Orlando: Worst Mass Shooting In US History

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Hillary Clinton on Twitter: ""Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.""

Tell this to homosexuals.

No homosexual person I know has had anything hateful to say about Islam today or any other day. Probably because they weren't born yesterday and understand that homophobia is not exclusive to any one religion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

No homosexual person I know has had anything hateful to say about Islam today or any other day. Probably because they weren't born yesterday and understand that homophobia is not exclusive to any one religion.

Maybe they should

[Shkspr]

Yeah, being in one of those blue-gray areas really helped out the patrons of Pulse this weekend. And it helped Matthew Shepard, Brandon Teena, Harvey Milk, Rebecca Wight...

...maybe the reason LGBTQ folks never told nol how much they hated Muslims is because once you add it to the number of Christians they'd have to hate, that's just too many fucking people. That shit gets tiring.

[RainMaker]

Are you honestly comparing the situation gays face in the United States from Christians to that they face in the Muslim world?

Our biggest battles are over whether someone should bake a cake or which restroom is used. These are countries where you will be executed.

[larrymcg421]

I think gay people have a problem with radical Muslims and not peaceful ones. And their brain power is suitably complex enough to distinguish between the two.

[AlexB]

Good to see the NRA supporters standing strong alongside their long-term friends and allies, the LGBT community, to get to the heart of the tragedy.

Tragic events in Orlando: this time it was a Muslim attacker, but the only two constants in every single incident along these lines are guns and mental instability.

[RainMaker]

Why does that one religion tend to have so many more radicals than others? Why is it responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the world?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Good to see the NRA supporters standing strong alongside their long-term friends and allies, the LGBT community, to get to the heart of the tragedy.

Tragic events in Orlando: this time it was a Muslim attacker, but the only two constants in every single incident along these lines are guns and mental instability.

I am against the NRA and against the most oppressive religion in the world today. But continue white knighting people who worship texts that literally call for the execution of homosexuals.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why does that one religion tend to have so many more radicals than others? Why is it responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the world?

There is no answer to either question that would change how I treat Muslims who don't commit or support terrorist attacks.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are you honestly comparing the situation gays face in the United States from Christians to that they face in the Muslim world?

To the extent that Christianity is as explicit in the minds of its adherents about the supposed abomination of homosexuality as Islam is, absolutely. But hating Islam as a blanket solution, as you seem to think gays should, doesn't make any more sense than hating Christianity as a blanket solution.

Our biggest battles are over whether someone should bake a cake or which restroom is used. These are countries where you will be executed.

We're about one generation removed from open season on beating the shit out of gays. Don't hurt that arm of yours patting yourself on the back for cherry picking a particular moment in time and place where we've decided to publicly frown upon the practice of injuring or killing "deviants" rather than just marking the police file "unsolved". There's still plenty of hating the sinner around, and it certainly isn't America's Christian values that keep it from getting physical as often. Keep in mind that a map of the world showing countries that have the death penalty for ANY offense looks pretty close to your maps above except for the addition of the US, India, and China (who only stopped jailing and disappearing gays less than a decade ago), so we've might as well have only the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses to thank for any lack of widespread execution of gays in our past, not some innate superiority of one religion over another.

Which circles back to the point: that blanketing both Islam and Christianity as being anti-gay, and hating anyone who practices either, results in too damn many people to hate. A person needs a scorecard the size of the OED to hate that bad, and who's got the energy?

[RainMaker]

So if the only thing stopping executions of gays is the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, why does this not occur at anywhere close to the same scale in other predominately Christian countries that do not have those protections? Is it just a coincidence that these barbaric laws are concentrated in precisely the same place as predominately Islamic countries?

I dislike any culture that treats women as property and homosexuality as a capital crime. Doesn't matter who they are and where they come from. I don't make an exception to the rule because their skin happens to be a few shades darker and it'll make me look really sophisticated to my progressive friends on Facebook.

[larrymcg421]

Who are you even responding to at this point?

