Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Active shooter at Texas Robb Elementary school with 19 kids and 2 Adults dead, 18 year old shooter killed

TheNightKing said:
I know where you are coming from, but I don’t need to know all of the intricacies of guns and gun ownership to have a conversation about gun control. No more than someone has to know about all of the intricacies of mental health to have a conversation about mass shooting catalysts.

Even so, only gun advocates greatly diminish the role of the gun in the equation whereas others do not diminish the role of mental health or other causes. We can do both but gun advocates say no kind of gun control will work.
Click to expand...

I agree u don't need to be an expert on internal/external ballistics and windage/elevation/parallax effects

but u should have a working knowledge on firearms enough to truly understand the effects of the policies u are advocating for

if ur intent is to keep people safe vs. infringing on a law abiding citizens freedoms, then it would make sense that u would be interested in supporting policy that actually works to keep innocents safe

but if u are just blindly supporting gun control policies without assessing effectiveness then of course 2A advocates will think u are just gaslighting



u say 2A folks dismiss the impact of the gun, but gun control advocates seem to only fixate on the gun and nothing else

at least 2A folks have shown a willingness to compromise and actually dig into the details...........

like for instance, before proposing having armed security in schools how come most schools are not designed with some sort of basic security in the 1st place

u say get rid of the guns, but I'm thinking about what happens when mentally ill folks choose other ways to do mass attacks

just simply taking away guns doesn't address that our kids are still left unprotected
 
konceptjones said:
Actually, you do.

"Ban all semi automatic weapons!!!"

Except the majority of handguns on the market are semi-automatic as are many hunting rifles. So because you don't understand this, you make statements that don't take into account the collateral damage you would cause should something like this be put into effect.

"Ban high powered rifles!!!"

The .223/.556 bullet the AR-15 fires is low on the totem pole when it comes to rifle ammunition, as I've already shown you. This would mean no hunting deer, elk, moose and it would make dispatching attacking bears or great cats while you're in the wilderness excessively hard. If you understood what different calibers of ammo is used for and it's capabilities you would know not to make such ridiculous statements.

So you DO need to understand this on a fairly competent level in order to have a conversation about gun control because you have no idea what you want to control because you have no clue about guns, ammo, and their capabilities.
Click to expand...
How about this then, let’s control the same weapons that were included in the 1994 ban. Is that specific enough?

I swear, when people say ban assault rifles y’all know exactly what they means but y’all want to make these tiny distinctions that don’t matter.
 
Last edited:
guns are not just simply a recreation/hobby for law abiding citizens........u are literally asking some folks to give up the small bit of freedom they have to not have to live at someone else's mercy

many gun control folks refuse to admit that none of these mass shooting incidents are truly random and just see it as the gun is the sole problem
Click to expand...

Whose mercy we talking? And what freedom?

I personally see all of this stuff as being interconnected. The root of America's problems are white supremacy, everything that spawns from that are just lesions caused by the cancer under the surface. There's a major difference between gun ownershp and the gun worship that afflicts this country.

When mass shootings are a daily occurence in your society, you have to look at every aspect of your society. I don't think JUST gun control is the problem, but it is certainly one prong of a more comprehensive plan. The prevelance of guns and the ease of access to them is the predominant problem with guns in this country. It's the key difference between us and any other country on earth.

Reduce the amount of guns in circulation (banning Saturday Night Specials, Assault Rifles, voluntary buy backs of all firearms, mandatory buybacks of all aforementioned assault rifles.), close gun show loopholes, make it easier to flag at-risk individuals and keep them from being able to legally obtain firearms. Gun owners won't be drastically impacted by any of this. And if they are that into assualt rifles then they can take a class and rent one to use at a range.

But conflating gun control measures being proposed in response to a mass shooting epidemic as a grab for 2nd amendment rights is a misdirection by the NRA who responds to every issue with trying to sell more guns to people (good guy with a gun, arming teachers, hardening public spaces, etc.).
 
