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

[Dave Gray]

The majority it lessens, is the law abiding citizen that would follow the law. If drug/drinking is illegal, then for the most part the law abiding citizen might not do it.

This is a fallacy.  Only criminals break the law, because if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't be criminals.  Why not make murder level, because only criminals are murderers and they are going to murder anyway?  It's circular logic.

Are my friends that choose to smoke pot really "criminals" on the same level that a gun trafficker would be?

[Spider-Dan]

I'm still waiting for the one question to be answered which in my opinion nullifies every other talking point.

If we can't stop criminals from getting pot how can we stop them from getting guns?

Why do you keep going back to drugs?  We CAN and DO stop them from getting illegal automatic guns.

Furthermore, your question ignores a simple truth: most of the people who commit these mass killings acquired their guns legally!  It's tautological to say that criminals will get guns anyway when the people committing these crimes were not even criminals when they got their guns.  Read this carefully: any attempt to prevent Jared Loughner or James Holmes from acquiring the number and type of weapons that they used in their massacres would have been decried as an attack on law-abiding citizens' constitutional rights.

So why are you continuing to lean on the "criminals get illegal drugs anyway" crutch, when the actual problem is "law-abiding citizens" LEGALLY stockpiling weapons and then committing crimes with them?

[Spider-Dan]

First off, fully automatic weapons are regulated, not illegal. Anyone who passes the background check and pays the $200 tax stamp can legally own a fully automatic weapon.

I believe I can jump through the hoop of semantics you have just constructed by proposing that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines be subjected to the same apparently-effective regulations (but not bans!) that automatic weapons are subject to now.

Next, fully automatic weapons are not "the best for killing as fast as possible" as some of you claim, you watch too much TV. Fully automatic is best used for suppressive fire where accuracy is not the objective, to use if for anything else is a waste of ammunition.

Please explain why modern militaries, who ostensibly issue lethal weapons with the goal of killing the enemy, issue fully-automatic weapons to their soldiers.  Thank you.

[CF DolFan]

Seems like such a simple question for you to have waited so long for such an obvious answer. That answer is: "pot and guns aren't the same thing."  Any Joe Schmoe can grow pot in his basement. Are you arguing that every Joe Schmoe can manufacture guns in their basement with the same ease as he grows pot?

(Hint: If you answer "yes" to that question, you've either never grown pot, never manufactured a gun, or both)

Tons of pot brought into the states illegally. If there's a market there will be a way.  That's the point I'm making about the comparison to pot or cocaine which isnt grown by anyone. Even if every John Doe wasnt using local stuff they would still be able to get it by driving through the hood and holding up five fingers. No big deal.

[Spider-Dan]

CF, if we can't stop criminals from stealing, why should we outlaw theft?  Criminals steal every day.  Any person that wants to can walk into any grocery store and slip a candy bar in their pocket or pop a grape in their mouth with a high probability of success.

Which other laws should we get rid of based on their probability for completely eliminating the targeted activity?

[CF DolFan]

Seems pretty simple. Because no one gets safer by not outlawing theft.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Seems pretty simple. Because no one gets safer by not outlawing theft.

Nice try but classic fallacy.  Higher crime rates cause stricter gun control.  Not the myth the the NRA loves to foster than stricter gun control causes higher crime.

[CF DolFan]

Nice try but classic fallacy.  Higher crime rates cause stricter gun control.  Not the myth the the NRA loves to foster than stricter gun control causes higher crime.

How many banks get robbed if everyone in the bank has a gun strapped to their side?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

How many banks get robbed if everyone in the bank has a gun strapped to their side?

How many banks were robbed in Jessie James day?  How many stage coaches were robbed?  Everyone was packing.

[stinkyfish]

This is a fallacy.  Only criminals break the law, because if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't be criminals.  Why not make murder level, because only criminals are murderers and they are going to murder anyway?  It's circular logic.

