The debate over assault weapons

[chinabald]

View attachment 279345

"What a moron. The epidemic of one dead guy with bump stocks is over because the guy is dead. If another nutjob who thinks spraying bullets is more effective than aiming emerges, I'd hope he can get bump stocks if he's going to be shooting at me because I think aimed shots are more effective." -Tom

Now why don't you explain how a single person can fire 1100 rounds and hit 480 people in ten minutes from a distance of 490 yards and how a standard semi-automatic rifle would be more effective than one with a bump stock. Please discuss caliber, rate of fire, barrel covers, magazines, etc. What has the Borg told you that has allowed you to abandon the laws of thermodynamics?

When Jeff explained how aimed fire from a semi skilled shooter, even with a bolt action rifle, would have been more efficient method he was called all sorts of names. But thats to be expected here when anyone in anyway disagrees with the premise that an AR15 is the most deadly of all rifles.

Would aimed fire have created as many injuries? Probably not, you wouldn't have as many ricochet and bullet fragments causing injury. But from 500 yards, and all those people fenced in. Yes in 10 minutes a good shooter aiming with a scoped rifle could have killed more then 58 people.  

 

[Fakenews]

Doubtful, (hard to ID and target individuals, in a dense crowd, 100 yards away, in the dark,  running all over the place) but he wouldn’t have been able to wound 500 people. He had some pretty precise firing calculations and his purpose was to kill and woundas many  as he could. The bump stock was crucial in that regard.  I’m sure we can all get behind it’s ban.

 

[lasal]

When Jeff explained how aimed fire from a semi skilled shooter, even with a bolt action rifle, would have been more efficient method he was called all sorts of names. But thats to be expected here when anyone in anyway disagrees with the premise that an AR15 is the most deadly of all rifles.

Would aimed fire have created as many injuries? Probably not, you wouldn't have as many ricochet and bullet fragments causing injury. But from 500 yards, and all those people fenced in. Yes in 10 minutes a good shooter aiming with a scoped rifle could have killed more then 58 people.  

Are you saying that, according to your knowledge, aimed fire with a scoped rifle is more accurate and more effective at killing more people, even with a bolt-action gun at 500 yards aiming at a scrambling crowd, and therefore banning semiauto centerfire assault weapons is pointless? Is that a fair summary?

 

[Fakenews]

I think that’s a fair assessment of the gun nutter position.  Clearly a bolt action rifle would have inflicted more damage.

Here’s  a detailed explanation of why that’s BS. 

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-the-trigonometry-of-terror-why-the-las-1507085772-htmlstory.html

 

[chinabald]

Are you saying that, according to your knowledge, aimed fire with a scoped rifle is more accurate and more effective at killing more people, even with a bolt-action gun at 500 yards aiming at a scrambling crowd, and therefore banning semiauto centerfire assault weapons is pointless? Is that a fair summary?

No it’s not a fair summary. You added opinion at the end that was not in what I said. 

 

[Fakenews]

Yes.

Given the amount of time the Vegas shooter was firing..... a decent marksman with a scoped bolt action rifle would have easily killed more.  Everybody was hunkered down and not moving with little cover. . They were easy targets. I’m not saying this to be morbid. It’s a fact. It’s what LE fears the most. A dedicated, halfway decent marksman with a scoped semiautomatic or bolt rifle using aimed fire in the Vegas scenario is FAR more of a threat than the bump stocka guy spraying bullets. 

Fortunatley the dedicated halfway decent marksmen rarely become homicidal killers. The last real one of those we had was the Austin clock tower shooter in the early 60s   And he managed to kill a lot in a much less target rich environment with a 3 shot bolt action hunting rifle.  

Read the accounts. After the first few minutes, the crowed was not scrambling. They were all mostly laying on the ground with almost no cover. Fish in a barrel. They were all lucky he was using bump stockas. Just saying. 

Typical gun nutter bold face lie,  they were all running for cover.  Hunkering down only when they got to it.

short jeff why do you alwats resort to lies in making an argument?

edit

The Austin shooter was in a fortified position, during daylight with a scope shot for 90 minutes and only killed 16 people.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Are you saying that, according to your knowledge, aimed fire with a scoped rifle is more accurate and more effective at killing more people, even with a bolt-action gun at 500 yards aiming at a scrambling crowd, and therefore banning semiauto centerfire assault weapons is pointless?