Mr BFK said:
I agree u don't need to be an expert on internal/external ballistics and windage/elevation/parallax effects

but u should have a working knowledge on firearms enough to truly understand the effects of the policies u are advocating for

if ur intent is to keep people safe vs. infringing on a law abiding citizens freedoms, then it would make sense that u would be interested in supporting policy that actually works to keep innocents safe

but if u are just blindly supporting gun control policies without assessing effectiveness then of course 2A advocates will think u are just gaslighting



u say 2A folks dismiss the impact of the gun, but gun control advocates seem to only fixate on the gun and nothing else

at least 2A folks have shown a willingness to compromise and actually dig into the details...........

like for instance, before proposing having armed security in schools how come most schools are not designed with some sort of basic security in the 1st place

u say get rid of the guns, but I'm thinking about what happens when mentally ill folks choose other ways to do mass attacks

just simply taking away guns doesn't address that our kids are still left unprotected
Click to expand...
Nah, I’ve not seen one person who says they want more gun control say ignore the mental health issues and to not secure schools. The most I’ve seen is them being outraged that we even have to secure our schools in the first place thanks to the ease of access to certain guns. But 2A people will be quick to discourage any type of gun control.

And I would love for every responsible gun owner to own as many guns as they’d like, but until we can effectively weed out the lunatics who kill children and innocents in mass, gun control is the most effective immediate solution in my opinion.
 
konceptjones said:
It ain't about "having an arsenal". It's about identifying WHY this is happening and focusing on that instead of shit that doesn't really matter. This is a mental health issue and always has been, let's get controls in place that won't allow people with identified mental issues buy guns regardless of whether it's a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. And take a cue from here in Nevada and make it so that even private sales have to go through a federal background check with an FFL facilitating it. You gotta transfer the gun to the FFL, the FFL then submits the background paperwork and holds the firearm until the process is complete. If the person passes, it's then transferred to that person. If not, then it goes back to the owner. Add stiff consequences for selling outside of this process and if you sell illegally and the person commits a mass shooting then the seller is on the hook for accessory to murder.
Click to expand...
So the very effective killing machine used doesn’t matter?

But I do agree with the background checks. Also red flag laws. But I think you have to up the minimum age as well to at least 21. And I’d personally add a mental health screening by a certified pro paid for by the buyer. If it’s a mental health problem, why would a person’s mental health not be considered in the purchase of a weapon?
 
TheNightKing said:
So until we can effect

How about this then, let’s control the same weapons that were included in the 1994 ban. Is that specific enough?

I swear, when people say ban assault rifles y’all know exactly what they means but y’all want to make these tiny distinctions that don’t matter.
Click to expand...

Nope, because it specifies what they want to define as an "assault rifle" with overly broad bullet points. Note, you only need to have a gun with two of these items in a given category to classify as an "assault rifle"

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  • A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.

Both of my rifles falls under that bullshit definition of "assault rifle": The CMR30 has a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, and a threaded barrel that can be equipped with a flash suppressor (as well as a muzzle brake or silencer). The Sub2000 had a pistol grip and a threaded barrel as well.

20220424_140816.jpg

This is the CMR30, it shoots .22 magnum rounds, not exactly the stuff that people cower in fear of. To date, there has been exactly ONE incident where one was used.


20220430_180952.jpg

This is the Sub2000. It's more or less a "survival" rifle that folds in half to be stowed in a backpack, or kept under a truck/suv seat. Shoots the same 9mm ammo the average pistol uses, not some "high powered" round. It also uses the standard Glock 17 handgun magazine. One was almost used in a mass shooting, but it was stopped before it happened.

Nobody in their right mind would consider either an "assault rifle", but because they have attributes that congress deemed "assault-rifle-y", they fit the definition and selling either these would be illegal.

According to the rules, pretty much any shotgun with a pistol grip would also be banned because most have a fixed magazine that holds more than 5 rounds.
 
konceptjones said:
Nope, because it specifies what they want to define as an "assault rifle" with overly broad bullet points. Note, you only need to have a gun with two of these items in a given category to classify as an "assault rifle"

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  • A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.

Both of my rifles falls under that bullshit definition of "assault rifle": The CMR30 has a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, and a threaded barrel that can be equipped with a flash suppressor (as well as a muzzle brake or silencer). The Sub2000 had a pistol grip and a threaded barrel as well.

View attachment 852868

This is the CMR30, it shoots .22 magnum rounds, not exactly the stuff that people cower in fear of. To date, there has been exactly ONE incident where one was used.


View attachment 852872

This is the Sub2000. It's more or less a "survival" rifle that folds in half to be stowed in a backpack, or kept under a truck/suv seat. Shoots the same 9mm ammo the average pistol uses, not some "high powered" round. It also uses the standard Glock 17 handgun magazine. One was almost used in a mass shooting, but it was stopped before it happened.

Nobody in their right mind would consider either an "assault rifle", but because they have attributes that congress deemed "assault-rifle-y", they fit the definition and selling either these would be illegal.

