Mass stabbing at Texas school results in... zero deaths

[stinkyfish]

In point of fact, government entities (including, but not limited to, the U.S. military) can purchase fully-automatic weapons without background checks or tax stamps, so you were wrong when you claimed that those were necessary steps.  See how much fun it is to debate points of semantic order?

But Spider, you weren't reffering to government entities or the U.S Military when you stated that fully automatic weapons were illegal. Were you ? The following quote by you directly says full auto weapons are banned and that a mass murderer can buy and own a semi auto legally but not a fully auto. That was incorrect on your part.

The ban on fully automatic weapons seems to have been pretty effective at stopping these kinds of massacres from being committed with fully automatic weapons!

Why are these mass murderers not bringing M16s or Tommy guns with them to shoot up a school?  Why do they always seem to use weapons that can be purchased and owned legally?

You make no sense. If you can't man up and admit you were clearly wrong about automatic weapons being banned and illegal to own, then there is no point discussing this further with you.

You are aware that 3-round-burst still classifies a weapon as a machine gun, and is therefore subject to the same federal regulations as a fully-automatic weapon, right?

Yes, you are correct on that. They are both classified as automatic weapons. However, I'm sure that you would agree that they are not the same thing with respect to accuracy or ammunition usage, right ? A diesel VW Jetta, a Jeep, and a Ferrari are all automobiles. Does that mean they all have the same fuel economy and ride smoothly ? I'm sorry, were you talking about killing efficientcy or BATF classification ? You keep changing channels on me.

So then, if semi-auto weapons are superior (<--- this word is important) for killing the enemy as rapidly as possible, why do militaries across the globe still issue machine guns?  Are you claiming that they issue them for reasons other than lethality?

I've already stated that for the vast majority of situations full auto would be used for suppressive fire. Full auto is highly inaccruate and wastes ammunition. If you think our soldiers go around zipping off hundreds of rounds cutting people in half, you watch too much TV. I'm sure you would agree that less wasted ammunition equates to it being possible to kill more people, right ?

What does my own personal experience has to do with the armament choices of the U.S. (and other) militaries?

Funny how you couldn't just answer the question. If you had any experience with the differnt weapon systems, you would know the reasons why it doesn't work the way you think it does. We're not talking about the weapon choice of militaries. We were talking about your false beliefs about the legality of ownership and accuracy of fully automatic firearms. Spray and pray or one shot/one kill ? 

[stinkyfish]

This person didn't use a gun. I would expect bombings would become more common if guns were more difficult to get. Taking away guns isn't going to take away crazy people. I guess we can debate if an IED would be the next preferred method of mass urder if guns were relatively unavailable. I personally think they would.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17764747-witnesses-2-explosions-heard-near-finish-line-of-boston-marathon?lite

You are correct Phish. People have been killing each other for thousands of years and they will continue to until we disappear all together. I guess by some peoples logic, we can gut the 1st amendment and ban free speech for everyone in the country because a small percentage of the population goes around yelling fire in crowded buildings.

[Phishfan]

Well, since IEDs are generally illegal and possessing one is a crime in and of itself, I'd say that would be a significant step up from the current situation of "You can pry my assault rifle with 30-round-magazines out of my cold, dead hands."

Just to go on the record once again. This is not a position I take. I am more than willing to hear gun regulation discussion but the only argument you guys make is for complete repeal of the second amendment. It isn't going to happen. If you really want to discuss options let's do it. Otherwise this position is nothing but hot air.

[Spider-Dan]

The following quote by you directly says full auto weapons are banned and that a mass murderer can buy and own a semi auto legally but not a fully auto. That was incorrect on your part.

Likewise, you said that fully-automatic weapons require a background check and tax stamp to purchase.  That was incorrect on your part.  I await your admission of a false statement.

It should be plainly obvious that I didn't believe that machine guns are completely illegal, as at a very minimum the government can have them.  They are heavily regulated, to an extent that they are effectively banned for normal citizens (and literally banned for individuals in 13 states).

