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

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Very, very few people who support gun control support a complete ban on private ownership of guns (UK style).  I am probably among the extreme 1% in supporting that guns be treated like cars.  But even that is among the very extreme in the gun control movement.

Having background check prior to gun sales.  For all gun sales (including gun shows etc) is hardly "repealing the 2nd amendment" 

[Spider-Dan]

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.

You continue to try to make this discussion about me, when I've repeatedly (and explicitly) said that I'm not basing my position on my own firearm experience.  You claim that fully-automatic weapons are less effective than semi-automatic weapons, yet the armament decisions of nearly every military on the planet contradicts that claim.

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

Sorry, I meant "assault weapons," as in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

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.

Is a Ferrari F430 a "high-performance" car?  Apparently not, because it comes that way from the manufacturer.  Must be a "standard performance" car, then.

More semantics shenanigans.

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

Well, if I'm talking about protecting your home from an intruder, wouldn't that imply that you're firing the gun inside?

If I fire a shotgun inside, will buckshot travel through the walls of my home, across the street, through the wall of my neighbor's home, and into the bed of their kid?  You tell me.

[Sunstroke]

I don't want to repeal the second amendment, I just want to see it adapted to the 21st century, rather than the 18th century.

I have no problem with a "properly background checked" adult owning a handgun or a standard hunting rifle, but the handguns should only be legal when inside the owner's home (no carrying permits), and the hunting rifle can only be taken out of the home during a hunting season for which the rifle owner holds a legal hunting license. While in the home, there should be storage requirements that minimize the chances of someone other than the legal adult owner of the gun getting their hands on it. I think the gun and storage situation should be regularly inspected by law enforcement (or other local authority), with the cost of that safety moderation paid for by a gun owner tax/license fee.

[Fau Teixeira]

You don't need to have experience shooting guns have an opinion on gun control.
I've never even held a gun, and i have a very firm position on guns in society.

[Spider-Dan]

I think I'm OK with carrying permits, but concealed carry is nonsense.  Let the gun nuts run around brandishing their weapons in open sight, so they are easily identified.

[Spider-Dan]

You don't need to have experience shooting guns have an opinion on gun control.
I've never even held a gun, and i have a very firm position on guns in society.

Fau, that's absurd.

Having an opinion on gun control without being a gun user is like having an opinion on drunk driving laws if you don't drink, or having an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus, or having an opinion on pro football if you've never been a pro football player:  too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

[Sunstroke]

I don't want to repeal the second amendment, I just want to see it adapted to the 21st century, rather than the 18th century.

I have no problem with a "properly background checked" adult owning a handgun or a standard hunting rifle, but the handguns should only be legal when inside the owner's home (no carrying permits), and the hunting rifle can only be taken out of the home during a hunting season for which the rifle owner holds a legal hunting license. While in the home, there should be storage requirements that minimize the chances of someone other than the legal adult owner of the gun getting their hands on it. I think the gun and storage situation should be regularly inspected by law enforcement (or other local authority), with the cost of that safety moderation paid for by a gun owner tax/license fee.

I'd like to amend my statement to also include IEDs. Like the other firearms noted above, they should only be legal to use them in your own home...

[stinkyfish]

You continue to try to make this discussion about me, when I've repeatedly (and explicitly) said that I'm not basing my position on my own firearm experience.  You claim that fully-automatic weapons are less effective than semi-automatic weapons, yet the armament decisions of nearly every military on the planet contradicts that claim.

Since you aren't basing your position on any kind of experience or knowledge. How do you equate the armament decisions of the military with killing as many people as fast as possible. Do you have any evidence that supports that claim or is that your opinion ? Can you disprove that the main reason they keep 3 burst/automatic is for suppressive/cover fire. Any proof other than your own Hollywood assumptions about why the government equips soldiers with automatic capability ?

Another link for you to read. Be sure to read the comments.

http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/full-auto-not-the-way-to-go.html

Is your opinion on how to implement military arms (based on you having no experience) much more accurate than how the actual soldiers say they actually use these weapons in the field on a daily basis ?

Sorry, I meant "assault weapons," as in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Can you explain the difference between an assault weapon and an ordinary semi auto rifle ?

Is a Ferrari F430 a "high-performance" car?  Apparently not, because it comes that way from the manufacturer.  Must be a "standard performance" car, then.

More semantics shenanigans.

You are comparing apples to oranges. A Ferrari is high performance compared to cars in other categories. It's performance is standard when compared to another Ferrari. An AR15 is high capacity compared to a revolver or shotgun. However, compared to other weapons in its class, a 30 round magazine is standard. Therefore, a 30 round magazine in an AR type rifle is standard capacity.

Well, if I'm talking about protecting your home from an intruder, wouldn't that imply that you're firing the gun inside?

If I fire a shotgun inside, will buckshot travel through the walls of my home, across the street, through the wall of my neighbor's home, and into the bed of their kid?  You tell me.

So does this mean:

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).

the only gun ownership you support is a shotgun with ammunition that won't penetrate walls ?

[stinkyfish]

You don't need to have experience shooting guns have an opinion on gun control.
I've even held a gun, and i have a very firm position on guns in society.

You are 100% correct, you don't need experience shooting guns to have an opinion on gun control. However, you do need experience when making statements regarding the operation and effectiveness of firearms. Or what is legal or illegal. So, since you have held a gun, which probably gives you more experience than Spider has. Does that make you qualified to discuss the operation, effectiveness, recoil, reloading, military usage and tactics of a very particular type of weapon ?

Fau, that's absurd.

