Shooting at Florida high school

I think some people are confused about what constitutes an "automatic weapon" versus "semi automatic'.
So to reiterate, "automatic" means the gun will continuously fire for as long as you hold the trigger back. "Semi" means every time you pull the trigger it fires one round until you pull the trigger again. That said you can (with practice) pull that trigger pretty damn fast. Attaining accuracy while doing this takes a lot more training.
The past two "mass shootings" did not involve automatic weapons despite what the bump stock haters say. Can they increase the rate of sending lead downrange? Yes they can, but are still not automatic.

Whoa. Buck stops.. over there... Away from me

That Young Turks video in post #1201 ? Wow, an actual ARMY veteran? I thank him for his service, but there are hundreds of thousands of military vets all over the place, and while he's certainly entitled to his opinions it's not like he has any special expertise than many other vets don't have. BTW host - again, bump stocks don't turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. But considering they are a novelty not many gun owners are getting wrapped around the axle over banning them.
As for high capacity magazines some types of hunting do utilize high capacity magazines. Yet not having high capacity magazines would not really affect a mass shooter that much. It might slightly limit how many people they shoot but again, practicing (most mass shootings are planned out somewhat at least) changing out magazines faster & more frequently might mitigate this.

Sorry bub, you're his boss and there's no excuse. You need to go too.

You really shouldn't take anything @Rincewiend posts seriously.

yeah, that's pretty scummy, especially how he throws his employee under the bus while not accepting responsibility for a departmental action.

WHAT DO WE WANT?

Mob: GUN CONTROL!

HOW DO WE WANT IT?

Mob: GUN CONTROL!

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

Mob: GUN CONTROL!

WHAT KIND OF POLICIES ARE WE PROPOSING?

Mob: GUN CONTROL!

All true. But as you said you can pull the trigger fast enough to make the distinction between "auto" and "semi" largely meaningless when firing on crowds of civilians. Nor is accuracy that big a deal if random mass slaughter is the goal of a shooter. The Los Vegas shooter couldn't even see his victims effectively

the classic defense - "you don't know nothin' 'bout no guns!"

As predictable as it is unconvincing. I have expressed no opinion upon the matter save what I have linked a supporting argument for. If you wish to debate the treating physician about the sort of damage he say in the ER, then you'l need to do so directly. In the meantime I will defer to his expertise and take the opinion of some random anonymous gun lover on a BBS with the appropriate grains of salt.

I suggest you refrain from seeking employment as a mind-reader.
Let me draw it in crayon for the slower among us:

there is no sense in which I support the banning of private ownership of all types of guns

That's the stupidist post in this whole conversation (which is saying something)

IF in point of fact Trump were literally so evil that Hitler rose from the dead and said "that's one goddamn evil motherfucker!" there is no sense in which the gun owners of America could break out their ARs and stop him with gunfire.

One very good assassin in the right time and place yes, but not massive armed resistance against even police/SWAT/FBI let alone the army.

the plague on conversations like this is both sides think they are being convincing by finding the biggest idiotic remark found on the other side and assuming THAT view to EVERYONE on the other side as a straw man for them to joust at.

the murder rate point leaves out the suicide angle as well.

Indeed, come to mention it, the Trumpian "they won't go in if they know people in their have guns" claim does not account at all for the shooter who full well intends to die in the course of the attack.

that math ani't hard.

The premise is rejected because the assumption upon which it is based - that such an eventuality would in fact save any lives, let alone more than it costs, is unproven...indeed, basically made up out of thin air with no supporting evidence at all.

be that as it may, there's a distinction between "What shall we do to reduce mass shootings?" and "what shall we do to reduce gun deaths overall?"
The answers to the first question do not entirely track with the answers to the second one.

that does kind of demonstrate that nibbling around the edges isn't really a great solution.

Because you don't, yet you keep trying to make points on them when you haven't the first clue. You tried to emphasize how dangerous you think these particular firearms are, and now that your point has been completely undermined, you're trying to walk it back?

What's stupid is this mentality that "oh, hey, you wouldn't have much of a chance, so let's just make sure." You also seem to have this idea in your head that people can only fight out on some battlefield like some old movie about the Civil War or something. Yet there are all these modern examples from the Middle East, including against our own military, and we also have the various resistance movements against the Nazis in WWII, who didn't just give up because they didn't have much of a chance.

The point here is that you and so many others are all to ready to trample the rights of others "if it saves even one life," yet when it comes to an idea that could also accomplish this goal, you suddenly become fiscal conservatives.

But hey, you're totally not for banning guns. Right. Gotcha.

I'm not sure who's minds will be changed by condescension. Which is to say, assuming the other party s so simplistic that what a gun LOOKS like is the only motivating factor is not a winning debate tactic.

you keep saying "right" as if limits on what sort of gun one might purchase and posses, and use in what manner, is a violation of rights. As noted before, that point is already lost - not even Scalia believed that.

again, telepathy can be ruled out as your superpower.

I mostly posted it because he mentioned some European countries where civilians are allowed to own guns and their local laws and regulations...
If the USA or even one state would implement (some) of those (or even some of the existing rules/regulations) a lot of people who do own guns now would not be eligible for gun ownership...

Given we've not got a total ban in the UK, and the EU-wide legislation has lower minimum restrictions than we do, I guess we and the EU are primitive cultures too?

Perusing the last couple of pages of this thread, it's gone pretty much the way expected.

It's a microcosm of why the US won't see much change in its gun laws any time soon, and why it could pretty much be copy and pasted next mass shooting. Somebody from either side has to take it further than necessary, and the other side just has to respond...

Although seeing the NRA getting a kicking is good, maybe this will be a start of them being forced to engage in ways other than shovelling dollars to whomever will frustrate the debate

No, we have tea. It offsets much.

Totally inaccurate but not unexpected.

Five things that could be done on guns right now by Congress, three of which have bipartisan support:

1) bump stock ban and give the ATF the teeth to enforce it
2) raise rifle ownership age to 21
3) enhanced background checks

And the not so likely:

4) mag/clip size limits
5) ban AR-15 style weapons

I'd suggest there would also be widespread support for reinstating Obama's exec order (as actual law this time) on restricting gun ownership in case of mental health issues. To assuage Paladin's worries about doctors having his guns confiscated just because he needed a course of antidepressants, set the evidentiary bar high (multiple reports of suicidal/aggressive/antisocial behaviour) and subject to review.

I think "1" is as far as it will get, but yeah, it's nice to aim for the sky.

We will need a few more atrocities and a shift in congress before anything else is possible nevermind probable.