states with stricter gun control have fewer mass shootings

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 285
#151
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
something so important, yes I want to review the specifics myself which don't seem to exist, your claim of "because experts say so" isn't adequate for me, you are basically asking everyone to take it on faith that these experts aren't biased and the study wasn't manipulated.  Studies have been found to be inaccurate and flawed after they were readily accepted, what you have is a 2 legged stool.  I don't have to prove the study is wrong, flawed whatever because one hasn't been pretested to examine.  And without allowing people to examine what you call proof, you are just on a religious crusade of faith.
Knock yourself out
Download links are on the lefthand side. The libgen one works fine. 

how many guns in private hands is a small enough number to prevent them from falling in the wrong hands? 
0. On the otherhand, that's not actually the point of my policies. You can't totally prevent something from occurring. But you can decrease the chance of it occurring.

most of the mass shooting were planned that shouldn't be in dispute, explain how not having access to an assault weapon, yet still having assess to other semi automatic rifles, pistols or other rapid fire guns would stop these plans. using a hammer to put in a screw, while not ideal still get's the job done.
Well, to put it in your analogy. If you only had a hammer and a screw, you would rethink about actually taking this action in the first place. Because you want the result to be permanent and effective. If you do decide to go through with this action, the screw will be harder to hammer in and it is more likely to fall out and the result would be worse than if you had used a nail.

Or in otherwords, if your objective is to kill 100 people and you have a tool that is able to kill 100 people, you are more likely to do this than if you had a tool that could only kill 5 people. If you go ahead with the tool that can only kill 5 people, you are only going to kill only the 5 people instead of the 100 that you could've when you had the other tool.
#152
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
I will look at the pdf tomorrow.
which guns can only kill 5 or less?  I'm really trying to understand how you think this will work, but again it can't so long as there are guns that hold 5 or more rounds and can be easily reloaded.  You seem to think not having something readily available to these people they will give up on their plan, when in fact most were planned, so why wouldn't that plan include a similar weapon that is available like a handgun, other semi auto gun, pump shot gun, semi auto shotgun or lever action rifles?  This is why your selective ban of assault rifles is illogical when it's so easy to accomplish the same result with a different tool that's not banned..

You do know the Las Vegas scum bag was very wealthy right?   

#153
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
which guns can only kill 5 or less? 
That was an example for the mechanism of action and the numbers were arbitrary.. How much a gun can kill entirely depends on how much ammo you've brought, the amount you can fire the gun and how long you have to freely fire the gun. Which is the discussion on which guns should be banned because they have these properties

I'm really trying to understand how you think this will work, but again it can't so long as there are guns that hold 5 or more rounds and can be easily reloaded.  You seem to think not having something readily available to these people they will give up on their plan, when in fact most were planned, so why wouldn't that plan include a similar weapon that is available like a handgun, other semi auto gun, pump shot gun, semi auto shotgun or lever action rifles?
This is why your selective ban of assault rifles is illogical when it's so easy to accomplish the same result with a different tool that's not banned..
Well first, Assault rifle =/= assault weapon. 

Two, large scale mass shooting events are typically planned yes. And in these cases the goal is to reduce the amount of injuries sustained per shooting event. By restricting the guns that are capable of widespread injury, you reduce the amount of injuries

You do know the Las Vegas scum bag was very wealthy right?   
Yes. What's your point? That these policies wouldn't stop someone as wealthy as him? He's an outlier
#154
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
That was an example for the mechanism of action and the numbers were arbitrary.. How much a gun can kill entirely depends on how much ammo you've brought, the amount you can fire the gun and how long you have to freely fire the gun. Which is the discussion on which guns should be banned because they have these properties

hence why I say you want a gun ban for all practical purposes but won't admit it for whatever reason.
Well first, Assault rifle =/= assault weapon. 
sure such a generic term can be changed to mean anything, include practically anything a.k.a. gun ban.  I get it, not sure why you don't they are your own words after all.

the link is blocked at work for some reason, I'll try to read it tonight if I have time until then
inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.

Policies with Inconclusive Effects on Mass Shootings

something interesting I have found in these studies thus far, they say the scum bags had assault weapons and then list a bunch of others like hand guns etc, never really saying definitively whether the a.w. was used and or how many were actually were shot with the a.w. vs the other weapons used or in possession of the scum bag.

