killing 9) in 32 seconds.

Impossible -- no. But extremely unlikely.

How many people is he going to be able to kill in 30 seconds with a knife, shotgun, baseball bat or handgun?

Be honest Holmes. If you were trying to inflict max mayhem, what tool would you use?

holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:52 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:21 pm

Take away the rifle and you'll still have an angry white guy.

But without the rifle, it will be very very hard for a random untrained angry/crazy guy to shoot 26 people (killing 9) in 32 seconds.

Impossible -- no. But extremely unlikely.

How many people is he going to be able to kill in 30 seconds with a knife, shotgun, baseball bat or handgun?

Be honest Holmes. If you were trying to inflict max mayhem, what tool would you use?

Again, these mass shootings, while horrible, are a very small percentage of gun deaths and extremely rare. My goal is to stop them before they ever have to choose a tool. Give me legislative authority and I could cut overall gun deaths in half without taking away any guns.

As far as your final question - these people are going to choose whatever tool they want, legal or illegal, and many options can have a greater effect than an AR15. Planes, cars, shotguns, pistols, bombs, just to name a few. A number of mass shootings have been perpetrated with pistols, indeed killing more than 26 people in just a few minutes. A truck killed 86. Stabbings have killed 36. Dynamite and explosives have killed dozens to hundreds.

The rabid focus on these rifles is problematic in multiple ways: 1. It is an ineffective solution as it's only looking at the symptoms. 2. It takes away the constitutional rights of tens of millions of Americans. 3. It loses lots of single-issue voters which costs the ability of progressives to pass meaningful social legislation that would cut down on gun deaths much more effectively than some half-baked ban idea.

I want the same outcome as you, I just believe I have much more effective solutions within the confines of our constitution and reality today.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:01 pm Where in the constitution does it say people have the right to an assault weapon?

holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:05 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:01 pm Where in the constitution does it say people have the right to an assault weapon?

That pesky 2nd amendment. It is a firearm, is it not? If not, what is it?

holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:05 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:01 pm Where in the constitution does it say people have the right to an assault weapon?

That pesky 2nd amendment. It is a firearm, is it not? If not, what is it?

holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:32 pm Fine. Regulate away.

You won't see any meaningful drop in mass shootings or overall gun deaths by banning ARs.

And you'll lose the next few rounds of elections at a minimum and see more people like Trump in office. Which ironically will lead to more hate crimes and mass shootings by right-wingers.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:36 pm

holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:32 pm Fine. Regulate away.

You won't see any meaningful drop in mass shootings or overall gun deaths by banning ARs.

And you'll lose the next few rounds of elections at a minimum and see more people like Trump in office. Which ironically will lead to more hate crimes and mass shootings by right-wingers.

I want to change the culture. If demand drops so will the number of weapons. We have a gun culture problem. All guns. I don’t want a ban on all guns and rifles. I would like to see a change in culture and then see market forces take hold.

https://www.semissourian.com/story/113331.html

holmes435 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:45 pm The mass shooting issue isn't an AR issue, it's a social issue with a number of causes. You're not going to solve it or even make a small dent in the killings by banning ARs or all "assault rifles".

Take away the rifle and you'll still have an angry white guy.

If we can get the media and others on board in showcasing how safe things are nowadays overall, build trust in the police (and train them better and change their culture), fund universal healthcare and other social programs to reduce drug and gang related crime and suicides and more, you'll see massive change. Throw in a few more regulations regarding mass shooting media and social contagion and reporting we can drastically reduce gun deaths and the appeal of gun ownership without ever taking a single gun.

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:07 pm

If we can get the media and others on board in showcasing how safe things are nowadays overall, build trust in the police (and train them better and change their culture), fund universal healthcare and other social programs to reduce drug and gang related crime and suicides and more, you'll see massive change. Throw in a few more regulations regarding mass shooting media and social contagion and reporting we can drastically reduce gun deaths and the appeal of gun ownership without ever taking a single gun.

