OT: Gabe Kapler

[mildone_rivals]

Maybe, but the Dem base was sold on a more far reaching and expansive platform that didn’t materialize. infrastructure was called back, and many programs advanced in the initial bill were eliminated. Voting Rights was DOA. Better to have set more achievable expectations. Of course, you need to win the election and energize the base to vote, so I understand why they offered such a platform.

The solution to some of these issues is rather easy. Get rid of the filibuster and cloture. Neither are in the Constitution. And, yes, both sides would need to live with the consequences. But the system is broken with it in place.

I'm not sure I can agree that it's wise to get rid of filibusters, etc. I think the polarization is bad and the resulting gridlock is sometimes bad. But I also think that, government being comprised of flawed humans elected by flawed humans, great and lengthy debate and compromise is more ideal than changing too much stuff too quickly.

As in all things, I think we want balance. And to an extent, those legislative roadblocks can be helpful in forcing compromise and balance.

 

[Frida's Boss]

I'm not sure I can agree that it's wise to get rid of filibusters, etc. I think the polarization is bad and the resulting gridlock is sometimes bad. But I also think that, government being comprised of flawed humans elected by flawed humans, great and lengthy debate and compromise is more ideal than changing too much stuff too quickly.

As in all things, I think we want balance. And to an extent, those legislative roadblocks can be helpful in forcing compromise and balance.

I agree with your comments about the desirability of a bit of gridlock. Unfortunately, I fear the filibuster and cloture have made gridlock into perennial standstill, and we are unable to address really any issues today Without 60 votes. No doubt it’s a risk for either side to remove the filibuster, but I don’t see another way forward. Perhaps a middle ground would force someone to at least hold the floor and speak. It’s my understanding today that all a Senator need do to invoke a filibuster is send an email stating their intention.

And you may not find it compelling, but the Constitution was not drafted to require a supermajority in the Senate to approve any legislation. Majority was the rule. That’s why a 2/3 vote was only required to override a Presidential veto. In fact, the use of the filibuster to prevent Senate action was really born with Senator Calhoun in his attempts to prevent any actions against southern, slaveholding states.

 

[mildone_rivals]

I agree with your comments about the desirability of a bit of gridlock. Unfortunately, I fear the filibuster and cloture have made gridlock into perennial standstill, and we are unable to address really any issues today Without 60 votes. No doubt it’s a risk for either side to remove the filibuster, but I don’t see another way forward. Perhaps a middle ground would force someone to at least hold the floor and speak. It’s my understanding today that all a Senator need do to invoke a filibuster is send an email stating their intention.

And you may not find it compelling, but the Constitution was not drafted to require a supermajority in the Senate to approve any legislation. Majority was the rule. That’s why a 2/3 vote was only required to override a Presidential veto. In fact, the use of the filibuster to prevent Senate action was really born with Senator Calhoun in his attempts to prevent any actions against southern, slaveholding states.

I see your point and I agree that filibusters/cloture are abused. I just don't know that one single approach is correct for all types of legislative or congressional efforts.

Amendments are a good example for where the requirement for a supermajority makes sense, right? So perhaps certain other congressional actions should also require it. I can see arguments for and against it.

 

[Frida's Boss]

I see your point and I agree that filibusters/cloture are abused. I just don't know that one single approach is correct for all types of legislative or congressional efforts.

Amendments are a good example for where the requirement for a supermajority makes sense, right? So perhaps certain other congressional actions should also require it. I can see arguments for and against it.

Yes, an amendment must be approved by 2/3 of both the House and Senate before being proposed to the states, and you need 3/4 of the states to vote yes,

 

[RUbacker]

Of course

Yep it definitely is the shooter but so many want to ignore the shooter and blame the gun. Like it picks itself up from the table and shoots .

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

There is not one variant and it's not simple. And anybody's insistence that it IS simple (coming from either side) kills the discussion, it kills the chance for any sensible progress on improvement.

I keep repeating this and nobody seems to want to address it. But I'll try again. If West Virginians were only allowed to store their handguns securely in their homes, as many as 40 people would've died at the hands of a convicted felon with a gun a couple weeks ago. It was only WV's permissive carry laws that made it possible for the woman hero to carry her firearm, train with it, and shoot the convicted felon before he could kill everybody.

That was a case of a gun being used to protect the innocent, just like what cops can do. But there are not nearly enough cops, and there never will be enough cops, for the cops to protect everyone 24/7.

Now, if WV adds some permit requirements with background checks, basically adopting what the bipartisan Senate panel just agreed about, then I think that makes sense. Because the intent is to improve checks about who can obtain a legal gun. And I think we could do still more than is in that proposed legislation, but only stuff that falls short of gun bans or senseless feel-good measures (like banning body armor which way up there on the list of mind-blowingly ridiculous examples of a totally moronic laws).