The issue with your premise that fewer guns would probably reduce murders, but again that could only be accomplished with a gun ban, perhaps not a total ban but a ban of all semi auto guns at the very least.  With the a.w. ban ALSO came large capacity magazine ban (another arbitrary term) which is probably more effective as that would cover all semi auto vs. a.w. ban which is specific to guns with certain cosmetic features.
anyway this goes in to some detail about the different aspects, but it is 114 pages, I've skimmed it and plan to go back to it and your link as time allows.

basically, as you said the potential of guns that can shoot semi automatically has the potential to injure and or kill people in a shorter period of time based on the ammunition capacity.  Since the bullet is what actually injures and kills, the more shot the greater the chance of injuring and death.  To call for an a.w. ban is a farce and illogical as I have stated since all semi autos function the same way and can hold as many as 50-100 rounds, including handguns.
If magazines could magically be made to only old 10 rounds then the platform used, ar-15, ak-47 etc is irrelevant.  As is your call to ban those rifles.
planned mass murderers would opt for another available tool, whether legal or not, large capacity magazine whether legal or not since they will be available either already in existence, grandfathered, modified low capacity magazines, 3d printed or other homemade magazines.
thinks you can't account for
"Experts believe numerous factors contributed to the recent drop in these and other crimes, including changing drug markets, a strong economy, better policing, and higher incarceration rates, among others"

I'm not sure if you were trying to be slick, but wording such a ban so it would be changed to include other and future weapons, leaving it vague, practically undefined and open ended is the slippery slope pro 2a people talk about.  It's a tactic to avoid calling for what is really intended an out right ban on all semi auto guns if not all guns period, not a very good tactic but one often tried.

"how many homicides and injuries involving AWs and LCMs could be prevented if offenders were forced to substitute other guns and magazines? In what percentage of gun attacks does the ability to fire more than ten rounds without reloading affect the number of wounded victims or
determine the difference between a fatal and non-fatal attack? Do other AW features (such as flash hiders and pistol grips on rifles) have demonstrable effects on the outcomes of gun attacks? Studies of gun attacks could draw upon police incident reports, forensic examinations of recovered guns and magazines, and medical and law enforcement data on wounded victims."

details matter.

again I'll try to review your link when I can.




#155
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
So-called “assault weapons” are not machineguns or automatic-fire weapons, but are semiautomatics functionally identical to scores of firearms that are not classified as assault weapons. They do not fire more rapidly, do not fire more bullets, and do not fire higher caliber bullets than many other semiautomatic firearms not defined as assault weapons. Some of the features that qualify a semiautomatic as an assault weapon make the weapon more accurate or easier to transport and handle. It would be strange indeed for a policymaker or politician to announce support for less accurate and less easily used firearms.

"While some of the support for banning assault weapons derives from the erroneous belief that they are machineguns, I suspect other support is based on the belief that, on account of misunderstanding due to the pejorative label, this is a winnable issue politically, and a step toward further gun controls."

this hits the nail on the head as it were.

"Indeed, it is not uncommon for rampage killers to use several different guns or to carry many fully loaded magazines."



#156
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
hence why I say you want a gun ban for all practical purposes but won't admit it for whatever reason.
But you are ignoring my desire to work within the second amendment and to create a clear boundary between what classes of firearms should be examined. 

sure such a generic term can be changed to mean anything, include practically anything a.k.a. gun ban.  I get it, not sure why you don't they are your own words after all.
Well, how would you argue that bolt-action rifles should be considered assault weapons. That should be an interesting exercise

basically, as you said the potential of guns that can shoot semi automatically has the potential to injure and or kill people in a shorter period of time based on the ammunition capacity.  Since the bullet is what actually injures and kills, the more shot the greater the chance of injuring and death.  To call for an a.w. ban is a farce and illogical as I have stated since all semi autos function the same way and can hold as many as 50-100 rounds, including handguns. If magazines could magically be made to only old 10 rounds then the platform used, ar-15, ak-47 etc is irrelevant.

How is it illogical when semi-automatic handguns are less effective than semi-automatic rifles? Or that 50-100 round cartridges would definitely be included in the ban

As is your call to ban those rifles.
planned mass murderers would opt for another available tool, whether legal or not, large capacity magazine whether legal or not since they will be available either already in existence, grandfathered, modified low capacity magazines, 3d printed or other homemade magazines.
thinks you can't account for
"Experts believe numerous factors contributed to the recent drop in these and other crimes, including changing drug markets, a strong economy, better policing, and higher incarceration rates, among others"
Correct. Which is why these policies aim for gradual change over time to the point at which those methods will become increasingly more difficult to achieve

I'm not sure if you were trying to be slick, but wording such a ban so it would be changed to include other and future weapons, leaving it vague, practically undefined and open ended is the slippery slope pro 2a people talk about.  It's a tactic to avoid calling for what is really intended an out right ban on all semi auto guns if not all guns period, not a very good tactic but one often tried.
That's why the series of gun experts would make it unvague, well defined and unopenended. 

And to be clear, what you are attacking is the implementation of the policies, not the policies themselves which should be irrelevant right? Because if the policy were implemented correctly, everyone wouldn't have such quibbles. I more want to hear what you think about the overall mechanism of how they function.

