Florida School Shooting

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

I use alcohol as a comparison because alcohol kills morw people than guns. And most everything that is said about guns can be said about alcohol and is a good comparison, IMO. It’s illegal to drive drunk, but nobody suggests banning cars or a particular car. 

 

I’m in MA, and our gun laws are on the strict side compared to many states. I comply with the laws that are in place here as I would if I lived elsewhere. 

 

Assault rifles account for about 250 deaths per year in the US, handguns about 10,000. People are killed everyday and it barely makes the news anymore 

You make very good sense on the matter, Spooky.  I know it sounds callous to say, but the reality is that gun deaths are dwarfed by so many other deaths that are either glossed over or ignored completely (unfortunately).  No one cares if a person dies from cancer, smoking, alcohol, or medical mistakes.  And it’s true that except for medical mistakes, usually the other forms of death are an individual thing, not something done by an outsider.  

 

All good points.  Except the assault rifle part.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

43 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

You make very good sense on the matter, Spooky.  I know it sounds callous to say, but the reality is that gun deaths are dwarfed by so many other deaths that are either glossed over or ignored completely (unfortunately).  No one cares if a person dies from cancer, smoking, alcohol, or medical mistakes.  And it’s true that except for medical mistakes, usually the other forms of death are an individual thing, not something done by an outsider.  

 

All good points.  Except the assault rifle part.

Why not the assault rifle part? 

[TBoneTX 45,308]

A dealer in a Las Vegas casino lost control of his deck of cards while vigorously shuffling them.

They hit a customer in the face, causing injury and prompting a lawsuit.

This became known as the "assault riffle" case.

[Merle 458]

9 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

Why not the assault rifle part? 

"Assault rifle" is a term made up by anti-gunners to invoke fear among the population and those who don't know anything about guns in order to fuel their anti-gun cause. A semi-auto rifle is a semi auto-rifle, no matter what features they have. I have 3 AR-15s in various calibers and the only thing they have ever "assaulted" are some paper targets, empty soda cans, and maybe a few clay pigeons . It's the person, not the gun, that makes a weapon assault others.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Merle

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

Why not the assault rifle part? 

 

as·sault ri·fle

noun

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

12 minutes ago, Merle said:

"Assault rifle" is a term made up by anti-gunners to invoke fear among the population and those who don't know anything about guns in order to fuel their anti-gun cause. A semi-auto rifle is a semi auto-rifle, no matter what features they have. I have 3 AR-15s in various calibers and the only thing they have ever "assaulted" are some paper targets, empty soda cans, and maybe a few clay pigeons . It's the person, not the gun, that makes a weapon assault others.

 

4 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

 

as·sault ri·fle

noun

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

 

You both understood the point. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 hours ago, IDWAF said:

You make very good sense on the matter, Spooky.  I know it sounds callous to say, but the reality is that gun deaths are dwarfed by so many other deaths that are either glossed over or ignored completely (unfortunately).  No one cares if a person dies from cancer, smoking, alcohol, or medical mistakes.  And it’s true that except for medical mistakes, usually the other forms of death are an individual thing, not something done by an outsider.  

 

All good points.  Except the assault rifle part.

 

    People do, but comparing murder to causes of death not related to murder is not really valid. Taken to extreme, you have an argument that 100% of people die, so murder is then insignificant. That is not the case.

 

    Murder itself is not a common cause of death in this country. No one is saying it is. Even in countries where murder is more common, to compare it against things cancer is not a good argument. The argument that is being made is that when murder occurs, the chance that a firearm is involved is high. The question being asked is is there ways to prevent or diminish that. 

Edited February 24, 2018 by Steeleballz

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

 

 

You both understood the point. 

Yes.  And agree with your points, as I said above.  I just feel it's a distinction that needs to be made to stem the flow of disinformation.

 

An AR-15 is NOT a "deadly weapon of war", nor were they ever "issued to the military and should stay there".  They are a LE/civilian look alike that mimics some of the dependability features of the M-16 series of rifles used by the military (when Colt first bought the rights to ArmaLite, they renamed the rifle CAR-15 in an attempt to get the Colt name associated with it, but that did not last long, and it was still a full auto weapon).

 

This is why I feel keeping things as accurate as possible is important in helping the public understand guns better...

 

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by IDWAF

[Merle 458]

5 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

 

 

You both understood the point. 

Re-read that definition and let me know where such a weapon as defined there has been used in any mass shooting carried out by a civilian. Did you know there are other silly made-up words in the dictionary as well? I've been involved with the military in one way or another since 1995 and nowhere in any of my training have I heard the term "assault rifle". You would think by that definition that the military would be using that term wouldn't you? Maybe the next time i go and qualify with the M-16 I'll correct the instructors when they don't call it an assault rifle. 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

12 minutes ago, Merle said:

Re-read that definition and let me know where such a weapon as defined there has been used in any mass shooting carried out by a civilian. Did you know there are other silly made-up words in the dictionary as well? I've been involved with the military in one way or another since 1995 and nowhere in any of my training have I heard the term "assault rifle". You would think by that definition that the military would be using that term wouldn't you? Maybe the next time i go and qualify with the M-16 I'll correct the instructors when they don't call it an assault rifle. 

Whatever floats your boat. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    People do, but comparing murder to causes of death not related to murder is not really valid. Taken to extreme, you have an argument that 100% of people die, so murder is then insignificant. That is not the case.

 

    Murder itself is not a common cause of death in this country. No one is saying it is. Even in countries where murder is more common, to compare it against things cancer is not a good argument. The argument that is being made is that when murder occurs, the chance that a firearm is involved is high. The question being asked is is there ways to prevent or diminish that. 

I understand what you are saying. But people DO say that murder is common in this country.  It has been said right here in this thread; if not directly, then alluded to with dramatic words.  When people die at the hands of a gunman, it is a shocking (well, perhaps the shock is wearing off due to media coverage?) and dramatic thing.  

 

Technically, alcohol-related auto deaths are not murder because they are not premeditated.  And gun-related deaths (most of them anyway) are murder because they are premeditated (even though it can be argued that the killing was a random act of violence because the shooter did not target a specific person). 

 

But at the end of the day, whether one is a victim of a drunk driver breaking the law and getting behind the wheel, or a victim of an indiscriminate shooter, that life was stolen from them and their loved ones.  Dead is dead, at least as far as the family and friends are concerned.

 

As to the base of your last point, can something be done to prevent gun deaths... I honestly don’t see what more can be done today (since so many of the rules around legally owning a gun are skirted) short of banning them.  And even if guns were taken off the market today, it would take decades before we see much of a difference, I fear.

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Not sure why the video embedded above is without sound.  If you play it outside the site, you can hear the announcer calling it in AR-15.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Ban Hammer said:

Man, it really hurts me to read about the sheriffs department employees in this situation.  Truly sad that they failed so miserably to do their duty.  I understand that no one wants to rush into a fusillade of bullets and die.  But they didn’t even try to get close and stop the shooting, it seems. I see some lawsuits coming out of this.  Or worse.