It makes no sense at all to change WV's laws such that those 40 people at the birthday party would have been defenseless. It actually makes more sense to find ways to allow more civilians in places like NJ and CA to carry firearms. What are you gonna say to those 40 people, sorry, but you are on the wrong side of some cherry-picked statistic that makes us feel good so you have to die?

The problem that needs fixing is guns in the hands of the wrong people. Just because that's a hard problem to solve doesn't mean we should take guns away from the right people. It would be throwing out the baby and not even managing to throw out most of the bath water.

OK...who is talking about banning people from owning handguns? I specifically said that's fine, more than once.

The issues are these:

- Owning weapons of war (AR-15 or AK-47)
- Background check loophole
- Not enough limitations on the mentally unstable

None of which applies to the lady in WV...in fact in NJ assuming a friend or family member signed off, she'd still be armed...

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

Maybe, but the Dem base was sold on a more far reaching and expansive platform that didn’t materialize. infrastructure was called back, and many programs advanced in the initial bill were eliminated. Voting Rights was DOA. Better to have set more achievable expectations. Of course, you need to win the election and energize the base to vote, so I understand why they offered such a platform.

The solution to some of these issues is rather easy. Get rid of the filibuster and cloture. Neither are in the Constitution. And, yes, both sides would need to live with the consequences. But the system is broken with it in place.

I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I think it's fairly safe to say most people correctly blame Manchinema and the GOP for the obstruction. Like I said a few more votes in NC and ME, probably not a discussion. That's the problem with our system. If PR and/or DC was a state it would change everything as well.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

I agree with your comments about the desirability of a bit of gridlock. Unfortunately, I fear the filibuster and cloture have made gridlock into perennial standstill, and we are unable to address really any issues today Without 60 votes. No doubt it’s a risk for either side to remove the filibuster, but I don’t see another way forward. Perhaps a middle ground would force someone to at least hold the floor and speak. It’s my understanding today that all a Senator need do to invoke a filibuster is send an email stating their intention.

And you may not find it compelling, but the Constitution was not drafted to require a supermajority in the Senate to approve any legislation. Majority was the rule. That’s why a 2/3 vote was only required to override a Presidential veto. In fact, the use of the filibuster to prevent Senate action was really born with Senator Calhoun in his attempts to prevent any actions against southern, slaveholding states.

At some point if we don't change the system to allow the will of the majority to be at least a little reflected, we're going to be in trouble. This century started off with tyranny of the minority and it's only become worse.

 

[mildone_rivals]

OK...who is talking about banning people from owning handguns? I specifically said that's fine, more than once.

The issues are these:

- Owning weapons of war (AR-15 or AK-47)
- Background check loophole
- Not enough limitations on the mentally unstable

None of which applies to the lady in WV...in fact in NJ assuming a friend or family member signed off, she'd still be armed...

We're all in agreement about background checks and doing more to prevent the mentally unstable or felons or wife-beaters or kid-abusers from having guns.

But if the woman in WV had a semiautomatic rifle that matched that of the shooter, that would've been more ideal, not less ideal, for protecting the 40 innocent lives. Because she'd have been able to confront the criminal with equal shooting range (it was outdoors, where a rifle has an accuracy advantage even at only 25 yards). As it was, she had the element of surprise and was clearly within handgun range, and she was perhaps better trained - and probably a little lucky.

But you've misstated what AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles are using factually incorrect hyperbole. You have it backwards. Soldiers carry sidearms, which are semiautomatic handguns, because they are often more useful for enclosed-spaces than bulkier rifles. And they carry fully automatic rifles, among other stuff. So it's handguns that are weapons of war, along with fully automatic rifles.

And fully automatic rifles are already banned pretty much everywhere in the US already by a federal law I posted earlier. On top of which, most states, including TX and NY have state laws banning fully automatic rifles. You're not talking about banning handguns, yet they are "weapons of war", unlike the rifles sold to the public.

AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold legally to the public are semiautomatic rifles. They are just like semiautomatic handguns in terms of rate of fire. One trigger pull equals one shot. A semiautomatic pistol, in a school shooting situation, can do as much or more killing just as quickly as a semiautomatic rifle. The rifle's only practical advantage is greater range. And that isn't much of a factor in shootings in enclosed spaces with trapped targets like schools.

They certainly look scarier than handguns, so they have an outsized emotional impact. And that's probably a big factor in why mass shooters seeking to make some sort of statement shooting choose them. But for enclosed spaces, like schools, looks are deceiving here and using a few handguns and 50 loaded magazines would be a smarter choice for the school shooters if mass causalities is the goal.