"how many homicides and injuries involving AWs and LCMs could be prevented if offenders were forced to substitute other guns and magazines? In what percentage of gun attacks does the ability to fire more than ten rounds without reloading affect the number of wounded victims or
determine the difference between a fatal and non-fatal attack? Do other AW features (such as flash hiders and pistol grips on rifles) have demonstrable effects on the outcomes of gun attacks? Studies of gun attacks could draw upon police incident reports, forensic examinations of recovered guns and magazines, and medical and law enforcement data on wounded victims."
These would certainly be good questions to perform studies on. On the other hand, we can only work with what we have, and what logically makes sense
#157
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
But you are ignoring my desire to work within the second amendment and to create a clear boundary between what classes of firearms should be examined.
I've asked you several times about which guns, ammo, cosmetics etc and either you gave a vague answer or didn't know.

Well, how would you argue that bolt-action rifles should be considered assault weapons. That should be an interesting exercise
because some take magazines, even ones made during WWII
How is it illogical when semi-automatic handguns are less effective than semi-automatic rifles?
because of bullet capacity, this is the argument after all right?  a semi auto handgun can hold as many or more rounds than a semi auto rifle.  As many of these studies have said the number of misses is pretty high even by train police, more so for the psycho mass murderer.  What ever effectiveness difference you think there might be is inconsequential to someone not trained in either one and the stats show that pretty well.  While an AR-15 might be the best for home defense that is a total different environment and situation than a psycho mass murderer has in mind.
Or that 50-100 round cartridges would definitely be included in the ban
again look at the study, how many shots are actually fired.  this is an exercise in futility.

Which is why these policies aim for gradual change over time to the point at which those methods will become increasingly more difficult to achieve
we will never see that in our live times, more effective things can be done immediately if the focus was on them, rather than this wishful thinking.

That's why the series of gun experts would make it unvague, well defined and unopenended.
that's not how you described it, nor is it possible.

These would certainly be good questions to perform studies on. On the other hand, we can only work with what we have, and what logically makes sense

sure like existing laws and punishments, sounds good to me, hey here's a thought I've mentioned in other threads on similar topics.  As you may or may not know, crimes are public knowledge in some states and it might be all federal ones are but I can't recall.  Some states have searchable data bases as well.  Why not make that the standard for all states and federal crimes that would prohibit someone from purchasing a gun?  Any responsible gun owner would never want to sell their gun to someone who can't legally have one.  Why not remove the hurdles so they can easily find this information out before the sale?  Essentially make a public version of the NICS check.  Employeers do background checks, lots of entities do, why not let individuals, given the data bases that already exist?  mind you the data bases I've examined are terrible, but they could hire a couple of high school kids to fix them up and make they very useful.  Make it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing and a majority of them will.

post #142
The lethality of a gun of course. (all actual guns are lethal fyi)

A study would have to be performed to determine the exact defining criteria, but of the legal weapons available, only semi-automatics are likely to fill this criteria.  (there is no difference between platforms, semi auto describes function and nothing more)

Well we know that pistols are less effective than rifles. So in this case, we need only block the features related to pistols that allow them to be as effective as rifles and high-end pistols (that's subjective and depends on the individual, why does law enforcement almost exclusively carry handguns then, shouldn't they be using the best tool?)(it's not something that can really be determined because it's also situational)

post #104
definition of assault weapons seems reasonable. Extend this definition to include other firearms not commonly described as assault weapons, but have multiple features in common with assault weapons. Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable. Finally, ensure that this definition is adaptable for the removal and addition of gun.  (this sounds opened to me and perfect for the slippery slope argument)

perhaps some clarification on those statements because it sure does seem like a semi-auto ban to me.

any, the studies I have seen which have some details and flaws don't show any concrete proof just maybe and possibly, perhaps your study will read differently, though based on some of the statements you gave about, it doesn't seem very likely.
when you make statements like "it's worth trying" and similar that's wanting people to take it on faith.  If you look at the long study they go into the economics of bans and talk about bans it's actually counter intuitive.
#158
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
as a side note, 30 round magazines and higher tend to be very unreliable either not feeding or causing jams, there's some really good and valid reasons why you wouldn't want those anyway, so much like the bump stock it's fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.
#159
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I've asked you several times about which guns, ammo, cosmetics etc and either you gave a vague answer or didn't know.
Which is a perfectly reasonable response from someone who doesn't know much about guns but who has stated such policies would require input from gun experts who would.

because some take magazines, even ones made during WWII
And you feel this property is sufficient to compare it next to an AR-15 for example?


