25 ms·

My argument isn't about the "level" of gun violence. My argument is about the level of damage when gun violence occurs. It is clear to me that events, such as

My argument isn't about the "level" of gun violence. My argument is about the level of damage when gun violence occurs. It is clear to me that events, such as 2017 Las Vegas, or 2016 Orlando Nightclub, are more damaging due to the significant firepower that a lone gunman offers. If the gunman in the 2016 or 2017 shootings had worse weapons (ie: a pistol), they would not have gotten as far as they did in terms of number killed. These shootings were marked by an incredible use of ammo in a short timeframe. In the case of Las Vegas, they were taking pot-shots into the country music festival from a distance that outranged all the pistols that the country-music fans had. Furthermore, no one actually wanted to be confused with the gunman, so no one drew their weapon (killing the "good guy with a gun" argument for the billionth time).

delecti 4y ago
Did you reply to the right comment? It doesn't seem like you're addressing anything I said. And I feel like the picture I linked is pretty strong evidence against any possible effects the assault weapon ban could have possibly had.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  And I could say the same to you as well. Mass fun violence in the 80s were marked with higher powered guns, like the Uzi used in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_mass... More recently (now that the ban expired), we had Las Vegas and Orlando shootings, both using what would have been 'assault rifles' under that law. ------- The most famous mass shooting of the 90s was Columbine, which only used pistols and pump-action sawed off shotguns, likely limiting the damage. This is my ultimate point: if you think we can't stop the shootings, then we should do what we can to mitigate them. Forcing the perpetrators to use lower quality firearms seems to be practically effective.
  - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
    > "Mass fun violence in the 80s were marked with higher powered guns, like the Uzi used in..." Reading the Wikipedia link you yourself provided, seems like he used the shotgun as often or more than the Uzi carbine. The article also notes that the Uzi carbine used is a) semi-automatic (fires only once per trigger pull, like other ordinary civilian firearms) and b) fires 9mm pistol rounds (about midrange in power and effectiveness for pistols), meaning that its actually not a "higher powered gun" in any way and certainly not when compared to the shotgun. Don't mislead people. It only makes it harder to pass sane gun control laws when its proponents are seen to be repeating exaggerations and misconceptions.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > As staff and customers tried to hide beneath tables and service booths, Huberty turned his attention toward six women and children huddled together.[23] He first killed 19-year-old María Colmenero-Silva with a single gunshot to the chest, then fatally shot nine-year-old Claudia Pérez[3] in the stomach, cheek, thigh, hip, leg, chest, back, armpit, and head with his Uzi. He then wounded Pérez's 15-year-old sister Imelda once in the hand[24] with the same weapon, and fired upon 11-year-old Aurora Peña with his shotgun. Peña—initially wounded in the leg—had been shielded by her pregnant aunt, 18-year-old Jackie Reyes.[25] Huberty shot Reyes 48 times with the Uzi.[26] Beside his mother's body, eight-month-old Carlos Reyes sat up and wailed, whereupon Huberty shouted at the child, then killed the toddler with a single pistol shot to the center of the back.[27] -------- This seems only possible with higher-capacity magazines, does it not? The Uzi was designed as a fully-automatic submachinegun. Yes, he was using a semi-automatic version, but its still a carbine (more accurate than a pistol), and capable of larger magazines unavailable to small pistols. I'm not being misleading. You can see the weapons he used, and how he used them. The Uzi was instrumental in the high number of shots. The shotgun / pistol was still used of course, but with lower capacity magazines, doesn't have the same effect (ex: 48 shots in one victim from the Uzi was much easier) EDIT: Sure, the 48 shots from the Uzi would require a reload (32-round magazine). But the Browning Hi-Power pistol only has a 13-round magazine, so that would have required 4 reloads to shoot 48 times, and would have been far more tedious.
      - 4y ago
  - delecti 4y ago
    The ban was not against "assault rifles", it was against "assault weapons", which is a made-up term that has little relevance to weapon power. Did you look at the picture I linked? I feel like you must not have, because it's pretty clear from looking at it that the ban couldn't have done much, because weapons allowed under the ban were barely different from what was banned. People were not forced to use "lower quality firearms", and were not forced to use lower power ones either. > if you think we can't stop the shootings I don't think that. There are lots of things we could do to make shootings less common, and congress just passed (and Biden signed) a bill which does quite a few things which are very likely to make shootings less common.