[thesloppy]

This dude sounds like he's an unfortunate intersection in a Venn diagram of the proverbial radical muslim and generally disturbed American gun nut. Probably not fair to blame or excuse either influence entirely.

[stevew]

How long until it comes out that this guy was gay/engaging in sex chat with men/gay porn watcher, etc.

He seems like a real gem of a guy regardless of this act. Beat his wife, etc.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Tragic events in Orlando: this time it was a Muslim attacker, but the only two constants in every single incident along these lines are guns and mental instability.

Gender?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why does that one religion tend to have so many more radicals than others? Why is it responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the world?

I'd say because one is constantly getting the shit kicked out of it. If the US was subject to as much foreign interference as some of these Muslim countries, I'd imagine we would see much more in the way of Christian extremism and terrorist attacks.

[PilotMan]

The only solution from some of my far right friends is that every single person should be armed at all times. No other options are even feasible.

Just curious, what kind of solution is that? What does the world we live in look like if that's the solution?

They seem to think that it leads to a world where everyone kills the bad guy in one shot and saves hundreds of lives. Where we all respect on another because we all know every other person is carrying.

My wife and I were at the Tilted Kilt a few weeks ago. There was a guy who was so drunk he fell off his stool. He was drinking with a large group of guys and had been getting kind of inappropriate with the waitress.

It's about this time that my wife realizes he's carrying. Had it tucked in the back of his pants. He is on his way out and gropes two of the waitresses. Maybe carrying means that you don't have to respect anyone and that they all have to respect you?

In that case, how long is it before total shootouts in public places are a real thing?


Neil deGrasse Tyson Verified account ‏@neiltyson

Odd how many Americans invoke the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership, rather than explore whether or not it's a good idea

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I would agree with "arbitrarily." They shouldn't be able to just point at someone and say 'hey you you don't get to ______." That's one of my issues with the no-fly list. As currently constituted, you're legally not allowed to know that you're on it; because you're not permitted that knowledge, you lack the standing to challenge your status on that list, which means you can't see the evidence against you that led to that status in the first place.

Which is breathtakingly unconstitutional but PROTECT US FROM THE TERRISMS.

So, y'know, I don't want anything like that for a prospective "no-gun" list.

But here's another issue: federal background checks for gun purchases get 72 hours. If there's a red flag in your background that doesn't come up within 72 hours, you're legally allowed to purchase the firearm. So, if you have a situation like, say, the last 8 years where people are so freaked out that the secret Muslim is gonna take ALL the guns we better buy up MORE guns, you have a greater strain on the government's ability to conduct those checks.

Congress has to fund the ability to conduct those checks, and what Republican is going to vote for more money for, well, ANY gun measure that isn't "loosen restrictions" with the NRA glowering balefully at them?

And that's without even touching the concept of straw purchases or background checks for unlicensed sales. See, if selling guns is your primary business, you have to be licensed and conduct background checks. If it isn't...you don't. A Harvard study from last year (apparently still awaiting publication) suggests that potentially up to 22% of gun purchasers in 2015 had no background check performed. One in five. Would that have mattered here? Maybe. Maybe not. Can we tighten that up without "arbitrarily taking away rights"? I think so.

And that, to me, is the problem. There are things that can be done that would not materially impact the Second Amendment, but politicians on the right are so invested in GUNS = FREEDOM AND NRA DONOR CHECKS that even when 90% of the country supports something (like expanded background checks) they fight tooth and nail to prevent that thing from happening. And then they shrug their shoulders, say "there's literally not a thing we could do. not one thing. ever. It's beyond our control. #PrayFor______" and it makes me want to scream.

Catching up and completely agree here. Some seem to remember the 2nd amendment except for the "well-regulated" part.

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The only solution from some of my far right friends is that every single person should be armed at all times. No other options are even feasible.

Just curious, what kind of solution is that? What does the world we live in look like if that's the solution?

They seem to think that it leads to a world where everyone kills the bad guy in one shot and saves hundreds of lives. Where we all respect on another because we all know every other person is carrying.