because of bullet capacity, this is the argument after all right?  a semi auto handgun can hold as many or more rounds than a semi auto rifle.  As many of these studies have said the number of misses is pretty high even by train police, more so for the psycho mass murderer.  What ever effectiveness difference you think there might be is inconsequential to someone not trained in either one and the stats show that pretty well.  While an AR-15 might be the best for home defense that is a total different environment and situation than a psycho mass murderer has in mind.
No. So in your video, the instructors compared and evaluated several properties of each gun type. And then concluded by using these properties to justify the best gun type for home defense. However these properties were not limited to just the context of efficacy in a home defense, but in general to the gun type itself. For example, two of the properties were accuracy ease and recoil management. Are these properties limited to just home defense situations? Not really right? Anytime you shoot a gun, these properties are relevant. You'll note that a pistol scored 3 and 6 respectively while an AR-15 scored 7 and 8. This is what I mean by effectiveness.

again look at the study, how many shots are actually fired.  this is an exercise in futility.
Not really. Magazines of size 50 and 100 are just supersets of small magazines right? So any banning of magazines smaller than 50 must also include magazines of size 50 and 100 by default

we will never see that in our live times, more effective things can be done immediately if the focus was on them, rather than this wishful thinking.
Effective policy is built up over time. And while other things can certainly be done immediately, you'd have to justify they are actually more effective.

that's not how you described it, nor is it possible.

Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable.
Why isn't it possible?

sure like existing laws and punishments, sounds good to me, hey here's a thought I've mentioned in other threads on similar topics.  As you may or may not know, crimes are public knowledge in some states and it might be all federal ones are but I can't recall.  Some states have searchable data bases as well.  Why not make that the standard for all states and federal crimes that would prohibit someone from purchasing a gun?  Any responsible gun owner would never want to sell their gun to someone who can't legally have one.  Why not remove the hurdles so they can easily find this information out before the sale?  Essentially make a public version of the NICS check.  Employeers do background checks, lots of entities do, why not let individuals, given the data bases that already exist?  mind you the data bases I've examined are terrible, but they could hire a couple of high school kids to fix them up and make they very useful.  Make it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing and a majority of them will.
Excellent idea. However approaches to gun violence need not be singular, but can be multi-faceted

The lethality of a gun of course. (all actual guns are lethal fyi)
Lethality isn't a binary property. It's a sliding scale.

A study would have to be performed to determine the exact defining criteria, but of the legal weapons available, only semi-automatics are likely to fill this criteria.  (there is no difference between platforms, semi auto describes function and nothing more)
That's the point. The function in this case is for the ability to consecutively pull the trigger without any other jiggery that is found in other guns types such as lever/bolt/pump action guns which slows down shooting speed.

Well we know that pistols are less effective than rifles. So in this case, we need only block the features related to pistols that allow them to be as effective as rifles and high-end pistols (that's subjective and depends on the individual, why does law enforcement almost exclusively carry handguns then, shouldn't they be using the best tool?)(it's not something that can really be determined because it's also situational)
I mean your video does suggest that an AR-15 is much better for newbies than a pistol is. Now of course, you could be an adept that is equally capable of using a pistol and an AR-15. On the other-hand, this is addressing the average case.

Finally, ensure that this definition is adaptable for the removal and addition of gun.  (this sounds opened to me and perfect for the slippery slope argument)
Not really, because at some point a wall will be hit in terms of the second amendment. Apart from this, if you limit the bans to a subset of semi-automatic weapons, you have a clearly defined line which cannot be crossed.

#160
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
perhaps some clarification on those statements because it sure does seem like a semi-auto ban to me.
Sure. Think of most tame semi-automatic handgun you can think of. Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal. Imagine those extensions are banned. The resulting gun, despite being a semi-automatic gun will not be banned.

when you make statements like "it's worth trying" and similar that's wanting people to take it on faith.  If you look at the long study they go into the economics of bans and talk about bans it's actually counter intuitive.
Did I make the statement "it's worth trying"? From my perspective, my policies are rooted in logic. There is no faith here. Less guns means less gun violence. Less lethal weapons means less deaths

so much like the bump stock it's fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.
Could you go into a little into why you think the bump stock ban doesn't fix anything? From my perspective, preventing a semi-automatic weapon to shoot like a fully automatic weapon certainly has merits


Topic's author
#161
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
an automatic gun in a crowd like the las vegas shooting is almost certainly more deadly. the spray and pray thing might be true that automatic isn't always more effective, but often it is. 

if we limit people from having bump stocks, it's logical less people would do it. mass shooters aren't that sophisticated... if you gave them a bump stock, they would use it. they aren't choosing semi autos because they are more efficient. 
#162
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
justify they are actually more effective.
no you have to justify infringing on rights.
Why isn't it possible?
because you are saying it's not a ban on all semi auto
Lethality isn't a binary property. It's a sliding scale.
um yeah it is either something is lethal or has a reasonable ability to be so or it doesn't, which guns currently in existence aren't lethal?  none.