But sure, if you also want to argue that it's technically not illegal to possess heroin if you are in possession of the appropriate medical licenses, then go right ahead.

Yes, you are correct on that. They are both classified as automatic weapons. However, I'm sure that you would agree that they are not the same thing with respect to accuracy or ammunition usage, right ?

I am confused as to why you continue to substitute accuracy for lethality.  Explosives are not particularly accurate compared to bullets; that doesn't make a gun a substitute for a rocket.

I've already stated that for the vast majority of situations full auto would be used for suppressive fire. Full auto is highly inaccruate and wastes ammunition.

So then, why do militaries issue automatic weapons instead of semi-auto?

You still have yet to provide any sort of evidence to back up the claim that they are better at killing many people QUICKLY (<--- this word is important).  Accuracy and/or efficiency are not the same thing as speed.

I'm sure you would agree that less wasted ammunition equates to it being possible to kill more people, right ?

That is only true in the sense that a knife can "kill more people" than a gun (because a knife can't run out of ammo).  You are presuming that efficiency of shots per kill is a metric that murderers should care about.

Funny how you couldn't just answer the question. If you had any experience with the differnt weapon systems, you would know the reasons why it doesn't work the way you think it does. We're not talking about the weapon choice of militaries.

Um, actually, we are.

You claim that fully-automatic weapons are less effective at killing as many people as fast as possible.  I disagree, and as evidence, I cite the weapon choice of groups whose task it is to kill as many people as fast as possible: militaries.

My own personal experience is irrelevant, since I have no personal interest in killing people.

[Spider-Dan]

Just to go on the record once again. This is not a position I take. I am more than willing to hear gun regulation discussion but the only argument you guys make is for complete repeal of the second amendment.

No, that isn't the only argument. There is exactly one person in this thread who has advocated repealing the second amendment (and I suspect it was partially sarcastic, as a response to the complete intransigence of NRA supporters).

Being in favor of moving the bar from machine guns to assault rifles and high-capacity magazines is not an argument for "complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment."

[Phishfan]

OK, maybe I misunderstood your position then. While you never specifically mention repealing the amendment, I sensed a tone of abolition of all guns. Maybe you are just concerned about assault style weapons and magazines. That has been the majority of your posts but I took the sound and familairity of past discussion to feel you wanted complete abolition. Fau is on record as saying he completely feels repealing the amendment is the only moral argument to gun control. I don't see how you take that to mean any sarcasm. Dave would like for the repeal to happen but doesn't believe it will. You are the three biggest posters for opposition to guns in this thread so excuse me if I misinterpreted.

[Spider-Dan]

I support guns for purposes of home protection (but I don't support guns powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss).
I support guns for local law enforcement (but I don't support the militarization of police; there is no place for tanks in police departments).
I don't support concealed carry laws (you carry openly or not at all) and I don't support Stand Your Ground.

[stinkyfish]

Likewise, you said that fully-automatic weapons require a background check and tax stamp to purchase.  That was incorrect on your part.  I await your admission of a false statement.

In your original statement you specified "mass murderers", not government

It should be plainly obvious that I didn't believe that machine guns are completely illegal, as at a very minimum the government can have them.  They are heavily regulated, to an extent that they are effectively banned for normal citizens (and literally banned for individuals in 13 states).

But sure, if you also want to argue that it's technically not illegal to possess heroin if you are in possession of the appropriate medical licenses, then go right ahead.

In your original statement you specified "mass murderers" and made the implication that fully automatic weapons were banned and illegal for the general public, therefore that is specifically what I was referring to. Your spin about the government being able to purchase these weapons to cover you ass that you didn't "really" believe they were banned and illegal is preposterous at best.  It is pretty common knowledge that the government and law enforcement are exempt from a vast majority of restrictions and regulations that apply to the general public, ie speeding, carrying weapons, blocking traffic, detaining people.  People don't know what you believe or think, they know what you say and you said they were banned and illegal. And you were wrong.

