It won’t End with “ARs.”

[SirGareth]

Not talking about handguns.

The topic I am addressing is A-15s and large numbers of persons killed in a matter of minutes in public places.

You have a very good point. No one should operate an A-15 without proper training:

 

[Lursa]

The smaller buses designed for special ed students do have seat belts. The longer buses designed to carry more passengers don’t and they say it allows for a faster evacuation in case of an accident. Since the school bus is so large it is more likely to hit by multiple vehicles so it is imparative to get the passengers out of the vehicle more quickly than a standard car.

The special ed bus usually has at 1 adult for every 2 special ed passengers to help insure they are buckled in properly and to help evacuate them in case of an accident.

That all sounds nice. But cost still determines the safety functions. And I'm not sure why evacuating a bus so fast is that important? Are they more likely to catch on fire than cars?

 

[Lursa]

Not talking about handguns.

The topic I am addressing is A-15s and large numbers of persons killed in a matter of minutes in public places.

I used the stat from the New York Times of number of people killed by AR-15s since 2007 because they did an anyalsis on it.



It was in this link:

Perspective: With AR-15-style weapons, mass shooters attack with the rifle firepower typically used by infantry troops

That's fine. But I dont understand the rationale behind focusing on a rifle that causes so much less harm...altho sometimes in a more spectacular manner...than other firearms.

If it's not a reasonable thing to do...why do it? And that is a matter of opinion of course but again...why focus on that in particular? Besides the media hype about it?

 

[minnie616]

That all sounds nice. But cost still determines the safety functions. And I'm not sure why evacuating a bus so fast is that important? Are they more likely to catch on fire than cars?

They are large , and more likely to tip over. If they turn over on a busy road they can cause pill up type accidents.

 

[Lursa]

They are large , and more likely to tip over. If they turn over on a busy road they can cause pill up type accidents.

But that doesnt answer why the kids need to be evacuated so fast.

 

[minnie616]

That's fine. But I dont understand the rationale behind focusing on a rifle that causes so much less harm...altho sometimes in a more spectacular manner...than other firearms.

...

Since Assault Weapon murders are more spectacular they are often the weapon of choice for a a shooter who is determined to kill a large number as he can in a matter of minutes , in a public place. When a shooter wants to “ make a name for himself”, and when he wants to be remembered for the number of people he killed his weapon of choice usually is an Assault Weapon.

 

[Lursa]

Since Assault Weapon murders are more spectacular they are often the weapon of choice for a a shooter who is determined to kill a large number as he can in a matter of minutes , in a public place. When a shooter wants to “ make a name for himself”, and when he wants to be remembered for the number of people he killed his weapon of choice usually is an Assault Weapon.

So do you think that removing something that 'looks' like that will stop them from using the ones that work just the same?

And you can buy the parts for rifles that make them look pretty much like that as well. And the parts are barely regulated.

The scary looking rifles arent the problem. If it's all about notoriety, then they'll start looking for the next 'cooler, scarier' thing. And it may or may not be a firearm.

 

[minnie616]

But that doesnt answer why the kids need to be evacuated so fast.

I always thought it was because a car, a semi, or truck hits the disabled bus and causes further harm to the passenger.

I don’t know if the bus is more likely to catch fire or if they are concerned that the car, semi or truck that hit them will catch fire.
I have given it a lot of thought, actually.

As a school chaperone , I was told to get the children and a safe distance away in case of an accident.

This article does not include getting kids off the bus fast but it does answer many other school bus safety questions.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety

 

[minnie616]

So do you think that removing something that 'looks' like that will stop them from using the ones that work just the same?

And you can buy the parts for rifles that make them look pretty much like that as well. And the parts are barely regulated.

The scary looking rifles arent the problem. If it's all about notoriety, then they'll start looking for the next 'cooler, scarier' thing. And it may or may not be a firearm.

Dicks sporting goods is going stop the sales of the Assault Weapons, and will stop selling parts for them , they are not going to steel the large magazines for them and they recommend that Congress follows their lead.

Dick's Sporting Goods, the nation's largest sporting goods retailer, will stop selling assault-style weapons like the one used in the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting.
The company said it will also raise the minimum age for all gun sales to 21. Dick's (DKS) will not sell high-capacity magazines that allow shooters to fire far more rounds than traditional weapons without reloading, as well as other accessories used with weapons similar to the AR-15.

....