The function in this case is for the ability to consecutively pull the trigger without any other jiggery that is found in other guns types such as lever/bolt/pump action guns which slows down shooting speed.
yes, a semi auto ban, there ya go, you keep admitting to it yet don't seem to realize it.

Not really, because at some point a wall will be hit in terms of the second amendment.
there's already a limit "shall not be infringed"

you chose the word  "adaptable"  that's not a limiting word and isn't a definition nor a defining factor.

subset of semi-automatic weapons
I've said this before but perhaps not in a way that it needed to be or obvious enough.  there are subsets of gun, not semi-automatic guns, semi-automatic as I said refers to every gun that function by what is defined as semi-auto, one shot per pull of the trigger.
you could include revolvers in that definition as well

Think of most tame semi-automatic handgun you can think of. Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal. Imagine those extensions are banned. The resulting gun, despite being a semi-automatic gun will not be banned.
I'm not sure how I can tell you in the kindest way this makes no sense and you don't know enough about the topic, which isn't an insult there are plenty of things I don't know much or enough about.  There is NOTHING, not one thing, zero, nadda, no thing that can be added, extended to a gun to make it more lethal, the bullet is the lethal part.  With that said a bullet that doesn't hit doesn't kill.  So if you think things can be added to increase accuracy or something like that is pure fantasy to think it would make any real statistical difference.  If it were that easy the military would be using it.  The military seem to function just fine with standard iron sights, no forward pistol grip and the other cosmetics do not effect the accuracy or legality of the gun.  This is political b.s. that you shouldn't fall for.  This is why people refuse to talk about the subject in general, the false information and ignorance.

Less guns means less gun violence. 
that's true on paper, but to reduce the number that already exist to see any measurable effect would require as I said a military/police state going from house to house.  Just like last ban, when it's announced and or talked about, manufacturing goes up as do sales.

Could you go into a little into why you think the bump stock ban doesn't fix anything?
well I thought I had already, but I've been in many threads like this and it all repeats so here you go.
I would also draw your attention to the age of these videos, also I'm not responsible for any nightmares you may have :)

#163
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
watch the videos at the bottom of post #162, then explain why it happened once, if in fact he actually used the bump stock as I previously posted they can be set not to move and function as a regular stock, I personally haven't heard or read any report that the gun he used actually was fitted with a bump stock and that he actually used it to fire more rapidly.  Yes some of the guns which he had a bunch of had bump stocks on, did the one he use have one?  Don't recall anyone saying specifically or leaving no doubt.  Please let us know if you find some specific and plain language that says he actually did use the feature on the bump stock if the gun was fitted with one, and that bump stock wasn't locked into a non moving position.
Topic's author
#164
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it doesn't matter if he used it or not. my argument is that if he did, it'd be more lethal in a packed crowd like that. if we have bump stocks everywhere people will be more likely to use them or use automatic in general, when they shouldn't. most people won't bother to rig up an assault rifle to make it automatic. the point, is that if you put obstacles in people's way, it will on average limit some people. same with gun control in general. 

Topic's author
#165
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
do you think machine guns should be legal based on the logic that it 'infringes' on people's guns, and that machine guns are less effective anyway so what's the point of banning them? why or why not?
#166
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
it doesn't matter if he used it or not. my argument is that if he did, it'd be more lethal in a packed crowd like that. if we have bump stocks everywhere people will be more likely to use them or use automatic in general, when they shouldn't. most people won't bother to rig up an assault rifle to make it automatic. the point, is that if you put obstacles in people's way, it will on average limit some people. same with gun control in general. 
again there's no definitive proof he actually did, so let's consider "most people won't bother to rig up an assault rifle to make it automatic"  bump stocks have to be installed, the old one removed first, so it has to be 'rigged up' after you go out and purchase it for $100, thus if what you say is true and most people wouldn't rig it up, there was never a need to ban bump stocks.  The best obstacle to someone with a gun is other people with guns pointing back at them.  You seem to think these mass murders are of sound mind and rational thought, I can't even begin to guess why you'd think that.

machine guns are another topic but I would suggest you research why they are regulated the way they are and why.  How many mass shooting were done with machine guns BEFORE the regulations?


