Tyndmyr wrote:You're really, really intent on using this topic to argue about gun control, and really want me to defend some ridiculous strawman.
Perhaps because a legally purchased
gun was used to kill 50 people and injure 53. I stand by my core statement. You're welcome to attack it whenever you want to.
Yup. And if he'd been found guilty of anything in the investigations, he'd not have been able to. It is deeply unfortunate that he wasn't identified as a genuine threat, but...restricting rights based on mere suspicion, or even if found innocent is a kind of troublesome thing to propose. And the actual proposals all center around some variation of this.
Look, we shouldn't overlearn fear of Islamophobia, but we also shouldn't err on the side of authoritarian stripping of rights from people, merely because we view them as "suspicious". Either impulsive reaction is dangerous, and potentially harmful.
BattleMoose wrote:How is this even a discussion. If people are choosing to carry out attacks with assault rifles, its because they think assault rifles are the best tool for their purposes because of reasons that they have. Take that tool away from them and then they are forced to go to their second choice of tool with which to cause harm on society.
If someone wants to cause harm on society, not allowing them to use their tool of first preference, is a good thing.
The difficult bits are:
1. "assault rifles" functionally, are not different from other rifles.
2. The plans mostly center upon denying firearms to broad swathes of society. People are not upset over mass shooters lacking access. They're upset over the denial of access to *them*.
3. The US has giant piles of firearms. It's hard to conceive of a program that significantly impacts this that isn't ridiculously draconian.
But again, this is straying down the gun control rabbit hole to some degree. And it doesn't fix the problem of someone trying to murder everyone. Reducing access is not the same as eliminating access, and it's difficult to imagine that people will never have access to ANY way to hurt large numbers of other people. Plus, proposed bills are mostly pretty much irrelevant to this instance. And it's not as if mass shooters are always, or even frequently, on watch lists/no fly lists. So, actual effect on averting violence by these bills is probably negligible, but it creates kind of a nasty precedent if you care about due process. Cost/Benefit seems worrisome.
KnightExemplar wrote:In any case, if we were to ban the guns that seem to be used in these kinds of attacks, I think that'd be a good thing. I'm leaning closer to the assault weapon ban (provided that a good definition of "assault weapon" can be defined).
I'm not a gun person, so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about here, but couldn't you just define assault rifles as, say, guns that fire bullets at a rate of greater than X bullets/minute or with a muzzle velocity greater than Y mph, for some sensible values of X and Y? This seems easier and more straightforward than a lot of the definitions I've heard floating around.
Muzzle velocity is ammo/barrel dependent. Note that the types of firearms used in these shootings are generally comparatively small, in terms of rifles. An AR-15 is usually not legal for deer hunting, because the bullet is too small.
Rounds/minute does not have any reasonable values of x that will significantly impact a mass shooter, and also does not ban essentially everything. Usually, rounds/minute is used to describe rate of fire of machine guns, but none of these weapons are machine guns. Usually, we're talking about semi autos, revolvers, etc. They fire when you pull the trigger, until all ammo is expended. Pull the trigger faster, it shoots faster. Reloading is not difficult, and is rapid.
That said, attempting to look at the problem in a technical fashion is a good step, I think. I do not believe any technical solution exists here, but understanding the problem never hurts.
BattleMoose wrote: Deva wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Homosexuals often make the worst homophobes. Considering how homophobic he was, its really not surprising that the target of his violence was a gay night club.
Please elaborate. How were they homophobic?
Woah. Are you actually positing the idea, that someone can go to a gay establishment, for the express purpose of killing gay people, and not be homophobic?
Of course they could be. One can postulate scenarios such as a jealous lover, etc. We just don't have a lot of information pointing to such a scenario, so it doesn't seem especially probable given the current evidence.
Though there is light evidence that "they were gay" is not the primary reason. For instance, the report that he also scouted out Disney parks. It may simply be that of the areas he knew of, this had lighter security or some other reason(the mouse is basically fascist).
But it ain't hard for me to believe that homophobia was at least a partial cause. Though, as an aside, homophobia doesn't seem like exactly the right word to describe what it's used to describe. It doesn't usually seem to be like fear. Seems like disgust.
BattleMoose wrote:The USA army is so massive and technically advanced with so many different machines of war, that the idea that a force comprising of civilians brandishing small arms could defeat it is just so asinine. If a portion of the USA is part of the revolution then you don't need civilians brandishing small arms. Its just so absurd and off topic.[/spoiler]
*shrug* People dismiss small arms all the time, but...modern asymmetric warfare basically revolves around the resistance using primarily small arms and improvised weapons. They can and do mount major conflicts against world powers in this way.
Now, ideally, I would hope that we also focus on other civil rights, protections, etc, so we don't have to rely on such a messy, costly method of protecting rights as civil war. However, decreasing things like due process does chip away at those protections.