My wife and I were at the Tilted Kilt a few weeks ago. There was a guy who was so drunk he fell off his stool. He was drinking with a large group of guys and had been getting kind of inappropriate with the waitress.

It's about this time that my wife realizes he's carrying. Had it tucked in the back of his pants. He is on his way out and gropes two of the waitresses. Maybe carrying means that you don't have to respect anyone and that they all have to respect you?

In that case, how long is it before total shootouts in public places are a real thing?


Neil deGrasse Tyson Verified account ‏@neiltyson

Odd how many Americans invoke the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership, rather than explore whether or not it's a good idea

This scenario frightens me as well. In those situations, I find that most of my brain wants to jump in to defend someone being harassed while a voice in the back of my head asks, "What if they are packing?"

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why does that one religion tend to have so many more radicals than others? Why is it responsible for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the world?

I think corruption of our minds and our better nature is far more prevalent in religious society than it is anywhere else. For the Islamic religion, there are radicals just like there are in any other religion, but I think the promises of 72 virgins and incredible sex in the afterlife are the kinds of things that push those who are crazy enough to believe in them to do drastic things. I don't think many of the Islamic faith truly believe in that kind of thing, but the ones who are crazy enough to believe in it are also sometimes crazy enough to pick up some guns and bombs and go for the gold.

I mean, the only people who want that kind of afterlife are probably sociopaths for the most part anyway, only interested in the manipulation of the world around them for the sole purpose of promotion of the self. For the right end goal, I think a sociopath is more equipped to endure more hardship and be more restrained than a normal person could ever hope to be when it comes to reaching a particularly attractive end goal.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by nol

No homosexual person I know has had anything hateful to say about Islam today or any other day. Probably because they weren't born yesterday and understand that homophobia is not exclusive to any one religion.

Not too pick a fight with you, but you aren't looking closely. When Islamic religious leaders (not here in the US generally) are still preaching to this day that homosexuality is an abomination and sin. When "normal" everyday citizens in the streets of these countries stop cheering when a gay person is dragged through the town, beaten up, and if still alive, brought up on charges just for being gay, then I won't have anything negative to say about Islam or any other organized religion (well most of them). And I'm far from being alone here. Muslim leaders here in the US (most of them) are trying to show that it can be a race of peace and tolerance, but they have very far to go.

Look where we were here in the US not that long ago. Men were the unquestioned leader of the family, both religiously and morally. Women were told to stay home, could not vote, and in many cases do not have equal pay with men. Sounds like life in many Islamic countries today doesn't it?

[nol]

And has been said several times, how is that different from any other kind of religious extremism? Also take it you've never been to or heard of Uganda.

If you want to talk about needless loss of life, I'm sure the death toll associated with stigmatizing HIV/AIDS as a 'gay plague' and subsequently putting it on the back burner as a public health concern and dissuading people of all orientations from seeking treatment is much higher than 50, and that had nothing to do with the Islamic faith.

[PilotMan]

Maybe the war on terror should be the war on extremism. We can't even agree on how that should be determined. I'd say that Christian extremists might pose a substantial threat as well as Muslim, probably not Hindu, not yet anyway.

That said, how do you combat it at home, when there is total freedom of speech without trampling civil liberties and it morphing into (which it most certainly will in some form) something corrupted that simply oppresses what it doesn't like?

[Arles]

I don't understand why we can't have two levels of gun checks. For handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles, the current system seems OK. But for assault rifles, why not have a more stringent check that includes cross referencing terror/watch lists, prior misdimeanors and other mitigating factors? To me, you have to make a pretty clear case that you are not up to no good in order to legally obtain an AR-15.

This whole "right to bear any arm I wish" argument seems a little silly on the face. I think people should have the right to carry a handgun or shotgun to protect themselves. But, why should that expand to an AR-15 or other assault rifle? This is akin to saying that since medical marijuana is legal, I should be able to get 25 kilos and store it in my house because "you never know when a group of glaucoma sufferers show up out of the blue and I want to be ready!"

