Colorado Shooting and...Follow

I don't think anyone wants to repeal the 2nd amendment, just make it more difficult for aspiring mass murderers to kill lots of people in a short time frame. The higher the capacity of the clip/magazine combined with how close to automatic a semi-automatic weapon is, results in the ability to shoot more people in a shorter amount of time. There's no practical reason for wanting these things, outside of law enforcement & military, besides to kill lots of people - so why make it easy?

This is my issue with guns in general- we make it too easy to kill people with them.

I guess we should just be happy the 100 round mag jammed, limiting his ability to spray bullets & lowering the casualty count?

Edited, Jul 24th 2012 5:38am by Omegavegeta

I'm being amused by David Frum's Twitter feed as he goes back and forth with Media Research Center VP and Fox News columnist Dan Gainor on guns in America.

Money quote so far (which was actually a RT): If the govt was actually tyrannical, Obama would drone strike your house before you could even open your gun cabinet.

Also: @dangainor: I bet the people in Syria and Iran wish they had more gun rights
@DavidFrum: No, they wish they had tank, rocket & helicopter rights

Edited, Jul 24th 2012 10:30am by Jophiel

Remember when the Libyan rebels were fighting the government and they were all like "Man, if only we had more pistols and shotguns (and maybe some long rifles!) we could totally take this thing"?

My husband's nickname is Tank, does that count?

If you give people tank rights, they'll just want Davvy Crockett rifle rights.

http://science.discovery.com/videos/stephen-hawkings-sci-fi-masters-watching-the-watchbirds.html

In common modern usage. Within the context of small arms, a long rifle is a firearm with a rifled barrel which is fired from the shoulder rather than held in the hands. Today, outside of collectors of antiques, we don't use smoothbore barrels for small arms except for shotguns. So instead of talking about rifled handguns and rifled long guns versus smoothbore handguns and smoothbore long guns, we just say handguns (all are rifled), shotguns (smoothbore), and rifles. But that's just a shortening and simplification of the terms.



Yes. And within the context of small arms (we're not talking about artillery here, right?), a long rifle is a rifled long gun. All small arms, fired from the shoulder (with a stock basically) that are rifled fit within the same category I was referring to. Whatever terminology you want to use, an AR-15 within the context in question fits that criteria. You get that "rifle" refers to the rifling in the barrel, and not the length of the barrel, right? Any semi automatic rifle can be used in the same fashion the AR-15 was used in this case. I only added the word "long" in front of it to ensure no one came in trying to talk about handguns or something. If that word confuses you, then by all means ignore it and pretend I used the more common term "rifle".


Semantics aside, I think it's somewhat absurd to try to chase the tail of the last massacre with poorly thought out gun control laws. James Huberty killed 23 people in a McDonalds with an UZI (semi-automatic), a shotgun, and a pistol. Did the fact that his semi-automatic weapon (oddly, somewhere between a pistol and "rifle" depending on the stock) was shorter and looked less like an M-16 have any effect? Nope. Did the absence of a 100 round drum for the UZI limit his ability to kill lots of people? Not at all.


Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. He used 2 semi automatic pistols. Neither of which had super high capacity magazines (10-15 rounds each), yet he had no problem changing out magazines and continuing his spree. Does the fact that he didn't use a weapon that looked at all like what we'd call an "assault rifle" (and certainly nothing close to a fully automatic weapon) limit his ability to kill lots of people? Nope.


This idea that somehow the type of weapon, or how it looks, or how many rounds a magazine can hold really has anything at all to do with these sorts of events is pretty clearly wrong. Yet, nearly every time a shooting like this occurs, people keep trying to argue for some new law based on those things anyway. When will we learn that this isn't really the problem?

No. A long gun (within the context of small arms of course), includes both rifled and smoothbore weapons (commonly referred to as "rifles" and "shotguns"). While all long rifles are long guns, not all long guns are long rifles. Get it? My term is more specific. By saying "long rifle", instead of "long gun", I'm excluding shotguns and smoothbore muskets. Which is why I used the term. And yes, I'm aware that if I wanted to be completely specific, I could have said "rifled long gun" (or even "rifled small arm long gun" to be *really* specific), but I honestly didn't think someone would be so semantically butt-twisted as to not understand the somewhat simple point I was making.



Exactly. Most folks aren't willing to go there though. They find comfort in the false belief that there's some set of firearms that are currently legal, but which could be banned that would prevent these sorts of shootings while preserving the 2nd amendment.

Woman uses her 2nd amendment rights to battle tyranny in her own back yard!

Oh beautiful, for spacious skies
For amber waves of grain...

All long rifles are long guns. Not all long guns are long rifles. No AR-15s are long rifles since that's a term used for an antiquated firearm dating back to the 1700s.

By all means, keep going on.


I know you said it. I also responded to it.

It's funny because you'd rather write paragraph after paragraph than admit you made a mistake and then try to blame me for pointing it out


No, I was equating it to a long rifle. Not a musket. I never said musket. Because I do understand what a "rifle" is which is why I don't have to write paragraph after paragraph defending my mistakes rather than just admit to them.

Or maybe you were unaware that rifles were also used in the Revolutionary War and so just assumed I must have meant musket because it was the only gun you could think of. I'd give it equal odds.


Because I find it funny to watch you so desperately try to spin and save face rather than admit to an error. I'll happily admit it's not important, but it's fun to watch you act as though your life depends on impressing us with your gun knowledge and you can't possibly shatter our awe by saying "Oops".

Edited, Jul 24th 2012 7:58pm by Jophiel

I laugh at the continued irony.

Thanks. Given that I've shown multiple places agreeing with me and you've just insisted that everyone knows you're right, I think I'll do exactly that