delecti 4y ago

Did you reply to the right comment? It doesn't seem like you're addressing anything I said. And I feel like the picture I linked is pretty strong evidence against any possible effects the assault weapon ban could have possibly had.

dragontamer 4y ago
And I could say the same to you as well. Mass fun violence in the 80s were marked with higher powered guns, like the Uzi used in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_mass... More recently (now that the ban expired), we had Las Vegas and Orlando shootings, both using what would have been 'assault rifles' under that law. ------- The most famous mass shooting of the 90s was Columbine, which only used pistols and pump-action sawed off shotguns, likely limiting the damage. This is my ultimate point: if you think we can't stop the shootings, then we should do what we can to mitigate them. Forcing the perpetrators to use lower quality firearms seems to be practically effective.
- ThrowawayR2 4y ago
  > "Mass fun violence in the 80s were marked with higher powered guns, like the Uzi used in..." Reading the Wikipedia link you yourself provided, seems like he used the shotgun as often or more than the Uzi carbine. The article also notes that the Uzi carbine used is a) semi-automatic (fires only once per trigger pull, like other ordinary civilian firearms) and b) fires 9mm pistol rounds (about midrange in power and effectiveness for pistols), meaning that its actually not a "higher powered gun" in any way and certainly not when compared to the shotgun. Don't mislead people. It only makes it harder to pass sane gun control laws when its proponents are seen to be repeating exaggerations and misconceptions.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > As staff and customers tried to hide beneath tables and service booths, Huberty turned his attention toward six women and children huddled together.[23] He first killed 19-year-old María Colmenero-Silva with a single gunshot to the chest, then fatally shot nine-year-old Claudia Pérez[3] in the stomach, cheek, thigh, hip, leg, chest, back, armpit, and head with his Uzi. He then wounded Pérez's 15-year-old sister Imelda once in the hand[24] with the same weapon, and fired upon 11-year-old Aurora Peña with his shotgun. Peña—initially wounded in the leg—had been shielded by her pregnant aunt, 18-year-old Jackie Reyes.[25] Huberty shot Reyes 48 times with the Uzi.[26] Beside his mother's body, eight-month-old Carlos Reyes sat up and wailed, whereupon Huberty shouted at the child, then killed the toddler with a single pistol shot to the center of the back.[27] -------- This seems only possible with higher-capacity magazines, does it not? The Uzi was designed as a fully-automatic submachinegun. Yes, he was using a semi-automatic version, but its still a carbine (more accurate than a pistol), and capable of larger magazines unavailable to small pistols. I'm not being misleading. You can see the weapons he used, and how he used them. The Uzi was instrumental in the high number of shots. The shotgun / pistol was still used of course, but with lower capacity magazines, doesn't have the same effect (ex: 48 shots in one victim from the Uzi was much easier) EDIT: Sure, the 48 shots from the Uzi would require a reload (32-round magazine). But the Browning Hi-Power pistol only has a 13-round magazine, so that would have required 4 reloads to shoot 48 times, and would have been far more tedious.
    - 4y ago
- delecti 4y ago
  The ban was not against "assault rifles", it was against "assault weapons", which is a made-up term that has little relevance to weapon power. Did you look at the picture I linked? I feel like you must not have, because it's pretty clear from looking at it that the ban couldn't have done much, because weapons allowed under the ban were barely different from what was banned. People were not forced to use "lower quality firearms", and were not forced to use lower power ones either. > if you think we can't stop the shootings I don't think that. There are lots of things we could do to make shootings less common, and congress just passed (and Biden signed) a bill which does quite a few things which are very likely to make shootings less common.