Having an opinion on gun control without being a gun user is like having an opinion on drunk driving laws if you don't drink, or having an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus, or having an opinion on pro football if you've never been a pro football player:  too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

No, it's more like someone who has never played football trying to tell a football player that the most effective way to win is by throwing bombs on every play. I haven't said anything about your "opinions" on gun control. I have only disputed your obviously incorrect statements regarding certain firearms.

[Dave Gray]

^ Why are we arguing the difference between automatic weapons and their ability to kill more effectively/efficiently.  It's a semantics argument that doesn't change the debate at all.

You claim that they're very specifically for suppressive fire.  Why then, does a citizen need to be suppressing gunfire in their own protection or for hunting or for any of the other reasons that we allow citizens to carry guns?

Don't even answer the question, because it doesn't really matter.  The discussion has crept too far away from the original point.

[Spider-Dan]

How do you equate the armament decisions of the military with killing as many people as fast as possible.  Do you have any evidence that supports that claim or is that your opinion ?

Historically, the primary purpose of war is to kill enemy combatants.  This predates guns by several thousand years.

I'm not sure what you would accept as proof that weapons of war are primarily designed to kill the enemy.

Another link for you to read. Be sure to read the comments.

http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/full-auto-not-the-way-to-go.html

From your link:

"Accurate single shot fire on the enemy is the way to go.

It does the following:

    It keeps up overall unit sustained rate of fire upon the enemy.
    Conserves overall SOF unit and individual ammo
    Enables more effective fire (i.g. killing or keeping the enemy on the defensive)
    It is Ultimately the best way (assuming no air support) to get out of or win a firefight–I prefer calling in close air support myself."

Let us see how this applies to an armed assailant at, say, an elementary school:

1) This lone gunman is not part of a unit, so sustained unit fire is inapplicable
2) Ammo conservation is not necessarily a concern of a mass murderer (for various reasons)
3) I believe children will be effectively kept on the defensive with either method of fire
4) The mass murderer presumably does not have air support available as an option

Can you explain the difference between an assault weapon and an ordinary semi auto rifle ?

Would you like me to read you the difference as defined in the law I just linked?

You are comparing apples to oranges. A Ferrari is high performance compared to cars in other categories. It's performance is standard when compared to another Ferrari. An AR15 is high capacity compared to a revolver or shotgun. However, compared to other weapons in its class, a 30 round magazine is standard.

So then:

1) a Ferrari is considered to have "high performance" compared to cars in other categories (even when equipped to factory specifications), but "standard performance" compared to other cars in its class (e.g. supercars)
2) an AR-15 is considered to have "high capacity" magazines compared to magazines for guns in other categories (even when equipped to factory specifications), but "standard capacity" compared to other guns in its class (e.g. assault weapons)
3) ?
4) "high capacity" is inaccurate but "high performance" is not

So does this mean: the only gun ownership you support is a shotgun with ammunition that won't penetrate walls ?

Is the only high performance car in existence a Ferrari F430?  Since that's the only example I mentioned, I guess so!

[Spider-Dan]

^ Why are we arguing the difference between automatic weapons and their ability to kill more effectively/efficiently.  It's a semantics argument that doesn't change the debate at all.

You claim that they're very specifically for suppressive fire.  Why then, does a citizen need to be suppressing gunfire in their own protection or for hunting or for any of the other reasons that we allow citizens to carry guns?

Don't even answer the question, because it doesn't really matter.  The discussion has crept too far away from the original point.

Dave, the point is that even though criminals happily used automatic weapons when they were legal and readily available, and don't use them now, people like CF and stinkyfish claim that that is not because they are heavily regulated and difficult to acquire, but because... they just aren't effective any more!  And as for why militaries continue to use these now-ineffective weapons... hey, look over there!

Maybe if we start heavily regulating other guns, they will experience a similar spontaneous decline in "usefulness" that happens to precisely track their legal availability.

[stinkyfish]

^ Why are we arguing the difference between automatic weapons and their ability to kill more effectively/efficiently.  It's a semantics argument that doesn't change the debate at all.

You claim that they're very specifically for suppressive fire.  Why then, does a citizen need to be suppressing gunfire in their own protection or for hunting or for any of the other reasons that we allow citizens to carry guns?

Don't even answer the question, because it doesn't really matter.  The discussion has crept too far away from the original point.

You know what Dave, you are 100% right. I will try and divert my attention and posts away from Spider. There are better things to do than argue with someone who can't be wrong.

Anyhow, I think mental health care improvement, actual protection in schools, and more people in general carrying weapons would be the most helpful things. I'm sure that we can agree that weapon or magazines bans isn't going to happen. Universal background checks has a slight chance to pass senate, but it will never pass the house. Actually, instead of gutting and picking over the second amendment. I wish they would just go through the proper channels and try to repeal it. Then, if they fail in their attempt. You tried, you failed, now leave it alone.

[Spider-Dan]

You don't need to have experience shooting guns have an opinion on gun control.
I've even held a gun, and i have a very firm position on guns in society.

You are 100% correct, you don't need experience shooting guns to have an opinion on gun control. However, you do need experience when making statements regarding the operation and effectiveness of firearms. Or what is legal or illegal. So, since you have held a gun, which probably gives you more experience than Spider has. Does that make you qualified to discuss the operation, effectiveness, recoil, reloading, military usage and tactics of a very particular type of weapon ?

I do like how you stealthily edited Fau's "I've never even held a gun" quote to "I've even held a gun."  Well-played.

I mean, you could have said that you "read it wrong," but that's not quite the same thing as simply subtracting a word from a quote (mid-sentence!) to help prove a point that wasn't being made.

Fau was specifically rejecting firearm experience as relevant to the discussion, and you somehow twisted that into "So, since you have held a gun..."

[Fau Teixeira]

Ahh sneaky sneaky.