The whole "weapons of war hyperbole" is populist nonsense. We won't solve problems of any kind by being inaccurate or uninformed.

 

[mildone_rivals]

At some point if we don't change the system to allow the will of the majority to be at least a little reflected, we're going to be in trouble. This century started off with tyranny of the minority and it's only become worse.

I understand your point and, on certain issues, would agree with it. But on other issues, across our full history as a nation, the majority opinion was pretty damn dangerous for lots of innocent people who weren't hurting anybody.

Perhaps the nation needs to first self-correct among the electorate, become more willing to work together for compromise, before making it so easy for congress, with it's abysmal approval ratings, to easily force changes. I strongly suspect that this is a case where people ought to be careful what they wish for.

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of either side being able to use a 1 person majority (in the house or senate) to craft significant change.

The nation is sick. People on both sides are fully convinced of their righteousness and the national discourse is forcing everybody outwards towards the extremes. At times like this, where the "solutions" are borderline extremist, I think having a good set of brakes on legislative changes is wise.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

We're all in agreement about background checks and doing more to prevent the mentally unstable or felons or wife-beaters or kid-abusers from having guns.

But if the woman in WV had a semiautomatic rifle that matched that of the shooter, that would've been more ideal, not less ideal, for protecting the 40 innocent lives. Because she'd have been able to confront the criminal with equal shooting range (it was outdoors, where a rifle has an accuracy advantage even at only 25 yards). As it was, she had the element of surprise and was clearly within handgun range, and she was perhaps better trained - and probably a little lucky.

But you've misstated what AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles are using factually incorrect hyperbole. You have it backwards. Soldiers carry sidearms, which are semiautomatic handguns, because they are often more useful for enclosed-spaces than bulkier rifles. And they carry fully automatic rifles, among other stuff. So it's handguns that are weapons of war, along with fully automatic rifles.

And fully automatic rifles are already banned pretty much everywhere in the US already by a federal law I posted earlier. On top of which, most states, including TX and NY have state laws banning fully automatic rifles. You're not talking about banning handguns, yet they are "weapons of war", unlike the rifles sold to the public.

AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold legally to the public are semiautomatic rifles. They are just like semiautomatic handguns in terms of rate of fire. One trigger pull equals one shot. A semiautomatic pistol, in a school shooting situation, can do as much or more killing just as quickly as a semiautomatic rifle. The rifle's only practical advantage is greater range. And that isn't much of a factor in shootings in enclosed spaces with trapped targets like schools.

They certainly look scarier than handguns, so they have an outsized emotional impact. And that's probably a big factor in why mass shooters seeking to make some sort of statement shooting choose them. But for enclosed spaces, like schools, looks are deceiving here and using a few handguns and 50 loaded magazines would be a smarter choice for the school shooters if mass causalities is the goal.

The whole "weapons of war hyperbole" is populist nonsense. We won't solve problems of any kind by being inaccurate or uninformed.

Do people commonly carry rifles at birthday parties?

 

[mildone_rivals]

Do people commonly carry rifles at birthday parties?

Not sure how commonality is relevant. People also don’t commonly attempt mass shootings at birthday parties or anywhere else. If we were only concerned with what’s common, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Not sure how commonality is relevant. People also don’t commonly attempt mass shootings at birthday parties or anywhere else. If we were only concerned with what’s common, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

How is it not relevant?

You made the point that she would have been better off with a rifle to argue against such weapons being banned. WTF carries a rifle around in public just for self defense?

The idea that the "good guys with guns" need an AR-15 is bogus. And the idea that a handgun is the "smarter choice" is you making up your own opinion-based narrative again.

 

[mildone_rivals]

How is it not relevant?

You made the point that she would have been better off with a rifle to argue against such weapons being banned. WTF carries a rifle around in public just for self defense?

The idea that the "good guys with guns" need an AR-15 is bogus. And the idea that a handgun is the "smarter choice" is you making up your own opinion-based narrative again.

People in many states can carry around semiautomatic rifles all day long. They can keep them in easy reach in their cars. I know people who do this. Why should they NOT be able to do it so long as they don't break any laws or hurt any innocent people?

I never said that anything as generalized as "good guys need a semiautomatic rifle". You've misstated what I wrote in order to make a statement more easily argued against.

I said, paraphrasing myself, that it's more ideal to be able to match what a criminal trying to kill you has in terms of weapons. If you have some logical and factual argument that refutes that, then by all means make it. And I will then counter your arguments with more facts and logical arguments.

