Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Nobody said that either. We said they'll find another weapon. That is not preventable. We need to go after the people, not the weapons as a whole. It does help to regulate some kinds of weapons, but that doesn't mean they won't find another. What we have to go after is the person instead, as they're the real cause.
![]()
Which is agreed. A blanket ban on all guns is dumb instead. Properly regulating who can get guns is the right way to do it. That's exactly what I want to happen. I'm just pointing out why a blanket ban on all guns does nothing of use.
Also, the chicken or egg thing is a fallacy. Weapons won't disappear. We have to target the person using it overall, which means to regulate just how easy it is to get a weapon. A blanket ban clearly has been ineffective time and time again.
Shadow?![]()
![]()
And in both cases, I suspect a good old-fashioned shotgun would do the trick. Probably would require slugs, but they're more than capable of getting the job done.
Is there any particular reason why it's the weapon of choice beyond the fact that it's really common?
edited 13th Jun '16 8:50:29 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot![]()
Well, I would like to move towards an eventual repeal of the Second Amendment as well as programs of mass buybacks and mass confiscations of high-powered weaponry, but that's in a future that's hard to envision given our current political environment. But there are smaller steps we can take that are both reasonable and achievable.
edited 13th Jun '16 8:50:19 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"To be fair, I wasn't directly speaking to earlier when saying "yes, they'll get weapons anyway". That was to Jovian. I did literally point to his post.
Moving on, sure, I'm good with banning those kinds of weapons(regulating specific kind of guns is the best move possible when it comes to dealing with the weapons specifically, but we need to deal with the people too). I'm not sure if it's even needed for the army, but nobody else has any reason to have it.
Shadow?The AR-15 is by far and away the most popular weapon in the country. Arguably the world if you count it's derivatives and knockoffs. Even more popular than the AK.
It's cheap, endlessly modifiable, very deadly, and easy to use. There's a reason why it's used the world over by military and law enforcement.
Oh really when?@Krieger
It's easy to get, it has a decently large mag, a decently large bullet, and fairly good range. If there are reasons beyond that, I don't know.
In any case, I say it's been used in enough mass shootings, it can go. Sure a new weapon of choice for this sort of garbage will show up soon enough, but we can deal with that when it happens.
@Irene
Background checks only work if you actually have a criminal record and/or are visibly mentally ill. A background check on this guy, for instance would have shown that he beat his wife and hated gays, but that's half the gun-nuts in the Deep South right there.
I'm not against expanding the background check system. I'm all for it. But it's not a panacea either.
I continue to find it ironic that essentially Donald Trump more exemplifies the Republican viewpoint than the rest of the Republican Party. The Republican Party deserve him as a candidate.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyI question why law enforcement needs it, but the army makes more sense.
Either way, it should be banned otherwise to get if you aren't in law enforcement(and this should be handed out by the higher-ups, not bought in a store) or the army(same thing). Making it impossible to sell them in stores, and only can be handed out on masse to a specific group that legally is allowed to have them could help a bit.
![]()
I stopped using the background check argument ages ago. It cannot be effective without taking into account their personal lives, and that means effectively getting stuff other than criminal records or sending a P.I. to investigate them. I'm not up for going that far, because it comes off as stalking. I've been talking about proper tests to avoid issues. Psychological tests are my current argument.
edited 13th Jun '16 8:58:33 AM by Irene
Shadow?Law Enforcement needs it for occasions like this. Or another Hollywood Shootout scenario.
It should also be said there is not just one AR-15. AR-15 is a blanket term describing a certain type of rifle, there are countless derivatives of it and the original AR-15 has actually been out of production for decades.
It'd be impossible to specifically ban the AR-15 as it doesn't technically exist anymore.
edited 13th Jun '16 8:59:28 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
![]()
A psych eval is a form of background check in the end. Moreover it too is not a panacea. I'm all for it, but it will not catch everybody.
Then let's get a list of its derivatives and start there. This particular gun and its spinoffs have been used in too many large scale shootings for my liking.
edited 13th Jun '16 9:00:29 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Also impossible. It's an open patent and anyone and everyone can and has made their own variant. Hell my local gun store has their own in house versions for sale. Very popular actually.
There is no AR-15, it's just a description of a certain style of weapon.
edited 13th Jun '16 9:03:23 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?That's clearly not what I mean by a psychological test. It means to make sure they're mentally capable to handle a weapon. The background check is its own thing.