Holmes -- I completely agree that the social contagion aspect is a big driver of these mass slaughters. But I'm not seeing much that is practical in your alternate suggestions. Fund universal healthcare? Regulate the media? Honestly, how are those going to happen?

We know (right from Scalia himself) that there's no constitutional problem at all in banning MSSAs. But Scalia would also tell you there's insuperable problems trying to regulate media coverage. If some guy shoots up a school, there's literally nothing that can be done to keep that news from being reported -- and rightly so.

Seems to me an AWB (completely legal fyi) would itself be a very strong signal to the culture and would have many salutary effects on the contagion. It would be a big "This is not OK!!" message. Instead, we have periodic mass slaughters that feature (due to the predominance of the ARs as the tool) increased numbers of victims and increased mortality rate among those shot. Followed by a lot of press coverage, which coverage also includes a lot of NRA messaging and macho chest beating about the 2nd Amendment (totally false as a legal matter).

To me, the post-2004 data seems pretty obvious. Easiest way to break the contagion is to DO SOMETHING that sends a very loud message. Reduce the easy availability of the most dangerous weapons and you will reduce the demand (eventually) for those. And over time (even without any buybacks) the supply of those weapons will go down. Most practical way I can think of to break the contagion driving these terrible events.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:38 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:07 pm

If we can get the media and others on board in showcasing how safe things are nowadays overall, build trust in the police (and train them better and change their culture), fund universal healthcare and other social programs to reduce drug and gang related crime and suicides and more, you'll see massive change. Throw in a few more regulations regarding mass shooting media and social contagion and reporting we can drastically reduce gun deaths and the appeal of gun ownership without ever taking a single gun.

Holmes -- I completely agree that the social contagion aspect is a big driver of these mass slaughters. But I'm not seeing much that is practical in your alternate suggestions. Fund universal healthcare? Regulate the media? Honestly, how are those going to happen?

We know (right from Scalia himself) that there's no constitutional problem at all in banning MSSAs. But Scalia would also tell you there's insuperable problems trying to regulate media coverage. If some guy shoots up a school, there's literally nothing that can be done to keep that news from being reported -- and rightly so.

Seems to me an AWB (completely legal fyi) would itself be a very strong signal to the culture and would have many salutary effects on the contagion. It would be a big "This is not OK!!" message. Instead, we have periodic mass slaughters that feature (due to the predominance of the ARs as the tool) increased numbers of victims and increased mortality rate among those shot. Followed by a lot of press coverage, which coverage also includes a lot of NRA messaging and macho chest beating about the 2nd Amendment (totally false as a legal matter).

To me, the post-2004 data seems pretty obvious. Easiest way to break the contagion is to DO SOMETHING that sends a very loud message. Reduce the easy availability of the most dangerous weapons and you will reduce the demand (eventually) for those. And over time (even without any buybacks) the supply of those weapons will go down. Most practical way I can think of to break the contagion driving these terrible events.

The terminology you are using and repeating is technically incorrect. AWB... automatic weapons ban is a non sequitar... automatic weapons were banned decades ago. The new ban is on semi auto weapons, namely AR15 and AK47 types in particular. If you want to add every semi automatic weapon into a weapons ban you will have opened up a complicated can of worms. There are thousands of different types of this firearm. I own a ww2 m1 carbine. The same rifle my dad carried all over Europe. It is semi auto with a 15 round magazine. Unless they can separate the vast numbers of different types of semi auto weapons just limiting a ban to AR15 and AK47 models does not even scratch the surface of all the different semi auto rifles that are in circulation.

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:45 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:38 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:07 pm

If we can get the media and others on board in showcasing how safe things are nowadays overall, build trust in the police (and train them better and change their culture), fund universal healthcare and other social programs to reduce drug and gang related crime and suicides and more, you'll see massive change. Throw in a few more regulations regarding mass shooting media and social contagion and reporting we can drastically reduce gun deaths and the appeal of gun ownership without ever taking a single gun.

Holmes -- I completely agree that the social contagion aspect is a big driver of these mass slaughters. But I'm not seeing much that is practical in your alternate suggestions. Fund universal healthcare? Regulate the media? Honestly, how are those going to happen?