I'm saying that you keep trying to distract from the rimfire bans by acting like they don't exist, but I'll continue to point out that they do.

I'm also saying that banning any of the above assault weapons to prevent murders like those in Vegas is profoundly stupid. Not just a little stupid. Because that guy was rich and STILL has no digital footprint to speak of. No matter what fantasies the grabberz want to believe, the fact is that most gun owners are Uncooperative with the ongoing confiscation schemes. There will continue to be lots of guns in America and lots of magazines that hold more than 5 rounds (so called "large" capacity" magazines.) A determined, wealthy individual with no criminal record and no good reason to suspect him of criminal intent will continue to be able to do what that guy did. Prohibition programs will continue to fail to stop it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

A .223?  Hmm is that the same as a twenty two? What’s the shorthand description for the caliber the twenty two fires? Tom do you know?

I can't recall.

Maybe a noted gun control advocate would have that information. Here are a few articles that may be helpful.

read what noted gun control advocate Adam Winkler says about mean-looking weapons bans:

Magazine Ban Won't Help

Quote
Americans have tried over and over to outlaw things that some insist are objectionable and others enjoy. Prohibition was repealed when its supporters realized that the disobeyed laws against alcohol brought the whole legal system into disrepute. The war on drugs is widely recognized as an abject failure. We haven't even been able to stop music file-sharing, which despite a 10-year effort by the recording industry is as popular as ever.

Like alcohol, drugs and file-sharing, guns — including the ones with large magazines — are here to stay. Gun policy is going to be more effective when we stop fighting against that simple fact.

Asked in an interview about mean looking weapons bans:

Quote
My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance. The truth is assault weapons are used very infrequently in crimes. I think there is a grand total of about 300 people a year who die from rifles of any sort––assault or otherwise.

...

When the assault weapons ban was in effect, there was only one credible study of its impact, and that study found that it was not associated with any significant reduction of violence.

Why banning assault rifles won't reduce gun violence

Quote
we already know that banning assault weapons won't reduce gun crime or deaths. Worse, the bans may make it harder to enact more effective gun control laws.

The problem starts with the term itself. The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren't really weapons of war.

...

America's gun debate suffers because of unreasonable, extreme positions taken by the NRA. But gun control advocates who push for bans on one kind of rifle primarily because it looks scary also contribute to the problem. Such bans don't reduce gun crime, but they do stimulate passionate opposition from law-abiding gun owners: Gun control advocates ridicule the NRA's claim that the government is coming to take away people's guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in the country.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I wonder how "assault weapons" bans would apply to a semiautomatic revolver?

I know it sounds like something that doesn't exist but it's actually an Ugly Gun.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You were quoting Winkler recently. WRT to gun rghts, Winkler has your pants down around your socks.  He accepts the constitutionality of banning AW's (while recognizing your elk's butthurt about these popular consumer items). Winkler feels that strict scrutiny has not arrived, but that if it comes it will not impede gun restrictions as we see them. In the wide body of his excellent writing, he sees individual gun rights as real, but honorary, basically.

You are a fool to quote Adam Winkler, but you can't resist when I'm not around. 

You are a fool to think I can't use Scot's database to figure out which post you're referencing.

Maybe a noted gun control advocate would have that information. Here are a few articles that may be helpful.

read what noted gun control advocate Adam Winkler says about mean-looking weapons bans:

Magazine Ban Won't Help

Quote
Americans have tried over and over to outlaw things that some insist are objectionable and others enjoy. Prohibition was repealed when its supporters realized that the disobeyed laws against alcohol brought the whole legal system into disrepute. The war on drugs is widely recognized as an abject failure. We haven't even been able to stop music file-sharing, which despite a 10-year effort by the recording industry is as popular as ever.

Like alcohol, drugs and file-sharing, guns — including the ones with large magazines — are here to stay. Gun policy is going to be more effective when we stop fighting against that simple fact.

Asked in an interview about mean looking weapons bans:

Quote
My own view is that there's no way to make assault rifle bans effective. It's an ineffective law, it's an ineffective goal, it's an ineffective policy that's mostly about symbolism and not about substance. The truth is assault weapons are used very infrequently in crimes. I think there is a grand total of about 300 people a year who die from rifles of any sort––assault or otherwise.

...

When the assault weapons ban was in effect, there was only one credible study of its impact, and that study found that it was not associated with any significant reduction of violence.