I am confused as to why you continue to substitute accuracy for lethality.  Explosives are not particularly accurate compared to bullets; that doesn't make a gun a substitute for a rocket.

It is not a substitute, the two go hand in hand. Accuracy = hitting the target. Lethality is dependent on hitting the target. So long story short, if you don't hit the target, you can't be lethal. Simple enough.

So then, why do militaries issue automatic weapons instead of semi-auto?

I have answered this more than once, I will answer it one more time. Fully automatic is primarily used for suppressive fire in rare circumstances. 3 burst fire is rarely used either as it offers no advantages over semi auto with proper trigger control.

Also, again you are misinformed. They do not issue automatic, nor do they issue semi automatic in the AR platform. They issue select fire rifles, which fire either semi & 3 round burst or semi or fully auto. The majority of the rifles issued are 3 burst fire.

You still have yet to provide any sort of evidence to back up the claim that they are better at killing many people QUICKLY (<--- this word is important).  Accuracy and/or efficiency are not the same thing as speed.

Accuracy and efficiency is directly related speed. Do you dispute that ?

That is only true in the sense that a knife can "kill more people" than a gun (because a knife can't run out of ammo).  You are presuming that efficiency of shots per kill is a metric that murderers should care about.

I have no idea what killers care about. I'm only trying to help you understand your misinformed position about these firearms. If they don't care about efficiency, what do they care about

Um, actually, we are.

You claim that fully-automatic weapons are less effective at killing as many people as fast as possible.  I disagree, and as evidence, I cite the weapon choice of groups whose task it is to kill as many people as fast as possible: militaries.

So according to you. Since the military is in the business of killing. And the military issues 3 round burst and automatic weapons. That, in fact 3 round burst and fully automatic mode are better for killing more people more quickly ? So it would stand to reason that automatic would be used the majority of the time. Is that your position ? Well read the following thread and you will see what actual soldiers say on the subject.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1425421

I have already explained to you that the full auto position of the fire control group is rarely used by the majority of military personal and the reasons for that. Just because the weapon will fire in full auto doesn't mean that its utilized.

My own personal experience is irrelevant, since I have no personal interest in killing people.

I asked if you have ever fired any of the firearms you claim to know about. Simply shooting a weapon has nothing to do with killing people, that is an absurd position.  It has to do with knowing how the firearm operates and it's limitations. So you claim that you personal experience is irrelevant. Then how can you claim to know more than someone that actually does have experience ? Not to mention the real world experience of all the soldiers in the thread I kindly provided you above. You can believe whatever you want, I think I have provided you enough information regarding this topic to make an informed decision. Good luck to you sir.

[Sunstroke]

That, in fact 3 round burst and fully automatic mode are better for killing more people more quickly ?

If I was a single gunman, and wanted to kill a large group of what my twisted brain believes to be enemy combatants, in a relatively confined location, like, say, a school, or library, or a church...you know, popular hangouts for enemy combatants. My brain, speaking to me with Morgan Freeman's voice, would tell me that full automatic would be the way to go.

[Phishfan]

I support guns for purposes of home protection (but I don't support guns powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss).
I support guns for local law enforcement (but I don't support the militarization of police; there is no place for tanks in police departments).
I don't support concealed carry laws (you carry openly or not at all) and I don't support Stand Your Ground.

Very reasonable positions and definitely workable for gun control discussion.. I have to ask, in relation to Stand Your Ground. How do you feel about the Castle Doctrine?

[Dave Gray]

Dave would like for the repeal to happen but doesn't believe it will.

Just to clarify, I don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment.  I only say that in the case that we can't enact sensible oversight because people hide behind a blanketing amendment.  If the 2nd amendment means that a private citizen can own a rocket launcher and live next to the airport, then yes-- repeal and rewrite to accommodate current circumstances.