We know (right from Scalia himself) that there's no constitutional problem at all in banning MSSAs. But Scalia would also tell you there's insuperable problems trying to regulate media coverage. If some guy shoots up a school, there's literally nothing that can be done to keep that news from being reported -- and rightly so.

Seems to me an AWB (completely legal fyi) would itself be a very strong signal to the culture and would have many salutary effects on the contagion. It would be a big "This is not OK!!" message. Instead, we have periodic mass slaughters that feature (due to the predominance of the ARs as the tool) increased numbers of victims and increased mortality rate among those shot. Followed by a lot of press coverage, which coverage also includes a lot of NRA messaging and macho chest beating about the 2nd Amendment (totally false as a legal matter).

To me, the post-2004 data seems pretty obvious. Easiest way to break the contagion is to DO SOMETHING that sends a very loud message. Reduce the easy availability of the most dangerous weapons and you will reduce the demand (eventually) for those. And over time (even without any buybacks) the supply of those weapons will go down. Most practical way I can think of to break the contagion driving these terrible events.

The terminology you are using and repeating is technically incorrect. AWB... automatic weapons ban is a non sequitar... automatic weapons were banned decades ago. The new ban is on semi auto weapons, namely AR15 and AK47 types in particular. If you want to add every semi automatic weapon into a weapons ban you will have opened up a complicated can of worms. There are thousands of different types of this firearm. I own a ww2 m1 carbine. The same rifle my dad carried all over Europe. It is semi auto with a 15 round magazine. Unless they can separate the vast numbers of different types of semi auto weapons just limiting a ban to AR15 and AK47 models does not even scratch the surface of all the different semi auto rifles that are in circulation.

"The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity"."

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:46 pm

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:45 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:38 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:07 pm

If we can get the media and others on board in showcasing how safe things are nowadays overall, build trust in the police (and train them better and change their culture), fund universal healthcare and other social programs to reduce drug and gang related crime and suicides and more, you'll see massive change. Throw in a few more regulations regarding mass shooting media and social contagion and reporting we can drastically reduce gun deaths and the appeal of gun ownership without ever taking a single gun.

Holmes -- I completely agree that the social contagion aspect is a big driver of these mass slaughters. But I'm not seeing much that is practical in your alternate suggestions. Fund universal healthcare? Regulate the media? Honestly, how are those going to happen?

We know (right from Scalia himself) that there's no constitutional problem at all in banning MSSAs. But Scalia would also tell you there's insuperable problems trying to regulate media coverage. If some guy shoots up a school, there's literally nothing that can be done to keep that news from being reported -- and rightly so.

Seems to me an AWB (completely legal fyi) would itself be a very strong signal to the culture and would have many salutary effects on the contagion. It would be a big "This is not OK!!" message. Instead, we have periodic mass slaughters that feature (due to the predominance of the ARs as the tool) increased numbers of victims and increased mortality rate among those shot. Followed by a lot of press coverage, which coverage also includes a lot of NRA messaging and macho chest beating about the 2nd Amendment (totally false as a legal matter).

To me, the post-2004 data seems pretty obvious. Easiest way to break the contagion is to DO SOMETHING that sends a very loud message. Reduce the easy availability of the most dangerous weapons and you will reduce the demand (eventually) for those. And over time (even without any buybacks) the supply of those weapons will go down. Most practical way I can think of to break the contagion driving these terrible events.

The terminology you are using and repeating is technically incorrect. AWB... automatic weapons ban is a non sequitar... automatic weapons were banned decades ago. The new ban is on semi auto weapons, namely AR15 and AK47 types in particular. If you want to add every semi automatic weapon into a weapons ban you will have opened up a complicated can of worms. There are thousands of different types of this firearm. I own a ww2 m1 carbine. The same rifle my dad carried all over Europe. It is semi auto with a 15 round magazine. Unless they can separate the vast numbers of different types of semi auto weapons just limiting a ban to AR15 and AK47 models does not even scratch the surface of all the different semi auto rifles that are in circulation.

"The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity"."

Must have been a typo!