#167
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
unfortunately the list only goes back to 1999

Topic's author
#168
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you're the one assuming shooters are educated and rational, because you think they wouldn't choose automatic because it's less effective. in reality, i'm have no doubt that they would jump on the chance to take an automatic to a shooting, even if it's just for the psychology of it and because they aren't educated or rational. but there are too many obstacles in the way in the way to make it their go to. a bump stock makes it easy, and i have no doubt if there were bump stocks everywhere and people actually considered them, they would use those in mass shootings if it's right before them. so, bump stocks are too easy, but rigging it up in some other way is too sophisticated for most people. plus they probably dont consider that too much either, because if they did, you know they would more often. the point, is we want obstacles in the way to prevent people from using them, at the very least in situations like the vegas shooter. 
#169
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
I looked at the "study" in 37 years there were 44 mass shootings they used, then all the talked about is number killed rather than how many of the 44 an assault weapon was actually used, unless I missed it, which is possible, if so let me know where to look.  but if you look at my link, just skim it you'll see how many mass murders the weapon of choice is a semi handgun.  if a list exists from 1981-1998 I'm sure the ratio really won't change statically.
Topic's author
#170
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
also it looks like in your debate with dust, that you are trying to argue why assault rifles are uniquely effective as a means of defense, but not uniquely effective as an offensive gun. you're trying to have your cake and eat it too so to find reasons to keep them, and not ban them. but the thing is, you are right that an assault rifle can improve your odds of self defense. the thing is, the reason it makes it better at shooting many people in defense is the same reason it's more effective to shoot more people to murder them too. but as dust was arguing, the examples where an assault rifle were necessary for defense are not really out there, but the examples where they are used for group murder are out there. hence, that's why it makes sense to single out assault rifles and not all semi automatics. 
#171
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
with regards to your "study"
"Forty-four of these incidents met the strictest criteriafor mass shootings (4 or more killed)"  that's from 1981-2017  37 year span.  Now they talk about the total number of deaths, but how many of the 44 incidents they used was an assault weapon the only weapon used?  I skimmed it, let me know where to find it please.
and from your "study"
"An assault weapon ban is not a panacea, nor do our analyses indicate that an assault weapon ban will result in feweroverall firearm-related homicides."

the shooting at Virginia Tech wasn't with an assault weapon for instance

#172
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
no you have to justify infringing on rights.
Prevention of murders

because you are saying it's not a ban on all semi auto
And why does that prevent gun experts on making a decision on exact thresholds?

um yeah it is either something is lethal or has a reasonable ability to be so or it doesn't, which guns currently in existence aren't lethal?  none.
"Lethality is how capable something is of causing death."
"The use of this term denotes the ability of these weapons to kill, but also the possibility that they may not kill."

So no, not a binary position.

yes, a semi auto ban, there ya go, you keep admitting to it yet don't seem to realize it.
False. I was explaining the reasoning behind limiting the ban to those within the semi-automatic class. It doesn't mean that I said all of the semi-automatic class would be banned

there's already a limit "shall not be infringed"
Doesn't mention which arms. Which is why fully automatic weapons have been banned. Nor does it prevent formation of militias

you chose the word  "adaptable"  that's not a limiting word and isn't a definition nor a defining factor.
Well if it makes you feel any better, adaptable can be refined to mean only guns within the semi-automatic class.

I've said this before but perhaps not in a way that it needed to be or obvious enough.  there are subsets of gun, not semi-automatic guns, semi-automatic as I said refers to every gun that function by what is defined as semi-auto, one shot per pull of the trigger.
you could include revolvers in that definition as well
A set is a unique collection of objects defined under some grouping. For example, the set of all guns A, the set of all semi-automatic guns B, the set of all semi-automatic rifles C and the set of all variants of AR-15 D. In which case B is a subset of A, C is a subset of B and D is a subset of C.

I'm not sure how I can tell you in the kindest way this makes no sense and you don't know enough about the topic, which isn't an insult there are plenty of things I don't know much or enough about.  There is NOTHING, not one thing, zero, nadda, no thing that can be added, extended to a gun to make it more lethal, the bullet is the lethal part.  With that said a bullet that doesn't hit doesn't kill.  So if you think things can be added to increase accuracy or something like that is pure fantasy to think it would make any real statistical difference.  If it were that easy the military would be using it.  The military seem to function just fine with standard iron sights, no forward pistol grip and the other cosmetics do not effect the accuracy or legality of the gun.  This is political b.s. that you shouldn't fall for.  This is why people refuse to talk about the subject in general, the false information and ignorance.
That's fine. Doesn't actually change my argument

that's true on paper, but to reduce the number that already exist to see any measurable effect would require as I said a military/police state going from house to house.  Just like last ban, when it's announced and or talked about, manufacturing goes up as do sales.
Or you know, time, like my policy uses. As people say, rome wasn't built in a day.

well I thought I had already, but I've been in many threads like this and it all repeats so here you go.
I see. There are trivial methods to simulate auto-fire without bump stocks. On the otherhand, there's no harm done with a bumpstock ban. It's not like it will worsen the situation so there can only be a net gain.
#173
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I looked at the "study" in 37 years there were 44 mass shootings they used, then all the talked about is number killed rather than how many of the 44 an assault weapon was actually used, unless I missed it, which is possible, if so let me know where to look.  but if you look at my link, just skim it you'll see how many mass murders the weapon of choice is a semi handgun.  if a list exists from 1981-1998 I'm sure the ratio really won't change statically.
You're making an excellent case for banning semi-automatic handguns 

with regards to your "study"
"Forty-four of these incidents met the strictest criteria for mass shootings (4 or more killed)"  that's from 1981-2017  37 year span.  Now they talk about the total number of deaths, but how many of the 44 incidents they used was an assault weapon the only weapon used?  I skimmed it, let me know where to find it please.
and from your "study"
"An assault weapon ban is not a panacea, nor do our analyses indicate that an assault weapon ban will result in feweroverall firearm-related homicides."