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't understand why we can't have two levels of gun checks. For handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles, the current system seems OK. But for assault rifles, why not have a more stringent check that includes cross referencing terror/watch lists, prior misdimeanors and other mitigating factors? To me, you have to make a pretty clear case that you are not up to no good in order to legally obtain an AR-15.

This whole "right to bear any arm I wish" argument seems a little silly on the face. I think people should have the right to carry a handgun or shotgun to protect themselves. But, why should that expand to an AR-15 or other assault rifle? This is akin to saying that since medical marijuana is legal, I should be able to get 25 kilos and store it in my house because "you never know when a group of glaucoma sufferers show up out of the blue and I want to be ready!"

I'm incredibly jaded on the gun debate issue and I've heard everything on both sides. Handguns kill more than assault weapons year in and year out. If you want to be more strict on assault rifles, why not hand guns instead? Why not just do something about all guns? Doing something about assault weapons would definitely help prevent deaths/injuries in mass shootings but more people commit suicide via handguns. With mass shootings typically gaining bigger headlines more so than suicide, makes it seem the people who die from the former have more priority than the latter when both should be treated equally.

This isn't meant to be argumentative or anything. Just playing devil's advocate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

And has been said several times, how is that different from any other kind of religious extremism? Also take it you've never been to or heard of Uganda.

Is it really "extremism" if it's the norm in most of those countries?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

This whole "right to bear any arm I wish" argument seems a little silly on the face. I think people should have the right to carry a handgun or shotgun to protect themselves. But, why should that expand to an AR-15 or other assault rifle? This is akin to saying that since medical marijuana is legal, I should be able to get 25 kilos and store it in my house because "you never know when a group of glaucoma sufferers show up out of the blue and I want to be ready!"

What do you think is the effective difference between an AR-15 and a semi-automatic handgun? They both fire semi-automatic, and they both take high-capacity magazines. I dunno if denying someone a 30-round semi-automatic rifle is such a huge achievement if they can still buy as many 30-round semi-automatic pistols/rifles as they want...but you won't be able to attach a flashlight to those!

I know this can be confusing, especially since the media doesn't seem to care to clear it up, but a civilian AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it's an assault weapon, which may sound like semantics, but an assault rifle is a fully-automatic weapon which is completely illegal in America, and one has never been involved in a mass shooting. An assault weapon, like the AR-15s commonly used in these killings is a semi-automatic rifle with a detached magazine, a pistol grip, equipped for tactical extensions. It fires at exactly the same rate as a semi-automatic handgun and holds as many bullets as are in a magazine.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by wustin

I'm incredibly jaded on the gun debate issue and I've heard everything on both sides. Handguns kill more than assault weapons year in and year out. If you want to be more strict on assault rifles, why not hand guns instead? Why not just do something about all guns? Doing something about assault weapons would definitely help prevent deaths/injuries in mass shootings but more people commit suicide via handguns. With mass shootings typically gaining bigger headlines more so than suicide, makes it seem the people who die from the former have more priority than the latter when both should be treated equally.

This isn't meant to be argumentative or anything. Just playing devil's advocate.

But someone committing suicide made that choice for themselves. People killed in mass shootings did not choose to die.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wustin

I'm incredibly jaded on the gun debate issue and I've heard everything on both sides. Handguns kill more than assault weapons year in and year out. If you want to be more strict on assault rifles, why not hand guns instead? Why not just do something about all guns? Doing something about assault weapons would definitely help prevent deaths/injuries in mass shootings but more people commit suicide via handguns. With mass shootings typically gaining bigger headlines more so than suicide, makes it seem the people who die from the former have more priority than the latter when both should be treated equally.

This isn't meant to be argumentative or anything. Just playing devil's advocate.

I'm pretty jaded too on it. I want to see less gun violence and think our culture is embarrassing when it comes to guns. But I also haven't seen many solutions that would actually work.