And if I wasn't clear, which I apologize for, I am now.
Neither will always prevent it, but they're very different things to do. Mentally test them(which is what I mean by a psychological test) is a beyond different thing at this point.
Also, I'm off to work, so I can't really reply beyond this. But I am clear on what I mean, now, right? Blanket bans are bad(they'll find a way, so we need to catch the person, not just go after the weapon). Certain style of weapons are a bigger problem and need regulation. Background Checks and Mental/Psychological Tests are completely different points and should not be mixed together.
edited 13th Jun '16 9:06:43 AM by Irene
Shadow?@Greenmantle
Because there's a chance of actually banning a specific weapon. The moment you try for specific calibres or what have you you'll never get it passed. This gun and its variants have been repeatedly used in massacres. Let's do something about it if we can.
@Garcon
That's a damn shame. Still I think working at getting it and guns that resemble it is not a bad place to start.
@Irene
"They'll get the gun anyway" remains a bad argument against blanket bans. You can have psych evaluations, background checks, the whole lot, and still have a blanket ban. I'm not even arguing for a blanket ban, and I still can't help but notice the holes in that argument. Because it's not an argument. "It's bad because they'll get it anyway" is not an argument. It's at most positing something as ineffective, but you're trying to say that somehow makes it morally or legally wrong.
It's just not gonna be possible to do anything about the AR-15. Like I said, there is no AR-15. The actual AR-15 existed only as few models produced in 1959 by the now defunct ArmaLite corporation as prototypes for the US military. Then Colt began selling it's own version to civilians. It was never patented so everyone makes it.
Like right now no less than six companies produce M16 rifles for the US military. The M16 being the variant the US military ordered as it's standard rifle across all branches, something we're only just now replacing. With another AR-15 variant.
The name AR-15 is patented by Colt but only the name. There never has been an actual AR-15 in civilian hands.
You just can't do anything about it. It comes in numerous looks, calibers, configurations, and even with different internals and capabilities. There's AR-15 pistols, sniper rifles, assault rifles, target competion rifles, hunting rifles, submachine guns, light machine guns, and carbines.
It's endlessly modifiable and widespread, it'd be impossible to try and ban it.
edited 13th Jun '16 9:25:02 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?It's simple enough: we ban private ownership of anything larger than a handgun, excluding certain varieties of hunting rifle and shotgun used in rural environments, but forbidden from being carried into cities.
I'd love to get rid of handguns as well, but baby steps.
edited 13th Jun '16 9:24:42 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Banning handguns isn't a great idea, because they're a type of gun that's actually quite useful for self-defense.
Leviticus 19:34Really Fighteer if we wanna cut down on proper gun crime we gotta go the opposite way. Handguns are the ones responsible for every day gun crime, very rarely do you hear about homicides being committed with shotguns or rifles.
Largely because it's difficult to conceal them.
edited 13th Jun '16 9:27:06 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?![]()
And they are used to commit the majority of crimes as well. The self-defense argument is only cogent if you assume your assailant will have a gun, which is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Still, I'm not prepared to take that step without first repealing the Second Amendment.
I agree, but I'm also conceding that it's utterly impossible to accomplish.
edited 13th Jun '16 9:27:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

If I hear the "criminals will be able to get guns no matter" argument again, I think I'm going to scream. Yes, there is very little you can do to shut down black market gun running operations that isn't already being done. That's a sad reality. But please consider the following—when is the last time that a member of a street gang, or the Mafia, or any other professional criminal organization, was responsible for one of these mass shootings?
I'm sure it's happened. But not with any great frequency. Most of these shootings are undertaken by seemingly average citizens. Sure they might have a history of domestic violence, or of saying homophobic things, or what have you, but they generally aren't professional criminals.
So if you make it illegal to buy the AR-15 in a gun store, could they still theoretically get one by going to the black market? Sure. But since they are otherwise average citizens with no real idea of how to navigate said black market it is going to be bloody difficult for them. There's a decent chance they'll foul up the transaction and get shot by the dealer. There's a decent chance they'll get caught trying to buy and illegal firearm by the police and go to prison before they can kill anybody. No, it won't stop everyone. But it will stop some of them. And stopping some of them is a damned improvement over stopping none of them.
None of the usual guns rights arguments apply to the AR-15. If you need one to a) hunt or b) protect your home, then you have apparently pissed a) a Siberian tiger or b) your local street gang. In which case, sucks to be you I guess.