According to the rules, pretty much any shotgun with a pistol grip would also be banned because most have a fixed magazine that holds more than 5 rounds.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s not just about the bullets, right? Doesn’t a long barrel provide benefits such as less recoil and higher accuracy? Also higher bullet velocity? So you only pointing out the rounds used is disingenuous. There’s a lot of benefit to a long barrel assault style rifle that makes them more effective at killing. If not, then what would be the point?

I’m sorry but you seem to have a lot of bias towards gun ownership. I appreciate guns too but if banning guns saves some lives, it is what it is.
 
TheNightKing said:
So the very effective killing machine used doesn’t matter?

But I do agree with the background checks. Also red flag laws. But I think you have to up the minimum age as well to at least 21. And I’d personally add a mental health screening by a certified pro paid for by the buyer. If it’s a mental health problem, why would a person’s mental health not be considered in the purchase of a weapon?
Click to expand...

Nope, because, as I've already pointed out, the majority of mass shootings were carried out with a handgun. The deadliest school shooting in US history is the Virginia Tech shooting, carried out by .22LR and a 9mm handguns.

Also, the very post you quoted is my advocating for mental health flags. New York actually has such a law but the cops didn't do their jobs and didn't flag dude that shot up the spot in Buffalo.
 
konceptjones said:
Nope, because, as I've already pointed out, the majority of mass shootings were carried out with a handgun. The deadliest school shooting in US history is the Virginia Tech shooting, carried out by .22LR and a 9mm handguns.

Also, the very post you quoted is my advocating for mental health flags. New York actually has such a law but the cops didn't do their jobs and didn't flag dude that shot up the spot in Buffalo.
Click to expand...
So again, because a ban on assault rifles wouldn’t have prevented all mass shootings, don’t ban assault rifles or at minimum raise the minimum age? That’s what you’re saying?
 
TheNightKing said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s not just about the bullets, right? Doesn’t a long barrel provide benefits such as less recoil and higher accuracy? Also higher bullet velocity? So you only pointing out the rounds used is disingenuous. There’s a lot of benefit to a long barrel assault style rifle that makes them more effective at killing. If not, then what would be the point?

I’m sorry but you seem to have a lot of bias towards gun ownership. I appreciate guns too but if banning guns saves some lives, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Again, this is where your limited knowledge comes into play.

Rifles, by design, have longer barrels than pistols or handguns. The standard AR barrel length in use by the military is 14.5". Civilian AR's are anywhere from 10-20" with 16" being the most common. Hunting rifles can go clear out to 28", possibly longer. Longer barrels are less maneuverable than the 14.5" used by the military. Also, the advantage of a longer barrel is finite and can actually slow down a round if it's too long to be of benefit.

Pointing out the rounds used says "these ain't 'high powered' rounds" y'all tend to associate with "assault rifles". My shit shoots "regular" ammo, just like a handgun (though the .22WMR was designed for rifles from the jump). A 9mm fired from my rifle still can't penetrate body armor (with one, fairly rare, exception: The Liberty Civil Defense +P 9mm round, which can punch through certain armor even when fired from a handgun) meanwhile plenty of hunting rounds can zip right through everything up to Level IV body armor (which will stop it). A 22WMR from my other rifle can't either. My joints would just happen to fall under that classification despite no one of sound mind using either for warfare or anything related to such activities.

As for the recoil. I'd love to see you try to hit something with my 9mm firing as fast as you can. The rounds I use in it, fired in rapid succession would mean you would hit very little because the recoil is pretty rough; even the cheap, slow, range ammo would present a challenge. The hotter NATO rounds I have loaded in three of my 21 round magazines would definitely keep you from hitting anything when fired as fast as you can (trust me on this, I'm a damned good shot out to 50 yards with the Sub2000 but not when doing rapid-fire mag dumps due to the recoil). The .22WMR joint? it's more manageable but even still you ain't gonna be that accurate.

I'm gonna assume you've never once shot an AR15. I have, in .223, .556, and .300 Blackout and you just ain't accurate shooting fast. As far as I'm concerned the inaccuracy is the reason the standard load out for soldiers in the US military is seven 30 round magazines 'cause you basically just throwing bullets in the enemy's general direction, so more is better.
 
TheNightKing said:
So again, because a ban on assault rifles wouldn’t have prevented all mass shootings, don’t ban assault rifles or at minimum raise the minimum age? That’s what you’re saying?
Click to expand...