The irony about gun control is that most of the crimes committed with guns are committed by people who can't legally own them (felons and minors). There are actually some decent laws on the books. The problem is that we don't enforce them all that much. Judges give out slaps on the wrist and DA's plea out. The people who are most vocally in favor of gun control are also the people who are most vocal about imprisoning too many people. So would any new gun control law change anything if there is no punishment?

I guess my feeling is that we really need to take the illegal possession of firearms more seriously. Felons who are caught with them need to be locked up for a long time. Agents in straw purchases should be held responsible for the crimes committed with the weapons they purchased. I think you'd see a huge drop in crime in places like Chicago if these things were done.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Took a little more than a day for another Islamic terror attack to be turned into a left-wing nutjob propaganda piece.

That's actually a little longer than I expected, you're slipping.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm pretty jaded too on it. I want to see less gun violence and think our culture is embarrassing when it comes to guns. But I also haven't seen many solutions that would actually work.

The irony about gun control is that most of the crimes committed with guns are committed by people who can't legally own them (felons and minors). There are actually some decent laws on the books. The problem is that we don't enforce them all that much. Judges give out slaps on the wrist and DA's plea out. The people who are most vocally in favor of gun control are also the people who are most vocal about imprisoning too many people. So would any new gun control law change anything if there is no punishment?

I guess my feeling is that we really need to take the illegal possession of firearms more seriously. Felons who are caught with them need to be locked up for a long time. Agents in straw purchases should be held responsible for the crimes committed with the weapons they purchased. I think you'd see a huge drop in crime in places like Chicago if these things were done.

That is my biggest issue. You can have all of the ideas and reforms in the world, but they won't be significant if executed/enforced inadequately. This notion has a much more bigger scope than just gun control.

Florida iirc already requires background checks for assault weapons. How that guy made it through the vetting baffles me.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by wustin

I'm incredibly jaded on the gun debate issue and I've heard everything on both sides. Handguns kill more than assault weapons year in and year out. If you want to be more strict on assault rifles, why not hand guns instead? Why not just do something about all guns? Doing something about assault weapons would definitely help prevent deaths/injuries in mass shootings but more people commit suicide via handguns. With mass shootings typically gaining bigger headlines more so than suicide, makes it seem the people who die from the former have more priority than the latter when both should be treated equally.

This isn't meant to be argumentative or anything. Just playing devil's advocate.

That's my feeling too....removing assault weapons from the equation wouldn't have stopped the frequency or occurrence of any of these attacks, though it might have reduced the body count. That's certainly not a BAD thing, but I don't think "the exact same rate & amount of tragedies with a slightly reduced body count" is anybody's endgame, so why do we put all of our energy in that direction?

Likewise, as long as there are an endless number of models of potentially high-capacity semi-automatic handguns and rifles to take their place I dunno what the point is. Can't use a semi-automatic rifle with 30-rounds? A semi-auto handgun with 30 rounds has been proven to kill just as well. No 30-round clips? 3 semi-automatic handguns with standard 10-round clips have been proven to kill just as well. Nothing but 6 round, double-action revolvers allowed? Fine, I'll take five, and 1000 rounds.

I can see how gun nuts get to the idea that "they're going to come for all our guns" when their opposition insists that they only care about assault weapons, but they clearly have no idea what an assault weapon is, and that as soon as they have figured out that most other firearms meet all those exact same semi-automatic and potentially high-capacity definitions, of course they'll want to come after those too (as they should in my mind, if you want any a ban/buyback to have any significant impact).

[bob]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The people who are most vocally in favor of gun control are also the people who are most vocal about imprisoning too many people. So would any new gun control law change anything if there is no punishment?

This is one of the stances that confuses me so much. It is like my friend that won't watch NFL anymore because of CTE injuries but also invites me over to watch MMA fights.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

What do you think is the effective difference between an AR-15 and a semi-automatic handgun? They both fire semi-automatic, and they both take high-capacity magazines. I dunno if denying someone a 30-round semi-automatic rifle is such a huge achievement if they can still buy as many 30-round semi-automatic pistols/rifles as they want...but you won't be able to attach a flashlight to those!