As for my statements about handguns versus rifles in school shooting scenarios being opinion-based, so what? My opinions are based on know facts about the weapon types in question, including the relative weights of the weapons, weights of different types of empty magazines, weights of different types of ammunition, the relative speed with which different magazines can be exchanged with different guns, the relative speeds with which one can sight targets using different weapons, an understanding of firearm jamming or other malfunctions, etc.

So sure, it's my opinion. Maybe, instead of stating the obvious, you ought to offer a knowledge-based counter-argument other than "guns bad".

And finally, we're all engaged in selling a narrative in this thread. Every last one of us. I would argue that my narrative is purely pragmatic and based on the realities of the dangerous world in which we live here in the US. Whereas I think people try to sell the "ban assault weapons" narrative do so mostly based on wishful thinking that ignores the realities we have in the US.

But either way, it's all narrative.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

People in many states can carry around semiautomatic rifles all day long. They can keep them in easy reach in their cars. I know people who do this. Why should they NOT be able to do it so long as they don't break any laws or hurt any innocent people?

I never said that anything as generalized as "good guys need a semiautomatic rifle". You've misstated what I wrote in order to make a statement more easily argued against.

I said, paraphrasing myself, that it's more ideal to be able to match what a criminal trying to kill you has in terms of weapons. If you have some logical and factual argument that refutes that, then by all means make it. And I will then counter your arguments with more facts and logical arguments.

As for my statements about handguns versus rifles in school shooting scenarios being opinion-based, so what? My opinions are based on know facts about the weapon types in question, including the relative weights of the weapons, weights of different types of empty magazines, weights of different types of ammunition, the relative speed with which different magazines can be exchanged with different guns, the relative speeds with which one can sight targets using different weapons, an understanding of firearm jamming or other malfunctions, etc.

So sure, it's my opinion. Maybe, instead of stating the obvious, you ought to offer a knowledge-based counter-argument other than "guns bad".

And finally, we're all engaged in selling a narrative in this thread. Every last one of us. I would argue that my narrative is purely pragmatic and based on the realities of the dangerous world in which we live here in the US. Whereas I think people try to sell the "ban assault weapons" narrative do so mostly based on wishful thinking that ignores the realities we have in the US.

But either way, it's all narrative.

So, in a level of brevity that forever escapes you, no one carries around a rifle in public just for self defense. Note, I didn't ask about storing them in a car or whether they *can* legally do so.

I did ask (rhetorically) if they actually do it. Which they don't, save perhaps when walking to and from a vehicle during hunting or range shooting.

So your example about WV woman firing back with a rifle was another Mildone fantasy, much like the one in which I said "guns bad."

 

[mildone_rivals]

So, in a level of brevity that forever escapes you, no one carries around a rifle in public just for self defense. Note, I didn't ask about storing them in a car or whether they *can* legally do so.

I did ask (rhetorically) if they actually do it. Which they don't, save perhaps when walking to and from a vehicle during hunting or range shooting.

So your example about WV woman firing back with a rifle was another Mildone fantasy, much like the one in which I said "guns bad."

Once again you put words in my mouth I didn't say. I cannot, nor can you, possibly speak knowledgeably about when, why or how often people carry rifles around in public.

And it's not relevant because if I was in WV and heard some guy shooting at a crowd of people the way it happened, I could run across the street to my parked car, grab my rifle, and return fire. Just because I might not have it on my immediately doesn't mean I couldn't try to save a bunch of innocent people.

And once again, your posts are mostly about me. You keep making posts personal instead of just sticking to facts, or logic, or opinions about the subject matter. Which, once again, tells me you must not have much of an argument to make or you'd make an argument instead.

Your attitude very much seems to be "guns bad". I mean, if I'm wrong and you don't actually want to ban certain guns, then I fail to see what you're arguing with me about. Did you just want to try to make some sort of point about something that you couldn't possibly know is factually true (how many people who carry rifles in public)? That seems... argumentative and pointless. Why get in an argument about something for which there is no proof to be offered? In many states in this country, people can carry rifles in public and sometimes do. Nobody can tell you exact numbers.

And it doesn't matter. Because people can do it legally. Not just criminals who do it illegally.

 

[RUScrew85]

There's a lot of achievements (infrastructure and judges among others) but they're not properly advertised. It is basically one person who held up BBB and two essentially holding up every other issue (voting rights, guns, Roe and more).

I think we need to ask ourselves what kind of system we live in that if less than 100k voters in North Carolina voted differently we'd have passed BBB...add a few more in Maine and then you have the assault weapons ban passed...there's a problem.

