Terrorist Attack in Orlando

[HYHYBT]

"Assault weapon" is a term used by politicians trying to scare people in order to justify banning certain classes of firearms ("Evil Black Rifle" - the same mechanism looks less scary when fitted with walnut "furniture" than when fitted with polymer "furniture").

I wonder if the psychological difference also extends to who buys them and for what purpose, perhaps even affecting what people decide to do with them once they have one.

[s_stabeler]

Which is why the military rarely fires it in full auto. It's not practical.

I think it's more that full-auto tends to be used for suppression fire- forcing the enemy to keep their heads down- than actually seriously trying to kill the enemy. However, a lot of modern combat is close-quarters combat- in places like twos and cities- where there are significant civilian populations around. As such, suppression fire is far less common than before, since it risks significant collateral damage. Therefore, full-auto is, as you said, rarely used, since it is inappropriate for the situation.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

"Assault weapon" is a legal term, not something the NRA or any gun group created to classify weapons. It also varies by jusdiction.

Flatly, it's the group of weapons the 66% of the public (non-gun owning americans) probably have the least tolerance for in the same way you can have abortion rights people that still might start getting OK with restrictions in late trimester, non life-threatening situations. Generally pistol grip, semi-auto, high capacity magazine, etc. It's not a universal definition because we have 50 States. It's a catch-all term so the specifics change depending on the legislation crafted. Colloquially, it's also meant for guns originating for primarily military use.

The fact that the AR-15 Sportster lacks full auto (which can be re-enabled with a custom stock for about $100 and is legal) is sort of where gun-rights people try to muddy the waters with screwball definition arguments because most of their opponents don't know guns. It gives them pause. But in the end, we're still talking about a stripped down M16 which was perfectly fine for attacking the Viet Cong and guns of its same type are still active in lighter version in the M4 in every active theater of combat the US engages in.

And as most have pointed out, even the military defines the primary use of that gun as semi-auto, fully auto entirely being a suppressing fire feature.

TBH, this is a scenario where I was pretty permissive of gun owners but some of the attitudes I'm seeing from them as new data and events unfold, the messiah complexes, and the downright disengenousness of the industry is swaying me towards gun control. I live in Texas so I'm pretty live and let live with people and their guns. Seriously, people have hobbies and that's fine. But the fact we can't get any sort of even rudimentary restriction tells me, we're dealing in zealotry and that isn't exactly safe if we're letting people run around with weapons of war. I don't particularly care if people are using it to hunt pigs now, that's not what it's designed for. I can use an F1 car to drive to the grocery store, that doesn't mean I should be able to get one.

And if the U.S. military wants you dead, they aren't coming with an M4. They're giving you a drone and a bomb. You won't see it and you'll still die. You'll only see an M4 if they want you alive. So some of the weird Facebook posts I see about "keeping the government scared" are asinine. It's your fellow citizens in fear, possibly the non-SWAT cops, and that's it.

I guess what I'm saying is, there's a lot of good will the NRA and friends are burning through right now in regards to moderates in the country and trying to filibuster definitions only works to the point it pisses people off enough to do the afternoon's worth of research it takes on these specific weapons to not be ignorant. We can easily go back to our 70-30 percent support on gun control from our current 50-50 if this keeps up.

[mjr]

And here is an "op ed" article by some writer at the NY Daily News about how he shot an AR-15, and it was a traumatizing experience for him...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.2673201

But apparently, it wasn't traumatizing for this 7 year old girl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc-hqiAlfQM

Or this dude who shot it with the butt against his nose...to prove it didn't bruise the author's shoulder.

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/201...umatic-weapon/

But I guess different people have different perspectives.

[KabeRinnaul]

So... some random writer at the NY Daily News is afraid of guns and loud noises. Does this actually demonstrate anything of substance, beyond some random writer's phobias?

[mjr]

Does this actually demonstrate anything of substance, beyond some random writer's phobias?

That it's highly likely that he made up most of it? Again, unless it's perspective. And I don't know what the NYDN's readership is, but don't we usually criticize the media when they make stuff up?

He did get called out on it, by various people.

But then again, I guess that was his experience.

[Kheldarson]

That it's highly likely that he made up most of it? Again, unless it's perspective. And I don't know what the NYDN's readership is, but don't we usually criticize the media when they make stuff up?

He did get called out on it, by various people.

But then again, I guess that was his experience.

Why would you assume he made it up? It's an opinion piece. He did a couple of relevant interviews to go with it and flesh out some of the points, but it's primarily his opinion.

And his opinion is that the gun is loud and overwhelming. Frankly, I have the same opinion of most guns myself. Did he use a bit of hyperbole? Yes, and he got called on that because the term he used is a serious issue in the US.

But he's not being called out for being a liar.

[Talon]

Aaaand all 4 proposals were blocked by the Senate.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/06/br...4-gun-measures

The Feinstein amendment, which would have have barred anyone on the terrorist watch list from buying a gun, failed by a vote 47-53.

The Cornyn amendment, as drafted by the NRA, also failed by a vote of 53-47.

The Murphy amendment, which would have allowed for universal background checks, including at gun shows, failed by a vote of 44-56. Sadly, the amendment with the most teeth -- baby teeth at that -- failed by the widest margin.

The Grassley amendment, which concerned the no-fly list and waiting periods, lost by a vote of 53-47.

Is anyone shocked at this point? If 20 dead children at Sandy Hook couldn't inspire reform, why would Orlando?

[mjr]

Why would you assume he made it up? It's an opinion piece. He did a couple of relevant interviews to go with it and flesh out some of the points, but it's primarily his opinion.