Are you ready to ban aspirin because of all the fentanyl deaths???

What's the point in banning something that ain't the cause of these shootings???
 
konceptjones said:
Again, this is where your limited knowledge comes into play.

Rifles, by design, have longer barrels than pistols or handguns. The standard AR barrel length in use by the military is 14.5". Civilian AR's are anywhere from 10-20" with 16" being the most common. Hunting rifles can go clear out to 28", possibly longer. Longer barrels are less maneuverable than the 14.5" used by the military. Also, the advantage of a longer barrel is finite and can actually slow down a round if it's too long to be of benefit.

Pointing out the rounds used says "these ain't 'high powered' rounds" y'all tend to associate with "assault rifles". My shit shoots "regular" ammo, just like a handgun (though the .22WMR was designed for rifles from the jump). A 9mm fired from my rifle still can't penetrate body armor (with one, fairly rare, exception: The Liberty Civil Defense +P 9mm round, which can punch through certain armor even when fired from a handgun) meanwhile plenty of hunting rounds can zip right through everything up to Level IV body armor (which will stop it). A 22WMR from my other rifle can't either. My joints would just happen to fall under that classification despite no one of sound mind using either for warfare or anything related to such activities.

As for the recoil. I'd love to see you try to hit something with my 9mm firing as fast as you can. The rounds I use in it, fired in rapid succession would mean you would hit very little because the recoil is pretty rough; even the cheap, slow, range ammo would present a challenge. The hotter NATO rounds I have loaded in three of my 21 round magazines would definitely keep you from hitting anything when fired as fast as you can (trust me on this, I'm a damned good shot out to 50 yards with the Sub2000 but not when doing rapid-fire mag dumps due to the recoil). The .22WMR joint? it's more manageable but even still you ain't gonna be that accurate.

I'm gonna assume you've never once shot an AR15. I have, in .223, .556, and .300 Blackout and you just ain't accurate shooting fast. As far as I'm concerned the inaccuracy is the reason the standard load out for soldiers in the US military is seven 30 round magazines 'cause you basically just throwing bullets in the enemy's general direction, so more is better.
Click to expand...
So you brought up maneuverability, which doesn’t matter when you’re gunning down innocent people. You brought up the ability to pierce body armor, which doesn’t matter in these cases either. And you brought up accuracy, which was to negate my point so I defer the point on that one. But even so, accuracy isn’t that big of a factor either when someone is shooting kids at point blank range.

So why do these mass shooters recently tend to choose an assault weapon in the majority of mass shooting cases if it offers no benefit over using a handgun? Because that’s what you are proposing here. Is it because they are more widely available? Is it the easiest to use? Is it the standard magazine size?

Whatever the reason, this is what they’re choosing so they see some benefit over a handgun. So why not take away that choice and force them to do something they may not be as comfortable with if they still choose to do these things?
 
I get what New Zealand did but NZ is not the US. Gun culture is American culture them white folks used guns to kill off the natives I just don’t see no real change coming
 
konceptjones said:
Nope, because it specifies what they want to define as an "assault rifle" with overly broad bullet points. Note, you only need to have a gun with two of these items in a given category to classify as an "assault rifle"

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  • A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.

Both of my rifles falls under that bullshit definition of "assault rifle": The CMR30 has a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, and a threaded barrel that can be equipped with a flash suppressor (as well as a muzzle brake or silencer). The Sub2000 had a pistol grip and a threaded barrel as well.

View attachment 852868

This is the CMR30, it shoots .22 magnum rounds, not exactly the stuff that people cower in fear of. To date, there has been exactly ONE incident where one was used.


View attachment 852872

This is the Sub2000. It's more or less a "survival" rifle that folds in half to be stowed in a backpack, or kept under a truck/suv seat. Shoots the same 9mm ammo the average pistol uses, not some "high powered" round. It also uses the standard Glock 17 handgun magazine. One was almost used in a mass shooting, but it was stopped before it happened.

Nobody in their right mind would consider either an "assault rifle", but because they have attributes that congress deemed "assault-rifle-y", they fit the definition and selling either these would be illegal.

According to the rules, pretty much any shotgun with a pistol grip would also be banned because most have a fixed magazine that holds more than 5 rounds.
Click to expand...

It would be good if the people writing the gun control laws could get help from people who understand guns so that the laws are fair. Unfortunately, gun advocates are too busy fighting reasonable gun control to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top