We support and respect the Second Amendment, and we recognize and appreciate that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible, law-abiding citizens," he said in a letter released Wednesday. "But we have to help solve the problem that's in front of us."
Stack, 63, is the son of the chain's father. He has been CEO for 34 years.
The company said it has never sold bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire as if they are automatic weapons. Stack called for a nationwide ban on such items.
He also urged Congress to sign into law the restrictions his company has put in place, along with tougher background checks on all gun sales.
"Some will say these steps can't guarantee tragedies like Parkland will never happen again. They may be correct -- but if common sense reform is enacted and even one life is saved, it will have been worth it," he said in the letter.

Dick's Sporting Goods will stop selling assault-style rifles - Feb. 28, 2018

 

[Lursa]

Dicks sporting goods is going stop the sales of the Assault Weapons, and will stop selling parts for them , they are not going to steel the large magazines for them and they recommend that Congress follows their lead.

I think that's fine. They are a private company making an informed choice based on their prerogatives.

 

[Rucker61]

Dicks sporting goods is going stop the sales of the Assault Weapons, and will stop selling parts for them , they are not going to steel the large magazines for them and they recommend that Congress follows their lead.



Dick's Sporting Goods will stop selling assault-style rifles - Feb. 28, 2018

Dick's had already stopped selling AR-15s in the 600+ Dick's branded stores. This just adds the 37 Field & Stream stores to the list.

Actual gun shops are much better sources for firearms of all types. Thanks for supporting local gun stores, Dick's.

 

[Cisero]

Funny, and yet when we ask 'if a teacher with a concealed gun in a classroom saves just one kid....wouldnt it be worth it?' the answer from naysayers is no.

Or how about: if seatbelts on school buses saves just one life, wouldnt it be worth it?

This is my favorite tho, if we lowered the national speed limit to 35 mph, because it WOULD save thousands of lives...wouldnt it be worth it? (Come on, you know people could leave earlier, plan better...it's just a matter of convenience)

Do you think that that cliche is honestly useful?

Yeah, I actually admit my reasoning was totally flawed (in that instance). Good points Lursa !

 

[Harshaw]

What a foolish concept.

Lets just grant this argument that the founders wanted people to have access to guns because they believed in peoples "right" to violently resist what they defined as oppressive government.

So what? It's still world class stupidity to believe people have such a right, regardless of whether the founders supported it. A bad idea doesn't become a good idea because you can quote Jefferson supporting it, it's still a bad idea.

Further, they didn't even practice what they preached. When people resisted the union under Jefferson or Washington, the latter had no problem sending out forces to fight such resisters.

So . . . you don't believe people have a right to resist an oppressive government?

Where did this affinity for despotism of yours come from?

 

[PLizzy]

So . . . you don't believe people have a right to resist an oppressive government?

Where did this affinity for despotism of yours come from?

So you believe people have a right to resist any government they deem oppressive? Nice slippery slope.

Where did your affinity for anarchism come from? I thought conservatives were the law and order movement.

 

[Harshaw]

So you believe people have a right to resist any government they deem oppressive? Nice slippery slope.

I believe they have the right to resist an oppressive government. Do you, or do you not, agree?

Where did your affinity for anarchism come from? I thought conservatives were the law and order movement.

I'm not a conservative. My affinities are quite minarchist. This is a good thing.

 

[PLizzy]

I believe they have the right to resist an oppressive government. Do you, or do you not, agree?

Violently? **** no.

Sue the government, take them to court. If that doesn't work then find candidates on the local and national level that will change the laws for you. But this idea you have a "right" to turn violent when things don't go your way is ludicrous.

I'm not a conservative. My affinities are quite minarchist. This is a good thing.

:doh.

 

[Harshaw]

Violently? **** no.

Sue the government, take them to court. If that doesn't work then find candidates on the local and national level that will change the laws for you. But this idea you have a "right" to turn violent when things don't go your way is ludicrous.

I didn't ask you about when "things don't go your way."

I asked about about resisting an oppressive government.

Your answer is "**** no"? Really?

:doh.

I, like Jefferson, would rather live with the problems of too much freedom than with the problems of too little. Apparently it's the opposite for you.

 

[Harshaw]

Since Assault Weapon murders are more spectacular they are often the weapon of choice for a a shooter who is determined to kill a large number as he can in a matter of minutes , in a public place. When a shooter wants to “ make a name for himself”, and when he wants to be remembered for the number of people he killed his weapon of choice usually is an Assault Weapon.

Simply is not true.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Weapons-in-high-profile-mass-shootings-4227888.php

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

 

[PLizzy]

I didn't ask you about when "things don't go your way."

I asked about about resisting an oppressive government.

And what constitutes an oppressive government? Do you have a definition cited in the 2A, or just some flag waving?