And his opinion is that the gun is loud and overwhelming. Frankly, I have the same opinion of most guns myself. Did he use a bit of hyperbole? Yes, and he got called on that because the term he used is a serious issue in the US.

But he's not being called out for being a liar.

"It felt like a bazooka". Dude never even fired a bazooka, so that's an invalid comparison, based on how it's worded. He wouldn't know what a bazooka felt like (and neither would you, I, or most of us who haven't actually used one). He's basing that statement on what he thinks a bazooka feels like. Protip: a bazooka doesn't really have a recoil, and the AR-15 has a minimal one, based upon it's design. Based on what I understand of them.

"Loud and overwhelming" you can sell me on. But so are a lot of things.

It bruised his shoulder. Highly unlikely. So he either bruises very, very easily, or he made that up.

I'm not saying he made up the entire thing. I'm saying he made up (or severely embellished) parts of his experience, as part of "confirmation bias". You can sell me on "severely embellished" being his opinion of things, and I'd definitely listen. But there's absolutely no proof his shoulder was bruised, and I based that off of the other two videos posted (including the guy who put an AR-15 to his nose and fired it six times). Besides, wouldn't it be impractical for a weapon to bruise your shoulder every time you used it?

It would be like if I rode Kingda Ka, and described my experience. Would I embellish? Probably. But to me (as with this author) it may not be an embellishment. Would I flat-out lie? No.

[KabeRinnaul]

I'm not saying he made up the entire thing. I'm saying he made up (or severely embellished) parts of his experience, as part of "confirmation bias". You can sell me on "severely embellished" being his opinion of things, and I'd definitely listen. But there's absolutely no proof his shoulder was bruised, and I based that off of the other two videos posted (including the guy who put an AR-15 to his nose and fired it six times)

And... so? This is mountains out of molehills. Some random opinion author got an ignorant, fear-based piece published. It's hardly the first time that's happened, on any topic, regardless of political leanings.

You give the impression that you think this is some kind of damning rebuttal of the liberal anti-gun stance, rather than some ill-informed nobody sharing his thoughts.

[Greenday]

Republican party "We want to be tough on terrorism...we also think terrorists should be allowed to buy guns."

[Cia]

Specifically, the NRA have resisted any effort to even plug the holes in existing restrictions- for instance, requiring a background check for all firearms sales.(for instance, how I would do it is that buying a firearm should require 3 things: 1. a background check. 2. a mental health check. 3. passing a course on 3 things. 1. when it is legal to use a firearm. 2. firearms safety- how to keep the gun secure- both in your house, and when you are actually carrying it. 3. shooting ability- that is, you should need to either take a course to teach you how to shoot accurately with the ting, or prove you can already shoot accurately with it.

In South Dakota - when you buy a gun in a gun store they call the FBI with your info. If you're buying a long gun you can walk out the door after the FBI call, if you're buying a handgun then it's a couple of days wait unless you have a CCW, if you have one you get to take the gun with you.

Gun shows have no FBI call nor wait for any gun - long or hand.

The requirement for firearm safety courses are up to the individual State. SD doesn't require one but I took one because I wanted to know in what situations is deadly force legal. Not many when it comes down to it.

When you apply for a CCW you affirm that you have never been certified nuts by any State, that you currently don't have any protection orders against you nor have any pending, and that you've never been convicted of a felony.

Practicing gun safety and shooting ability is up to the individual person and there is no way you can enforce either one.

None of this protects you from people who legally own guns who go nuts later down the road. Just like a driver's license doesn't protect you from crazy drivers.

[Cia]

Aaaand all 4 proposals were blocked by the Senate.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/06/br...4-gun-measures



Is anyone shocked at this point? If 20 dead children at Sandy Hook couldn't inspire reform, why would Orlando?

The gun man's mother owned the guns LEGALLY and she had them in a gun safe. Do you actually expect the woman to get rid of her guns because her son has mental problems? If so, then she should've gotten rid of her car, all of her silverware - forks and knives kill too, baseball bats, hockey sticks, pens, pencils and household chemicals.

If someone wants to be a complete asshole and kill people the will find a way.

What's next - you can't buy a gun because you just might go nuts someday? If so then guess what the loss of car ownership is next.

[s_stabeler]

a) I expect that if she knew her son was nuts, that she should take measures to ensure her son couldn't access the gun safe.(if she had, then that's fine- I'll admit I don't know for sure)
b) it still doesn't mean that it isn't ridiculous that basic measures aren't taken to ensure guns aren't supplied to people likely to use them illegally.

also, about your answers to my suggestion:
1. good- however, i'd suggest a more stringent background check then a phone call to the police should be required, and get rid of the exemption for CCW holders. (yes, the CCW might require a background check, but there are no ongoing checks)
2.it might be up to the individual state. I would make the requirement a federal one.
3. I don't care if you say you have never been certified nuts- you should go through a mental health check anyway.
4. while practising gun safety is up to the individual, I would make it mandatory to prove you at least know how to do things properly.
5.no, it doesn't protect you from people who already own guns going nuts. However, it would help prevent people who are already nuts getting guns. It's imperfect, yes, but it's an improvement on the current situation. ( to use an analogy, Democracy is not perfect, but the alternatives are worse. That doesn't mean that a country should stock to having a dictator just because democracy sin't a perfect political system.)

[mjr]

Out of Houston, or at least the Houston area:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/lg...shooting-range

A gun range owner offered free classes to the LGBT community. Said a "record number" of people showed up on that day.

My only real quibble is this: How would the range owner/manager know that all of the people who went there were LGBT?