But Dave, we already do have laws against criminals owning firearms. You're proposing an outright ban for law abiding citizens which won't work and even more importantly, won't ever happen in this country. Owning a gun is no where near the same as murder. Murder is wrong and should be against the law. Law abiding citizens owning a firearm is not wrong and no law is being broken. The two can't be compared.

Are my friends that choose to smoke pot really "criminals" on the same level that a gun trafficker would be?

,

Again, another skewed comparison on your part. I would say that since pot is illegal, yes your friends are criminals. They are breaking the law. Now the second part of your question is where you have it backwards. Your friends smoking pot, they would be the end user who is not infringing on anyone else. Which would equate to someone simply owning a firearm if owning a firearm was illegal. A gun trafficker would be more on the level of a drug trafficker or dealer.

[stinkyfish]

I believe I can jump through the hoop of semantics you have just constructed by proposing that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines be subjected to the same apparently-effective regulations (but not bans!) that automatic weapons are subject to now.

All due respect, but there are no hoops or semantics involved. You stated that fully automatic weapons were "illegal", your words not mine. In fact they are fully legal to own. Just pass a background check and pay the tax stamp. I know several people that own fully automatics, suppressors, and SBRs. You were simply wrong and couldn't admit it.

Please explain why modern militaries, who ostensibly issue lethal weapons with the goal of killing the enemy, issue fully-automatic weapons to their soldiers.  Thank you.

The US government found a vast difference in accuracy and ammo usage between Vietnam and WWII. They concluded that the fully auto M14 and M16 was the main cause due to the fully auto capabilities vs. the semi auto M1 in WWII. The recoil from the full auto caused a significant drop in accuracy and in turn wasted ammunition. This is the main reason they shifted the majority of rifles to a 3 round burst setup instead of fully auto. The military does still issue a smaller percentage of full auto weapons, but that is mostly for suppressive fire.  If you ask current military personal how they use their weapons, the majority will tell you that they rarely use 3 round burst or fully auto. It's just not practical.

Have you ever fired either a semi auto, 3 round burst, or fully automatic weapon? Judging from your answers, I bet you haven't. If you had, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Dave Gray]

Law abiding citizens owning a firearm is not wrong and no law is being broken.

Again, this is circular logic.  If you weren't allowed to own guns, EVERYONE who owned a gun would be a criminal.  (By the fact that they owned a gun.)

Just the same way that outlawing marijuana means only criminals smoke marijuana.  Ipso facto, man...

Does nobody else see what I'm saying here???

[Spider-Dan]

All due respect, but there are no hoops or semantics involved. You stated that fully automatic weapons were "illegal", your words not mine. In fact they are fully legal to own. Just pass a background check and pay the tax stamp.

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?

The US government found a vast difference in accuracy and ammo usage between Vietnam and WWII. They concluded that the fully auto M14 and M16 was the main cause due to the fully auto capabilities vs. the semi auto M1 in WWII. The recoil from the full auto caused a significant drop in accuracy and in turn wasted ammunition. This is the main reason they shifted the majority of rifles to a 3 round burst setup instead of fully auto.

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?

The military does still issue a smaller percentage of full auto weapons, but that is mostly for suppressive fire.  If you ask current military personal how they use their weapons, the majority will tell you that they rarely use 3 round burst or fully auto. It's just not practical.

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?

Have you ever fired either a semi auto, 3 round burst, or fully automatic weapon? Judging from your answers, I bet you haven't. If you had, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

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

[Phishfan]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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."

That's what the "criminals still acquire drugs!" arguments miss.  Today, because of the proliferation of guns, anyone who found out about James Holmes' stockpile of weapons could not have done anything about it until he piled them into his car on the way to the movie theater (at the earliest).  That's the difference: when possession of weapons like that is banned, it enables law enforcement to stop crimes BEFORE they occur.

If Timothy McVeigh can legally drive around town with a van full of explosives, then you can't stop him until he blows it up.