Your answer is "**** no"? Really?

Yes, violence is a dead end for everybody.

If the government abused your rights, then higher an attorney, and take the government to court. If you think there's a law that is oppressive or unconstitutional, you have the same option. If that doesn't work you can vote for the laws you find oppressive to be repealed, and for you to have the legal to do whatever it is you wish to do.

The idea you have the right to violently resist government you deem oppressive is just plain idiotic, and a total dead end. Use the Democracy, or go move some place else.

I, like Jefferson, would rather live with the problems of too much freedom than with the problems of too little. Apparently it's the opposite for you.

You're not talking about freedom, you're talking about lawlessness, anarchy, and insurrection being some sort of right. Don't hide behind Jefferson, or speak like you're some freedom warrior. Explain how your ideas work in the real world, and quit calling this foolishness freedom.

 

[Vadinho]

We've had two shootings with more deaths than resulted from a shooter using a single handgun with 10 round magazines. The rifle used by the shooter in Norway, under any ban proposed so far by the Democrats, would still be legal to own. There's no reason to believe that the effectiveness of mass shooters would change.

True. Perhaps once we get ARs off the street we can start on handguns and those clips.

 

[Harshaw]

And what constitutes an oppressive government? Do you have a definition cited in the 2A, or just some flag waving?


Yes, violence is a dead end for everybody.

If the government abused your rights, then higher an attorney, and take the government to court. If you think there's a law that is oppressive or unconstitutional, you have the same option. If that doesn't work you can vote for the laws you find oppressive to be repealed, and for you to have the legal to do whatever it is you wish to do.

The idea you have the right to violently resist government you deem oppressive is just plain idiotic, and a total dead end. Use the Democracy, or go move some place else.

My definition of an "oppressive government" isn't a difficult one. There are oppressive governments all over the world if you want examples, ones where, if they ever had it, "democracy" has become inoperative.

To think that you can sue your way out of an oppressive regime is hilarious.

You're not talking about freedom, you're talking about lawlessness, anarchy, and insurrection being some sort of right. Don't hide behind Jefferson, or speak like you're some freedom warrior. Explain how your ideas work in the real world, and quit calling this foolishness freedom.

No, I'm talking about freedom. I'm also talking about the difference in problems between too much freedom and too little of it. I didn't say anything about "anarchy."

That you find the idea of the problems of too much freedom to be some kind of scary prospect as against too little freedom is most telling.

It's especially interesting considering you call yourself a "libertarian." "Libertarian-Left" could mean two things -- that you're generally a American-style libertarian who leans left on a few things, or it could mean the Euro-style anarcho-socialist "libertarian." For the former, minarchy would be the rule; for the later, anarchy. Considering you find both of those concepts to give you the willies, I can only conclude that you do not really hold that lean.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The left has no intention of stopping with ARs. There will be attempts to ban everything. If you have a brain...you know that mass shootings happened without them. They even happened during Comrade Clinton’s glorious Assault weapons ban. Which was nothing more than a piece of feel good legislation crap. Columbine? No ARs. Raising the age to 21? So you want to restrict rights of voting memebers of the public who can go die with the military version of the AR in their hands? :roll: And the shooters who are over age and can purchase legally?

So basically. None of this does anything. It won’t stop shootings. This is all an attack ad on the NRA. Which Democrats love. Nothing like a good shooting to hurt republican campaign contributions. It isn’t sympathy for “the children.” It is politics. So back to the intent of this post...

What do you people cheering for gun control actually think is going to happen with if you ban AR15s? That mass shootings will stop? What do you think the point of this legislation actually is? If you logically know the answer to the question of what banning ARs will do?

So good to know there are still some sane people down there.

 

[Rucker61]

True. Perhaps once we get ARs off the street we can start on handguns and those clips.

You don't have to wait. It's currently illegal for any felon to possess a firearm including handguns. Pick the closest high crime neighborhood and start going door to door, demanding that any felon with a gun turn it over to you.

Or were you planning on someone else doing the dirty work?

 

[TurtleDude]

I believe they have the right to resist an oppressive government. Do you, or do you not, agree?




I'm not a conservative. My affinities are quite minarchist. This is a good thing.

seems leftwing libertarians aren't all that big on freedom.

 

[TurtleDude]

You don't have to wait. It's currently illegal for any felon to possess a firearm including handguns. Pick the closest high crime neighborhood and start going door to door, demanding that any felon with a gun turn it over to you.

Or were you planning on someone else doing the dirty work?

gun banners invariably need men with guns to carry out their wet dreams over disarming the citizenry. its one of the real ironies in the gun control debate