[Spider-Dan]

In your original statement you specified "mass murderers" and made the implication that fully automatic weapons were banned and illegal for the general public, therefore that is specifically what I was referring to.

If you're referring to what you think I implied then you probably should drop the semantic battle over what "illegal" means.  We all understand what is meant by "illegal" guns and "illegal" drugs even though neither of those things are actually illegal, but strictly regulated.

It is not a substitute, the two go hand in hand. Accuracy = hitting the target. Lethality is dependent on hitting the target. So long story short, if you don't hit the target, you can't be lethal. Simple enough.

[...]

Accuracy and efficiency is directly related speed. Do you dispute that ?

Yes, I dispute it.  A crossbow can be both extremely accurate and efficient (i.e. one shot, one kill), but still be much slower than an Uzi that uses 200 rounds to kill 40 people in 30 seconds.

You're presuming that murderers care about how many bullets they wasted instead of how many bodies they dropped.  If efficiency was the goal,  mass murderers would only use sniper rifles.

I have answered this more than once, I will answer it one more time. Fully automatic is primarily used for suppressive fire in rare circumstances. 3 burst fire is rarely used either as it offers no advantages over semi auto with proper trigger control.

So then, why do militaries ISSUE fully-automatic weapons?

Why would a military equip its soldiers with LESS EFFECTIVE, MORE EXPENSIVE weapons?

So according to you. Since the military is in the business of killing. And the military issues 3 round burst and automatic weapons. That, in fact 3 round burst and fully automatic mode are better for killing more people more quickly ? So it would stand to reason that automatic would be used the majority of the time. Is that your position ?

No, because that's a non-sequitur.  They issue weapons with the greatest capability for lethality, but that doesn't mean that that's how they're actually used in practice (because in practice, maximum lethality is not ALWAYS the intended result).

So you claim that you personal experience is irrelevant. Then how can you claim to know more than someone that actually does have experience ?

I'm sorry, do you have experience in killing as many people as you can, as fast as possible?
No?
Then I think I'll take actions over words.

If semi-automatic weapons were really more effective at killing people quickly than machine guns, machine guns would have very little reason to exist.  They are more expensive and less ammo efficient.

And yet they do exist, and are widely used by every modern military on the planet.  Funny, that.

[Spider-Dan]

I have to ask, in relation to Stand Your Ground. How do you feel about the Castle Doctrine?

I'm not in favor of laws that provide blanket immunity for homicides.  There are already existing statutes for self-defense; one should be concerned about having to explain one's actions when one takes another person's life.

[stinkyfish]

If you're referring to what you think I implied then you probably should drop the semantic battle over what "illegal"means...And yet they do exist, and are widely used by every modern military on the planet.  Funny, that.

Like I said, believe what you want. You are wrong on several things, but I have no need to argue with you. The fact that you refuse to tell me what experience you have with firearms, if any. And your statements reflect a severe lack of knowledge on the subject. I think it's safe to say that you have very very limited experience shooting or working on a firearm, and more than likely none at all. Having said that, you either :

1. Like to argue and will argue your position even if you are wrong, no matter how ridiculous and fantastic your claims are.

2. Have to be right 100% of the time.

3. Use any information, factual or not, to push your political views.

I suspect a combination of all three.

Being in favor of moving the bar from machine guns to assault rifles and high-capacity magazines is not an argument for "complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment."

You are aware that assault rifles are select fire and fully auto capable, and therefore already subject to NFA restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

I'm sure that you are also aware that a 30 round magazine is standard equipment on AR or AK platform rifles. The fact that they are standard equipment, would in fact make them standard capacity.

I support guns for purposes of home protection (but I don't support guns powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss).

What kind of gun isn't powerful enough to travel across a road and kill someone ? A Red Ryder BB gun ?

[Landshark]

What kind of gun isn't powerful enough to travel across a road and kill someone ? A Red Ryder BB gun ?

You'll shoot your eye out