What are some of the most ignorant things you've dealt with since Orlando?

I don't know why someone would want an AR-15 but I don't think in terms of "satisfying the second amendment". The Second Amendment is what it is. The Supreme Court said it guarantees an individual right to firearms. I don't think that is what was ever intended by the writers of the constitution but the Supreme Court says that is what it means.

I disagree with lots of Supreme Court decisions.

People can "glorify" what they want. The fact that some people enjoy accumulating large numbers of guns doesn't make them wrong or evil.

What I think people like you that condemn the "gun culture" don't understand is one simple and major factor:

Guns are fun.

Firing a projectile weapon is one of the most natural acts a person can do and it is flat out enjoyable. I own only a shotgun that I haven't fired in the better part of a year but if I could afford to and had a convenient place to do so I would like to acquire a number of guns that interest me.

Most people that claim they need a gun for "protection" know full well that it is very unlikely they could ever actually use one in that manner. But it gives them at least the veneer of a serious and noble purpose for owning a firearm rather than just "they're fun".

It's the ignorance over AR-15's. It's all you'll hear from liberals in America, especially from Hollywood. They are gun grabbers and that doesn't address the problem.

Well, save for one sentence, I think the second half of your post is probably one of the most honest things I've read on gun ownership (with the exception of one sentence). If it's "fun" (and I have no doubt it is, I've even considered going to a shooting club myself) then clearly the whole "protection/second amendment" guff is an excuse for a lot of people. They're toys and hobby items for them. No more, no less, and like you say the protection/second amendment argument is often used as an excuse.
This therefore is why I don't buy the notion that fun and hobbies are a reason for an extremely high powered machine gun to be on the market is all about the second amendment, because to me that second amendment would surely be satisfied as long as some level of firearm were available. So, to me, I think the only reason such high powered weapons are on the market is so that certain types of people, mostly men, get get a kick out of feeling tough and emptying multiple magazines at their local gun club or in the woods. I also think that this does lead to a desensitised attitude towards weapons, which is why gun violence might be viewed more increasingly as run of the mill in the US.

To me, multiple mass shootings seems too high a price to pay just so gun enthusiasts can enjoy their hobby with as strong a weapon as possible. Had Omar Mateen been armed with simply a couple of hand guns, could he have taken out as many people in as quick a time as possible? I doubt it.

What problem doesn't it address?

I think part of the problem here is the dismissal of anyone who is trying to talk about high powered weapons as a "gun grabber". Most arguments I have seen in favour of gun laws in the US don't argue for a total removal of the second amendment and availability of guns. Most arguments I read talk about availability and strength of weapon. From a foreigner's point of view, it seems an entirely reasonable debate to have in response to the level of gun violence in the US compared with other western nations.

Just dismissing anyone who asks questions as a "gun grabber" just seems to me to be a case of burying one's head in the sand and magically hoping the problem of mass shootings goes away. But employing that approach doesn't seem to be working so far.

IIRC the Virginia Tech killer was armed with only a couple of hand guns and he killed more than 30 people in even less time.

So yes, it is quite possible.

And I wouldn't call an AR-15 by any means a "powerful weapon". Though I've never fired one IIRC it fires a very small, lightweight round.

And once again the AR-15 is NOT a machine gun.

Banning AR-15's will solve nothing. But as soon as I heard about this shooting, I predicted this would be the response, because it's always the same response.

Well, what is the answer to these events?

What makes you think there is an answer?

The fact that other first world nations have considerably less gun violence.

Good point. It may just be that these things aren't preventable and humanity as a whole has to grow out of it.

this isn't "gun violence", the gun didn't do shit, it's radical Islam.

Ahh, so Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, the 475 mass shooting in the US in 2015.....all radical Islam.

How many of those involved AR-15's?

Well, according to this, both Adam Lanza and James Holmes used them. Which one of those was an Islamist attack?

And who's just talking about AR-15s? There is also a debate over availability of weapons in general...which was also raised in the video you linked to.

Look, you can dress it up however you like, but the fact is that we in the rest of the first world simply don't have the level of mass shootings that the US does. So clearly there is a reason for that and no amount of denial is going to change the fact that the US has lots of mass shootings and we don't. If there is a reason for that then there is a conversation to be had. Simply saying "it's just humanity" clearly doesn't addresses the difference between the US and the rest of the first world on this issue, and if it were just humanity we'd have the same level of gun violence on the continent at the very least.

How does banning guns stop someone from committing mass murders?

I need a link to believe the claim that there were 475 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015.

This sounds like the claim about there being so many school shootings a year and it turned out they were counting things like when one gang member shot another in the parking lot of the school gymnasium at 3 in the morning on a Saturday in July as a "school shooting".

The thing is ban the AR-15. Get them all out of private hands. People that want to commit violent acts will simply use another weapon.

What about the AK-47 (actually the AKM)? The most common SEMI-automatic assault weapon in the world. Far more numerous than an AR-15. Cheap, extremely reliable, extremely easy to use. Child soldiers in Africa have wielded them very successfully in combat.

Only downside is very poor accuracy at long range but then again most people can't shoot well at long range anyway.

How many links do you want? Here are the figures....


https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data/2015

BBC report...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604

PBS article....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2015-the-year-of-mass-shootings/

Vox article on the number so far this year (the figures for which can be found on the first site I linked to).

http://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-calendar-june-2016

Definition of mass shooting is where four or more people have been shot in a single incident.


Now, find me a link with comparable set of figures for another first world country.

Where are you and Rusty Farmer getting the idea that I am just talking about specifically or only banning AR-15s? In fact, I haven't said anything about banning a particular model at all. My argument has always been that there needs to be a debate in the US over the cultural attitude towards and and assessment of the ease of access to any kind of high powered weapons.

Also, are you honestly comparing the streets of America to the Congo?

Well starting with this link, it claims 371 "mass shootings". Still a lot but more than 100 less than your claimed figure of 475.

Not a comparison just pointing out that some very common weapons are also extremely easy to use.

That said why do you call weapons like these "high powered"?

A here's the problem with Mass shooting tracker.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ny-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

You're second link says there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. Not 475 (475 killed in total).


Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.

Note, I have my doubts that when two gangs get in a shootout in Chicago and four people are injured is what people really think of when they think of "mass shootings".

Guns of that type are definitely not "high powered" but they do have high "firepower" because of magazine capacity.

I believe the "475" is actually a reference to the number of fatalities in each incident. But even if it's "only" 371, how does it change what I'm saying? The figure is still vastly beyond anything elsewhere in the first world.

And IIRC the federal government has acted to regulate high capacity magazines haven't they?

Which of course does no good because rigging a high capacity magazine is basically child's play. Sometimes all you need is tape.

Well, when I say "high powered" I am not using what may exist as a technical definition to gun enthusiasts, rather I view something as high powered if it has a high magazine capacity and/or can be discharged quickly.

Thanks for proving our point.

IIRC only during the assault weapon ban from 1994-2004.

Several states still restrict them, though.

That's not a problem. Why shouldn't a bar fight shooting be counted along side school shootings?