It's called a Constitutional Republic. I'm not surprised your understanding hasn't improved after all this time.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

I can say it quite confidently. I live in a state with lenient carry laws and have never seen anyone walking around with a rifle in public, outside of once or twice in the forest during hunting season. In fact, once or twice someone has walked into a mall like that, in order to show how lovely guns are, and always made the news looking like a nutcase. It's not normal and the likelihood of anyone just happening to have a rifle on them to defend against a shooting is so exceedingly tiny as to void your argument about such.

And running across the street to your car, likely for a rifle that needs loading, is inferior to just pulling a handgun.

My posts are about your rambling, circular and disingenuous arguments, half-truths and badly framed "facts and logic," sure. You personally? Not so much.

 

[mildone_rivals]

I can say it quite confidently. I live in a state with lenient carry laws and have never seen anyone walking around with a rifle in public, outside of once or twice in the forest during hunting season. In fact, once or twice someone has walked into a mall like that, in order to show how lovely guns are, and always made the news looking like a nutcase. It's not normal and the likelihood of anyone just happening to have a rifle on them to defend against a shooting is so exceedingly tiny as to void your argument about such.

And running across the street to your car, likely for a rifle that needs loading, is inferior to just pulling a handgun.

My posts are about your rambling, circular and disingenuous arguments, half-truths and badly framed "facts and logic," sure. You personally? Not so much.

You are referring to your personal anecdotal observations as if they can answer the question of how often people carry rifles in public. And you‘re make fun of my posts?

You haven’t refuted anything I’ve written either factually or logically. You just keep saying it’s wrong (or all that other stuff you just wrote) and then failing entirely to defend your criticism. So of course your posts are shorter than mine.

I suppose, since your posts are so wonderfully short and free of any actually information, that you can at least claim to be criticizing very efficiently.

 

[RUBlackout7]

I love when NRA nerds try to explain how AR15’s are the same as handguns, lol.

Yeah let’s just give our military handguns since they are the same

 

[fsg2_rivals]

You are referring to your personal anecdotal observations as if they can answer the question of how often people carry rifles in public. And you‘re make fun of my posts?

You haven’t refuted anything I’ve written either factually or logically. You just keep saying it’s wrong (or all that other stuff you just wrote) and then failing entirely to defend your criticism. So of course your posts are shorter than mine.

I suppose, since your posts are so wonderfully short and free of any actually information, that you can at least claim to be criticizing very efficiently.

Lol. I don't even need to provide any refutation, even though it's painfully obvious to anyone who has working vision and has attended the general public. The only fact in the case was that the woman had a handgun, not a rifle. The rest was merely another Mildone hypothetical, probably to distract from the straight falsehood that the only advantage to a rifle v handgun (in a mass shooting) is it's better for long distances.

The length of your posts doesn't actually make them accurate or factual, just circular and rambling, as previously stated. Someone could better make the same points in a fraction of the words. I'd happily teach you. Lesson 1: Delete hypotheticals, which aren't actually evidence of your point.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

I love when NRA nerds try to explain how AR15’s are the same as handguns, lol.

Yeah let’s just give our military handguns since they are the same

So disingenuous. Guy's really leaning on the hope that the rest of the room is completely ignorant about guns and doesn't bother checking his "facts".

 

[mildone_rivals]

I love when NRA nerds try to explain how AR15’s are the same as handguns, lol.

Yeah let’s just give our military handguns since they are the same

Lots of wrong packed into a nice short post.

1. If you're referring to me, then (a) I have never been a member of the NRA, (b) my positions on guns are wildly different than the NRA's; the NRA would hate many of my positions on guns, and (c) I never said anything "AR15s are the same as handguns". I wrote very carefully and factually about semiautomatic weapons.

2. We do give our military handguns, not everyone, but certain military personnel where it makes sense, including special forces. The primary weapon given to our troops is a fully automatic weapon, not the AR-15 style guns that are sold to the public.

3. Saying "AR-15" is like saying Kleenex when referring to facial tissues. It's one specific model from a one specific manufacturer. An "AR-15" ban would ban nothing being sold to the public these days.

So basically, your entire first and second sentences were entirely incorrect.

Other than that, great post.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Lol. I don't even need to provide any refutation, even though it's painfully obvious to anyone who has working vision and has attended the general public. The only fact in the case was that the woman had a handgun, not a rifle. The rest was merely another Mildone hypothetical, probably to distract from the straight falsehood that the only advantage to a rifle v handgun (in a mass shooting) is it's better for long distances.

The length of your posts doesn't actually make them accurate or factual, just circular and rambling, as previously stated. Someone could better make the same points in a fraction of the words. I'd happily teach you. Lesson 1: Delete hypotheticals, which aren't actually evidence of your point.