the shooting at Virginia Tech wasn't with an assault weapon for instance
So to be clear, the exact thing the study is measuring and comparing are the amount of shooting deaths attributable to an assault weapon. In this context counting the number of times in which an assault weapon was used or counting the time when only an assault weapon used is irrelevant to this measure. My quick glance over didn't reveal any data of this nature either. However if this is something you truly wish to know, the data used by the study would tell you (16-18 in the references).



#174
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
rigging up a rubber band is too sophisticated?  Ok if you say so LOL guess you didn't watch the videos, btw there's other things you can use which are equally available and easy to rig up for those who are "sophisticated"

I don't have to find a reason to "keep them" others have to find a reason to ban them, which doesn't exist except in misinformation and emotion.  Defending one's home is far different then going into a large building, wide open event etc to commit mass murder, which is done far more often with handguns if you bother to read the links.

#175
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Prevention of murders
so now you are back to banning all guns, roger

And why does that prevent gun experts on making a decision on exact thresholds?
I have yet to hear of an example, so until then I believe this isn't possible as I've stated before.  Unless you just want me to take it on faith?

"Lethality is how capable something is of causing death."
So no, not a binary position.

ok so i'll ask again, which guns aren't capable of causing death?  seems rather binary to me, either they can or can't, which ones can't?
A set is a unique collection of objects defined under some grouping.
but you don't really know what that group would be other than the ones that look scary since there's no other real logical reason to ban something that is rarely used compared to same functioning guns.  Of the few mass murders caused why your definition of an "assault weapon" which of those could have had the same results has a handgun been used, Pulse Night Club comes to mind.  People trapped in a building are easy and close targets, the weapon doesn't really matter even to someone not trained, like Virginia Tech.
Or you know, time, like my policy uses.
yes you want time to see if it works, I know, take it on faith is just another way of saying it.  No thanks.

there's no harm done with a bumpstock ban. 
that's why I called it a farce and something to placate the liberals, you're catching on.

You're making an excellent case for banning semi-automatic handguns
I said way back your argument isn't logical, but a ban on all semi-auto would be, now you've finally figured it out.  The selective banning of things rarely used is rather stupid isn't it.
measuring and comparing are the amount of shooting deaths 
selective measuring yes it sure is, but it fails when don't as a yearly comparison or raw numbers over that time period.  The attempt to draw some kind of conclusion that assault weapons kill more people per mass murder isn't really possible.  the 2 mass murders mentioned about for example.  There's no way to know if the assault weapon was replaced with something else, like even a handgun what the results would be.  I believe you said Las Vegas was an anomaly which it was. 
Banning something rarely used makes no sense, still.

#176
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so now you are back to banning all guns, roger
False. Banning all possible tools in which humans can kill humans prevents murders. Banning a subset of all possible tools in which humans can kill humans also prevents murders. While all guns is a subset of such tools, so are assault weapons.

I have yet to hear of an example, so until then I believe this isn't possible as I've stated before.  Unless you just want me to take it on faith?
Why don't you believe it's possible? Do you think it's impossible to definitively come up with a list of gun features that allows for fully-automatic rifles to shoot people more effectively than a fully-automatic handgun?

ok so i'll ask again, which guns aren't capable of causing death?  seems rather binary to me, either they can or can't, which ones can't?
Describing whether something *can* cause death or not is binary. But you took issue with lethality. Lethality is a measure of likelihood of death and is not binary. If you are still confused about this, consult a dictionary.

but you don't really know what that group would be other than the ones that look scary since there's no other real logical reason to ban something that is rarely used compared to same functioning guns.  Of the few mass murders caused why your definition of an "assault weapon" which of those could have had the same results has a handgun been used, Pulse Night Club comes to mind.  People trapped in a building are easy and close targets, the weapon doesn't really matter even to someone not trained, like Virginia Tech.
Again, consult a dictionary for the word lethality. The groups will be defined around the lethality of guns. I promise you the definition will have nothing to do with aesthetics as you seem to think.

yes you want time to see if it works, I know, take it on faith is just another way of saying it.  No thanks.
False. The policies are backed up by logical arguments. You may dismiss the arguments by attacking the logical arguments or not at all.

that's why I called it a farce and something to placate the liberals, you're catching on.
Well no, it's not a farce. Just because something can be done some way doesn't mean you can't make it any harder or less reliable.