Why banning assault rifles won't reduce gun violence

Quote
we already know that banning assault weapons won't reduce gun crime or deaths. Worse, the bans may make it harder to enact more effective gun control laws.

The problem starts with the term itself. The “assault weapons” for sale in the U.S. now aren't really weapons of war.

...

America's gun debate suffers because of unreasonable, extreme positions taken by the NRA. But gun control advocates who push for bans on one kind of rifle primarily because it looks scary also contribute to the problem. Such bans don't reduce gun crime, but they do stimulate passionate opposition from law-abiding gun owners: Gun control advocates ridicule the NRA's claim that the government is coming to take away people's guns, then try to outlaw perhaps the most popular rifle in the country.

  

He's still right and I'll probably foolishly quote him again unless someone wants to explain why he's wrong...

 

[jocal505]

You are a fool to think I can't use Scot's database to figure out which post you're referencing.

He's still right and I'll probably foolishly quote him again unless someone wants to explain why he's wrong...

Cherry picking is well covered by the first amendment.  Adam Winkler's writing forms very rotten keel bolts for the USS Tom Ray.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

A .223?  Hmm is that the same as a twenty two? What’s the shorthand description for the caliber the twenty two fires? Tom do you know?

It's censored on this forum but it's funnier to say in pictures why your question is idiotic.

Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. 

I agree with Mark K that our TeamD Senate leadership are either morons or victims of mental illness. Still, because they are Senators and write the definition of "assault weapon," it's a question someone should ask them.

 

[jocal505]

It's censored on this forum but it's funnier to say in pictures why your question is idiotic.

I agree with Mark K that our TeamD Senate leadership are either morons or victims of mental illness. Still, because they are Senators and write the definition of "assault weapon," it's a question someone should ask them.

Sad little man, caught in the swirly. The very man who brought us dogball censorship.

@Mark K nailed it, as to the worth  of conversations with this guy. I anticipate further deterioration of TR content.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Sad little man, caught in the swirly. The very man who brought us dogball censorship.

@Mark K nailed it, as to the worth  of conversations with this guy. I anticipate further deterioration of TR content.

If you insist.

The product of laws written by morons and mentally ill people is at the link. Look for the key words:

"regardless of caliber"

 

[jocal505]

Tell you what, Tom. Thanks, but at the moment I think I can find something edifying to read. I'll absorb something, but not nonsense, or propaganda based on distasteful civics. I'm gonna choose to not open your link, based on the logic displayed by MK. 

Sorry dude, "I'm just not into you, II" yo, go race-bait someone else.

I'm cracking up how the NRA, sporting similar values, and similar civics to your own, got snared up in Russian money. To be continued. Carry on.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tell you what, Tom. Thanks, but at the moment I think I can find something edifying to read. I'll absorb something, but not nonsense

I agree that reading and discussing the TeamD Senators' nonsense is foolish for the reasons Mr. Winkler stated, but in a thread about assault weapons, you're going to encounter links to assault weapons bans and discussion of the nonsense therein.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Tell you what, Tom. Thanks, but at the moment I think I can find something edifying to read. I'll absorb something, but not nonsense, or propaganda based on distasteful civics.

Jocal  is telling us that Senator Feinstein's legislation is nonsense, and propaganda based on distasteful civics.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Jocal  is telling us that Senator Feinstein's legislation is nonsense, and propaganda based on distasteful civics.

And she's race baiting too. It's surprising sometimes how little people around here think of her.

 

[bpm57]

t I think I can find something edifying to read. I'll absorb something, but not nonsense, or propaganda based on distasteful civics. I'm gonna choose to not open your link, based on the logic displayed by MK.

I don't like to read the bills put forward by antigun democrats either, Joe. I read them anyway, because there it always a disconnect between the press release the media will hold forth as gospel and what the bill actually does.

But I think we all know that you don't read bills, laws, or court decisions; you just wait to be told what to think about them.

 

[Mark K]

Sad little man, caught in the swirly. The very man who brought us dogball censorship.

@Mark K nailed it, as to the worth  of conversations with this guy. I anticipate further deterioration of TR content.

I'd respond to him again about it being about mag capacity and not ammo, but his happy delusion that it was about ammo would remain. He would wait a few weeks and go right on slurring my meaning. Tom has no sense of honor when his preciouses are the topic.