Yeah, okay.

Look, it's gonna seem like I'm ignoring your posts in this thread, because I'm not going to be responding to them anymore. But really, I'm gonna really pay super-close attention to everything you write on this subject because you've been so incredibly fact-filled, accurate, and persuasive. So you just keep posting and rest assured that I'm hanging on your every brilliant word.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Good job — a sentence and a paragraph! And you didn't even repeat yourself or present some foolish hypothetical posed as "logic." A quick study.

Keep practicing and I'll get around to Lesson 2 tomorrow.

 

[RUBlackout7]

Lots of wrong packed into a nice short post.

1. If you're referring to me, then (a) I have never been a member of the NRA, (b) my positions on guns are wildly different than the NRA's; the NRA would hate many of my positions on guns, and (c) I never said anything "AR15s are the same as handguns". I wrote very carefully and factually about semiautomatic weapons.

2. We do give our military handguns, not everyone, but certain military personnel where it makes sense, including special forces. The primary weapon given to our troops is a fully automatic weapon, not the AR-15 style guns that are sold to the public.

3. Saying "AR-15" is like saying Kleenex when referring to facial tissues. It's one specific model from a one specific manufacturer. An "AR-15" ban would ban nothing being sold to the public these days.

So basically, your entire first and second sentences were entirely incorrect.

Other than that, great post.

A few posts up you took 2 paragraphs to explain how AR-15 style rifles are the same as handguns except for range. It was the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

A few posts up you took 2 paragraphs to explain how AR-15 style rifles are the same as handguns except for range. It was the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

But you still want a rifle to match rifle fire because a handgun isn't good enough ... even though it was a handgun that worked in the single example MO has repeatedly trotted out for four pages.

 

[Kbee3]

Yeah, okay.

Look, it's gonna seem like I'm ignoring your posts in this thread, because I'm not going to be responding to them anymore. But really, I'm gonna really pay super-close attention to everything you write on this subject because you've been so incredibly fact-filled, accurate, and persuasive. So you just keep posting and rest assured that I'm hanging on your every brilliant word.

Oh...if only you would.

 

[mildone_rivals]

A few posts up you took 2 paragraphs to explain how AR-15 style rifles are the same as handguns except for range. It was the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

More wrong from you. Here is what I posted:

“AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold legally to the public are semiautomatic rifles. They are just like semiautomatic handguns in terms of rate of fire. One trigger pull equals one shot. A semiautomatic pistol, in a school shooting situation, can do as much or more killing just as quickly as a semiautomatic rifle. The rifle's only practical advantage is greater range. And that isn't much of a factor in shootings in enclosed spaces with trapped targets like schools.”

I said that the AR-15 style rifles sold to the public are alike “in terms of rate of fire”, which is 100% true. I never said anything as generalized as the two weapons “are the same.” And I qualified my statement about the only practical advantage being range by limiting my point to shooting in a confined or enclosed space.

Your apparent inability to read and comprehend the written word makes any claims you make about the relative intelligence of what’s been written awfully suspect.

The ability to rapidly change magazines equalizes the magazine size difference, and the flexibility in types of ammunition supported by both types of gun mean both guns can easily kill a person. Which again means that, when inside a school, the only practical advantage of the rifle, range, is effectively nullified.

I know, I know, the media told you otherwise, so it must be true. And by gosh, there was an assault weapon ban, and surely that could never happen if it didn’t make sense. I mean jeez, that would be like banning body armor because people got shot. And politicians aren’t ever that dumb, right?

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

We're all in agreement about background checks and doing more to prevent the mentally unstable or felons or wife-beaters or kid-abusers from having guns.

But if the woman in WV had a semiautomatic rifle that matched that of the shooter, that would've been more ideal, not less ideal, for protecting the 40 innocent lives. Because she'd have been able to confront the criminal with equal shooting range (it was outdoors, where a rifle has an accuracy advantage even at only 25 yards). As it was, she had the element of surprise and was clearly within handgun range, and she was perhaps better trained - and probably a little lucky.

But you've misstated what AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles are using factually incorrect hyperbole. You have it backwards. Soldiers carry sidearms, which are semiautomatic handguns, because they are often more useful for enclosed-spaces than bulkier rifles. And they carry fully automatic rifles, among other stuff. So it's handguns that are weapons of war, along with fully automatic rifles.

And fully automatic rifles are already banned pretty much everywhere in the US already by a federal law I posted earlier. On top of which, most states, including TX and NY have state laws banning fully automatic rifles. You're not talking about banning handguns, yet they are "weapons of war", unlike the rifles sold to the public.

AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold legally to the public are semiautomatic rifles. They are just like semiautomatic handguns in terms of rate of fire. One trigger pull equals one shot. A semiautomatic pistol, in a school shooting situation, can do as much or more killing just as quickly as a semiautomatic rifle. The rifle's only practical advantage is greater range. And that isn't much of a factor in shootings in enclosed spaces with trapped targets like schools.

They certainly look scarier than handguns, so they have an outsized emotional impact. And that's probably a big factor in why mass shooters seeking to make some sort of statement shooting choose them. But for enclosed spaces, like schools, looks are deceiving here and using a few handguns and 50 loaded magazines would be a smarter choice for the school shooters if mass causalities is the goal.

The whole "weapons of war hyperbole" is populist nonsense. We won't solve problems of any kind by being inaccurate or uninformed.

OK...so her gun worked, but it also was the wrong gun? Can't be both.

Did she have an AR-15 or AK-47? Sounds like no.

Also sounds like nothing would have barred her from doing what she did in NJ.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

I understand your point and, on certain issues, would agree with it. But on other issues, across our full history as a nation, the majority opinion was pretty damn dangerous for lots of innocent people who weren't hurting anybody.

Perhaps the nation needs to first self-correct among the electorate, become more willing to work together for compromise, before making it so easy for congress, with it's abysmal approval ratings, to easily force changes. I strongly suspect that this is a case where people ought to be careful what they wish for.

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of either side being able to use a 1 person majority (in the house or senate) to craft significant change.

The nation is sick. People on both sides are fully convinced of their righteousness and the national discourse is forcing everybody outwards towards the extremes. At times like this, where the "solutions" are borderline extremist, I think having a good set of brakes on legislative changes is wise.

The problem again here is kind of simple. It's not only a one person majority in any of these cases.

90% want universal background checks. 2/3 want Roe to remain law of the land. It's not close.

And one side is continually using its unelected, minority power to force its will. When you have a court where 1/3 was appointed by someone who never won a majority of the vote or even for one day held half the country in a poll, we have a tremendous, tremendous problem.

The problem here is magnified because our slavery-based system magnifies the power of a minority. Wyoming has 2 Senators with less people than Monmouth County. That is not what the founders intended, whatsoever, when you look at the population difference between DE and VA (the two most populous states at the founding). Not to mention the absurdity of the EC when you have CA with 40M people.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

It's called a Constitutional Republic. I'm not surprised your understanding hasn't improved after all this time.

France is a Constitutional Republic. Somehow their President though is elected by a majority vote and not a slavery based electoral college.

Just say you don't like democracy because it would get the result you wanted once in over 30 years.

 

[RUBlackout7]

More wrong from you. Here is what I posted:

“AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold legally to the public are semiautomatic rifles. They are just like semiautomatic handguns in terms of rate of fire. One trigger pull equals one shot. A semiautomatic pistol, in a school shooting situation, can do as much or more killing just as quickly as a semiautomatic rifle. The rifle's only practical advantage is greater range. And that isn't much of a factor in shootings in enclosed spaces with trapped targets like schools.”

I said that the AR-15 style rifles sold to the public are alike “in terms of rate of fire”, which is 100% true. I never said anything as generalized as the two weapons “are the same.” And I qualified my statement about the only practical advantage being range by limiting my point to shooting in a confined or enclosed space.

Your apparent inability to read and comprehend the written word makes any claims you make about the relative intelligence of what’s been written awfully suspect.

The ability to rapidly change magazines equalizes the magazine size difference, and the flexibility in types of ammunition supported by both types of gun mean both guns can easily kill a person. Which again means that, when inside a school, the only practical advantage of the rifle, range, is effectively nullified.

I know, I know, the media told you otherwise, so it must be true. And by gosh, there was an assault weapon ban, and surely that could never happen if it didn’t make sense. I mean jeez, that would be like banning body armor because people got shot. And politicians aren’t ever that dumb, right?

Ok so in school shooting situations handguns are just as effective as AR-15s? Gotcha, brb gonna tell the military they are doing urban warfare all wrong.

Also, tldr….learn how to get your point across faster.

 

[mildone_rivals]

OK...so her gun worked, but it also was the wrong gun? Can't be both.

Did she have an AR-15 or AK-47? Sounds like no.

Also sounds like nothing would have barred her from doing what she did in NJ.

That's a reductive argument. Just because something worked in a given situation doesn't mean it's ideal. And I carefully used the term "ideal" in my post. The phrase "wrong gun" is yours, not mine.