Exact same argument with guns. Yes, the average joe could get guns off the blackmarket if you were to ban them. But you can make it more difficult to get them. This in turn reduces gun ownership

I said way back your argument isn't logical, but a ban on all semi-auto would be, now you've finally figured it out.  The selective banning of things rarely used is rather stupid isn't it.
No. Because there good argument to be made that handguns have a legitimate use while there's no argument to be made that so called assault weapons have legitimate use. Now they might be rarely used, but if they are still used and have no legitimate purpose outside of that use, there's no reason not to ban them

selective measuring yes it sure is, but it fails when don't as a yearly comparison or raw numbers over that time period.  The attempt to draw some kind of conclusion that assault weapons kill more people per mass murder isn't really possible.  the 2 mass murders mentioned about for example.  There's no way to know if the assault weapon was replaced with something else, like even a handgun what the results would be.  I believe you said Las Vegas was an anomaly which it was. 
You'll need to be more coherent than this if you want to criticise the study. That said, using "There's no way to know" is almost certainly a stupid way to argue it. Arguments are not made on the merits on what we don't know.

Banning something rarely used makes no sense, still.
Explain further. Imagine that there's a box that has no specific purpose other than it being a box. You can stack them and use them as a decoration. You can use them as a doorstop or as a weight. They also have a extremely small chance of exploding when bumped, incinerating anything within a 10m radius. This happens approximately once every month.

Do you support banning this box?
#177
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Why don't you believe it's possible? Do you think it's impossible to definitively come up with a list of gun features that allows for fully-automatic rifles to shoot people more effectively than a fully-automatic handgun?
yes, how many mass murders per year is an acceptable number to stop adding guns to the list?  Let's say mass murders go down but the murder rate goes up, add more guns to the list?  pretty difficult to draw lines isn't it.
Describing whether something *can* cause death or not is binary. 
fine we'll play your game, which guns can't cause death?  I think what you are actually talking about is some unprovable percentage if you are shot by x you have a y chance of surviving.  If you compare ballistics as a criteria you'll want to ban most hand guns.
there good argument to be made that handguns have a legitimate use while there's no argument to be made that so called assault weapons have legitimate use.

rather subjective don't you think?  who decides what a legitimate use is?

there is no constitutional right to a box.

"There have been a total of 816 deaths in mass killings… since 1982."
"In the gun control mecca, Chicago, they had 943 murders in 1992 alone! In one year!"
"The average has been about 8.5 deaths per year from mass killing. That’s the truth of mass shooting statistics that you won’t hear from the progressive propaganda machine."

Obama lowered the number to 3 as the definition of mass murders btw.


#178
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Obama lowered the number to 3 as the definition of mass murders btw.

Most studies use 4 now, as 3 includes too many gang drive-by killings, and those people are oppressed enough as it is.
#179
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yes, how many mass murders per year is an acceptable number to stop adding guns to the list?  Let's say mass murders go down but the murder rate goes up, add more guns to the list?  pretty difficult to draw lines isn't it.
Not really no. This is where data comes in. Personally, I would compare and contrast the years before and after the ban and inspect what guns were used and how effective they were. As for mass murders going down but the murder rate going up, I would examine why this occurred.

fine we'll play your game, which guns can't cause death?  I think what you are actually talking about is some unprovable percentage if you are shot by x you have a y chance of surviving.  If you compare ballistics as a criteria you'll want to ban most hand guns.
Kind of. Except it's less about percentage and more about comparing this theoretical lethality to the theoretical lethality of other guns. And lethality is not confined to a single target. Since this is about mass shootings, it is pertinent to examine lethality to multiple potential targets. Focusing on ballistics, while important is enough to sufficiently describe the entire situation of multiple potential targets.

rather subjective don't you think?  who decides what a legitimate use is?
I did. Feel free to change my mind.

there is no constitutional right to a box.
An addendum. The right to the box is guaranteed by the constitution in this scenario. So banning the box would require an amendment to the constitution

"There have been a total of 816 deaths in mass killings… since 1982."
Just because a problem is small, doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.
#180
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
theoretical lethality to the theoretical lethality of other guns.
that's not possible, what I think could be a defining factor is something you mentioned before, capacity, since all guns can kill, one of the links I posted I think or I read somewhere talked about how many rounds people were actually shot with, I seem to recall the average was 1.  It's not like the majority of victims are shot 3 or more times generally.
I did. Feel free to change my mind.
well it's a right, you have to change minds to enforce your subjective legitimate use.  Though you could define what you think is legitimate.

Just because a problem is small, doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.
sure, ok, what's the number of mass shootings that tolerable?  How about murders per year while we are at it, what's the number that's acceptable?