I know this can be confusing, especially since the media doesn't seem to care to clear it up, but a civilian AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it's an assault weapon, which may sound like semantics, but an assault rifle is a fully-automatic weapon which is completely illegal in America, and one has never been involved in a mass shooting. An assault weapon, like the AR-15s commonly used in these killings is a semi-automatic rifle with a detached magazine, a pistol grip, equipped for tactical extensions. It fires at exactly the same rate as a semi-automatic handgun and holds as many bullets as are in a magazine.

5.56 is a pretty big boost. Better accuracy, higher capacity, and over-penetration. It's a much deadlier weapon.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by bob

This is one of the stances that confuses me so much. It is like my friend that won't watch NFL anymore because of CTE injuries but also invites me over to watch MMA fights.

It's infuriating in Chicago. I know our former Police Superintendent routinely brought it up. Many of the people arrested for murder have numerous arrests and convictions for illegal firearm possession. It's usually probation for the first time, maybe they get 6 months the second time around, and maybe a year the third time.

If you locked up all the people in Chicago who refused to follow the current gun laws, the city would be so much safer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wustin

Florida iirc already requires background checks for assault weapons. How that guy made it through the vetting baffles me.

He made it through the process to get hired by a security firm (whatever that process may be anyway).

And two FBI investigations produced nothing actionable.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by wustin

I'm incredibly jaded on the gun debate issue and I've heard everything on both sides. Handguns kill more than assault weapons year in and year out. If you want to be more strict on assault rifles, why not hand guns instead? Why not just do something about all guns? Doing something about assault weapons would definitely help prevent deaths/injuries in mass shootings but more people commit suicide via handguns. With mass shootings typically gaining bigger headlines more so than suicide, makes it seem the people who die from the former have more priority than the latter when both should be treated equally.

This isn't meant to be argumentative or anything. Just playing devil's advocate.

Isn't part of the problem that we're only seeming to look for the perfect solution, which will never be agreeable to both sides, instead of interim steps that could slowly improve things?

[stevew]

Much as I figured this guy was an Isis wannabe.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

5.56 is a pretty big boost. Better accuracy, higher capacity, and over-penetration. It's a much deadlier weapon.

Apparently 5.56 is military spec for assault rifles, but most civilian assault weapons are chambered for .223 rounds. An assault weapon isn't necessarily tied to a specific caliber/chamber (and neither is a handgun), most of these shooters were apparently using .223 caliber assault weapons, which might give you better penetration and accuracy, but I dunno if I'd say is necessarily much deadlier than a high-powered pistol:

WEAPONS USED IN MASS SHOOTINGS

[bob]

Originally Posted by Logan

Isn't part of the problem that we're only seeming to look for the perfect solution, which will never be agreeable to both sides, instead of interim steps that could slowly improve things?

One side views any interim step as a slippery slope to all guns being illegal. They also believe that criminals aren't too interested in following the law.

Not agreeing with that stance, but just stating it.

[bob]

Did gun control work in Australia? - The Washington Post

[molson]

Originally Posted by bob

Did gun control work in Australia? - The Washington Post

The part about reduced suicides is interesting, but the U.S. has had a similar decrease in murder rate (about 55%) in the last 25-30 years.

[RainMaker]

I also think one of the problems we have is that a whole bunch of countries to the South of us would be more than willing to fill a black market. We can't stop drugs, what makes us think we could stop guns from coming into this country?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Logan

Isn't part of the problem that we're only seeming to look for the perfect solution, which will never be agreeable to both sides, instead of interim steps that could slowly improve things?

Part of the problem is that each interim step seems to take 20 years of legislation and political warfare, and in the meantime gun buy rates actually tend to rise during talks of bans and legislation due to hoarding. Do we want to take 100 years passing incremental pieces of legislation that do nothing to effect the rate or occurrence of these incidents, make no impact on the culture, but fractionally lower the body count each time?

Personally, I'd rather see some efforts go towards fixing the modern American mental health plan (which, it seems worth noting is currently based around pharmaceuticals that may cause homicidal/suicidal urges).