I said it would be "more ideal" to be able to match the shooter's weapon. This is based on the following facts (a) they were outdoors, (b) rifles generally shoot with more velocity which is more ideal outdoors where there can be wind, (c) handguns become less accurate as ranges increase so, unless the felon was relatively close, a rifle would've given the woman the same accuracy as the felon, (d) if the felon was shooting from behind cover, a round fired from a rifle would have a better chance of going through the cover and hitting the felon. More ideal.

As to your second point, NJ law makes it impossible for nearly everybody to legally do what she did. Only about 0.01% of NJ residents are granted carry permits (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/nj-gun-laws/).

So, assuming she's an ordinary civilian and not a retired or off-duty cop, it's a near-certainty that she wouldn't have been allowed to legally carry her handgun in NJ. Given that, if it had happened here in NJ, the 40 people would've been at the mercy of a convicted felon with no reasonable and legal way to defend themselves. They could throw rocks, I guess.

Conversely, in WV where the woman saved the 40 people, even people from NJ can visit and carry their weapons, concealed or openly.

 

[mikebal9]

The thread that will never die. How many times will we hear about this one time when it worked out? We get it. There's a lady in WV who is a hero. Now, do you care to make an actual point based on more than this one incident, or can we let this thread fall off the front page?

 

[RUschool]

The thread that will never die. How many times will we hear about this one time when it worked out? We get it. There's a lady in WV who is a hero. Now, do you care to make an actual point based on more than this one incident, or can we let this thread fall off the front page?

They got to stop arguing with him. I guess he‘s the type that need to have the last word.

 

[RUScrew85]

The thread that will never die. How many times will we hear about this one time when it worked out? We get it. There's a lady in WV who is a hero. Now, do you care to make an actual point based on more than this one incident, or can we let this thread fall off the front page?

Guns are used daily in across the country legally by regular people to save lives and stop violent crimes. It just doesn't make the news because pulling a concealed weapon on a criminal often stops the crime and renders the event a non-event. And in some cases news folks decide that a stopped crime isn't newsworthy. But yeah why is this thread still going on. Kapler is weird.

 

[Kbee3]

Kapler is weird.

Look who's talking.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Ok so in school shooting situations handguns are just as effective as AR-15s? Gotcha, brb gonna tell the military they are doing urban warfare all wrong.

Also, tldr….learn how to get your point across faster.

The enemy in urban warfare are not unarmed students and teachers stuck inside a school. The two scenarios are not comparable in any way.

If you guys would learn more quickly, I could get my point across faster. A great place to start would be learning the difference between a semiautomatic rifle (like the AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold to the public) and a specialized fully automatic weapon made for military use.

The military isn't fighting urban warfare using semiautomatic rifles. I was comparing semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns. And special forces, for example, under certain circumstances, sometimes actually prefer to use their semiautomatic handguns instead of their other weapons (almost always in close-quarter fighting situations). But most often, for close-quarter combat, the military uses highly specialized fully automatic weapons. Weapons that are nothing at all like the AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold to the public. Think more along the lines of an Uzi type weapon. The weapons they use are sometimes closer in size to handguns than to traditional rifles.

I'll try one more time to cite some facts about why, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, multiple semiautomatic handguns would be preferable to one semiautomatic rifle in a school shooting situation. If you are actually willing to read and think and learn, you will perhaps start to understand.

It's because of: weight, reliability, mobility, and endurance. In general, one can carry more handguns, more handgun ammo, and more handgun magazines, than they can with rifles.

A 9mm round (most common handgun round) will kill a little kid just as dead as the larger, heavier 5.56x45 round (most common AR-15 style rifle round). Rifle rounds will go through stuff more easily. But (a) 9mm rounds will also go through stuff like school walls or people, and (b) we're talking about kids and teachers with no body armor and nowhere to run or hide. They are undefended soft targets, not military combatants wearing body armor and carrying their own specialized fully automatic weapons.

Finally, since semiautomatic rifles and handguns are both single round per trigger pull, the rate of fire is effectively the same. But guns jam and experience other faults. So more guns equals more reliability. Lighter weights for everything means the ability to carry more of everything, and also means the shooter can be more easily mobile, especially as they discard empty magazines.

If you think that's dumb, then by all means, explain WHY it's dumb. I'm willing to learn something new and willing to admit where I'm wrong about something. So persuade me what's dumb about it, using facts and logic, and I'll consider your argument.

Or, you know, you can just continue to demonize that which you've made no effort to understand. Because that's always better, right?

 

[mildone_rivals]

They got to stop arguing with him. I guess he‘s the type that need to have the last word.

I would think it would be more fairly said that they and I both need to have the last word. And it seems, since you've posted, that you also want the last word.