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Gender?

Fair point 🤓

[cartman]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Apparently 5.56 is military spec for assault rifles, but most civilian assault weapons are chambered for .223 rounds. An assault weapon isn't necessarily tied to a specific caliber/chamber (and neither is a handgun), most of these shooters were apparently using .223 caliber assault weapons, which might give you better penetration and accuracy, but I dunno if I'd say is necessarily much deadlier than a high-powered pistol:

WEAPONS USED IN MASS SHOOTINGS

5.56mm and .223 are the same sized round. But, interestingly, the civilian rounds are usually potentially MORE lethal than the military rounds, due to different loads and the use of hollow point bullets.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Personally, I'd rather see some efforts go towards fixing the modern American mental health plan (which, it seems worth noting is currently based around pharmaceuticals that may cause homicidal/suicidal urges).

But that won't happen either because any real fix will cost some money and the GOP won't spend a dime more. All the talk about mental health from GOP leaders is just a smokescreen to make gun control less likely.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by cartman

5.56mm and .223 are the same sized round. But, interestingly, the civilian rounds are usually potentially MORE lethal than the military rounds, due to different loads and the use of hollow point bullets.

Fair enough point, my understanding is that the 5.56 is a higher velocity bullet that won't fire (safely?) from a civilian weapon, but I shouldn't/won't claim to know anything beyond that. That said, I think we're straying from the point: a semi-automatic assault weapon certainly can be an extremely deadly weapon, but I wouldn't say they're necessarily more deadly than any handgun (or shotgun, or hunting rifle) and banning them specifically isn't going to make a dent in any hypothetical psycho/terrorist's "deadliness" vs. unarmed civilians. It's just as easy to load a .50 caliber magnum, or a 7.62 hunting rifle, with modified loads & hollow points (& extended magazines) as it is an AR-15.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But that won't happen either because any real fix will cost some money and the GOP won't spend a dime more. All the talk about mental health from GOP leaders is just a smokescreen to make gun control less likely.

Four sure...it's like several thousand days late and several billion dollars too late for that kind of after-the-fact lip service, and the GOP spending the last 8-years being rabidly health-care of any kind, just on principle, puts clown shoes on that narrative.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by wustin

I'm incredibly jaded on the gun debate issue and I've heard everything on both sides. Handguns kill more than assault weapons year in and year out. If you want to be more strict on assault rifles, why not hand guns instead? Why not just do something about all guns?

I think the goal is to strike a balance between allowing lawful citizens to protect themselves and removing as many weapons as possible from potential criminals. I think an argument can be made that someone would like a semi-automatic handgun or shotgun for personal protection. Unless you are Jason Bourne, it's doubtful you need an AR-15 or M4 carbine for home protection. I just can't see any lawful reason for a normal citizen to need an AR15 or M4 over a semi-handgun or old school shotgun.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

What do you think is the effective difference between an AR-15 and a semi-automatic handgun? They both fire semi-automatic, and they both take high-capacity magazines. I dunno if denying someone a 30-round semi-automatic rifle is such a huge achievement if they can still buy as many 30-round semi-automatic pistols/rifles as they want...but you won't be able to attach a flashlight to those!

We are just trying to make it more difficult for criminals. Could they bring 3 semi-automatic handguns and fire off 90 rounds like the AR-15 did? Sure, but that's a tougher situation as it takes time to reload/switch guns and/or obtain all three weapons. Plus, maybe the criminal wants an AR-15 - but because it is illegal he uses a bigger ISIS channel to get it legally, comes up on the FBI radar and triggers some kind of monitor action. The point is there really is no downside to making it tougher to get assault weapons. If you are a law abiding citizen without any prior ties/offenses, it just takes a little longer than a handgun. To be honest, I'd be fine with an all-out ban on M4s and AR-15s for non law enforcement - but for some reason everyone freaks out when they may not have access to a certain type of weapon. It's already illegal to own a Beretta AR70, but a colt AR-15 or M-4 carbine are legal - why?