Mass shootings

[BengalHawk62]

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

What is an 'assault weapon'? The definition is actually highly contentious

https://usat.ly/2oFqg55

[Belsnickel]

(02-28-2018, 01:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Most people against SS do not paint those people as shiftless bums.  Their claim  either that the govt has no right to do it, or that it's going to collapse.  

I would agree, except for SS being an entitlement program. The language around entitlement programs is as Nately describes. Now, a lot of people like to build a wall between SS and other entitlements, but that will become a line in the sand with a flash if they see a political advantage in doing so.

[fredtoast]

(02-28-2018, 01:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote:   Their claim  either that the govt has no right to do it, or that it's going to collapse.  

That's not what I hear.  I keep hearing that everyone would end up with more money if they were allowed to keep it and invest it themselves.

how much money do you thinik people will put away for retirement when they can not even afford health insurance?

It would be crazy to do away with SS.  Many people would not be able to save anything and many more who do save will see their savings stolen by Wall Street.  Then when they end up on the street it will be because they are all either stupid or lazy.

[*Nately120*]

(02-28-2018, 02:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That's not what I hear.  I keep hearing that everyone would end up with more money if they were allowed to keep it and invest it themselves.

how much money do you thinik people will put away for retirement when they can not even afford health insurance?

It would be crazy to do away with SS.  Many people would not be able to save anything and many more who do save will see their savings stolen by Wall Street.  Then when they end up on the street it will be because they are all either stupid or lazy.

If that's the case then people might just have to decide whether they want an iphone or the $250,000+ it's going to take to retire.  Duh.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

Still not sure how the fuk y'all got into a debate about SS in a mass shooter thread?  Anyway I do like the stance Dicks sporting goods is taking!https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/dick’s-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles/ar-BBJH5w6?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Edit:  sorry my link didn't paste, but you can look it up.  They're ending the sale of assault style weapons, high capacity magazines, and raising the minimum age for purchasing any fire arm to 21 regardless of local laws.

What say you?

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2018, 02:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would agree, except for SS being an entitlement program. The language around entitlement programs is as Nately describes. Now, a lot of people like to build a wall between SS and other entitlements, but that will become a line in the sand with a flash if they see a political advantage in doing so.

It becomes an entitlement when you have people pay in but not take out.  Maybe also if you remove the cap, but only count say the first $100,000 someone pays on when calculating their benefits.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2018, 02:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That's not what I hear.  I keep hearing that everyone would end up with more money if they were allowed to keep it and invest it themselves.

how much money do you thinik people will put away for retirement when they can not even afford health insurance?

It would be crazy to do away with SS.  Many people would not be able to save anything and many more who do save will see their savings stolen by Wall Street.  Then when they end up on the street it will be because they are all either stupid or lazy.

Some people say that, and a fair amount would end up with more especially if they got the full 14% which of course they probably wouldn't.

[GMDino]

(02-28-2018, 03:20 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Still not sure how the fuk y'all got into a debate about SS in a mass shooter thread?  Anyway I do like the stance Dicks sporting goods is taking!https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/dick’s-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles/ar-BBJH5w6?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Edit:  sorry my link didn't paste, but you can look it up.  They're ending the sale of assault style weapons, high capacity magazines, and raising the minimum age for purchasing any fire arm to 21 regardless of local laws.

What say you?

Privately owned business so they can choose to not sell something and as long as they aren't breaking the law they can set an age limit too.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2018, 03:20 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Still not sure how the fuk y'all got into a debate about SS in a mass shooter thread?  Anyway I do like the stance Dicks sporting goods is taking!https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/dick’s-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles/ar-BBJH5w6?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Edit:  sorry my link didn't paste, but you can look it up.  They're ending the sale of assault style weapons, high capacity magazines, and raising the minimum age for purchasing any fire arm to 21 regardless of local laws.

What say you?

I say that's their right.

[Belsnickel]

(02-28-2018, 03:25 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It becomes an entitlement when you have people pay in but not take out.  Maybe also if you remove the cap, but only count say the first $100,000 someone pays on when calculating their benefits.

Mmm, no, SS is an entitlement and has been from its creation. Entitlement in the realm of policy simply means that people are entitled to the funds statutorily. OASDI and the other SS programs fall into this.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2018, 03:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Mmm, no, SS is an entitlement and has been from its creation. Entitlement in the realm of policy simply means that people are entitled to the funds statutorily. OASDI and the other SS programs fall into this.

OK then a welfare type program.  That's what I meant.

[Belsnickel]

(02-28-2018, 03:20 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Still not sure how the fuk y'all got into a debate about SS in a mass shooter thread?  Anyway I do like the stance Dicks sporting goods is taking!https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/dick’s-major-gun-retailer-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles/ar-BBJH5w6?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Edit:  sorry my link didn't paste, but you can look it up.  They're ending the sale of assault style weapons, high capacity magazines, and raising the minimum age for purchasing any fire arm to 21 regardless of local laws.

What say you?

(02-28-2018, 03:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Privately owned business so they can choose to not sell something and as long as they aren't breaking the law they can set an age limit too.

(02-28-2018, 03:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I say that's their right.

In addition to these statements, I will add that I'm sure there will be plenty of conservative folks that will take their business over to Cabela's and Bass Pro because of this, but good on Dick's.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-28-2018, 02:09 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Check out this article from USA TODAY:

What is an 'assault weapon'? The definition is actually highly contentious

https://usat.ly/2oFqg55

We've had this discussion several times on this board.  The traditional, and IMO correct, interpretation is a long gun capable of select fire.  This was previously semi-auto (i.e. one squeeze of the trigger fires one round) and full-auto (the firearm will fire rounds as long as the trigger is held down and there are rounds to fire).  The military, for most infantry long guns, has removed the full auto option in favor of a burst fire option (one trigger pull fires three rounds).  JimBreech can correct me if I'm wrong, but this was done as full auto fire was found to be inefficient, low accuracy and high ammunition expenditure.  Fully automatic is now generally only found on support weapons.

Lawmakers, who usually have little to no knowledge of firearms, tend to focus on features.  These features are usually flash hiders, pistol grips, vertical foregrips, detachable magazine in conjunction with another banned feature and adjustable or folding stock.  A small argument can be made for flash hiders, the efficacy of which is drastically overstated, in that the help conceal a shooters position.  A argument can be made for folding stocks, as they aid in concealment.  The concealment argument cannot be logically made for adjustable stocks as they do not change the overall length of the firearm to a significant degree.  They exist to accommodate shooters with long, or shorter arms, than normal (research the term "length of pull), or, for shooters wearing body armor (typically swat or soldiers) as the extra bulk affects the shooters length of pull.

So, a combination of features determines what an "assault rifle" is.  As stated above majority of these identified features have zero affect on the shooters ability to fire the gun or the lethality of the firearm.  Thus, logically, we can determine that the term, for civilian firearms, is borderline meaningless.  My M14, firing .308 Remington, with a traditional wooden rifle stock, is not an assault rifle, despite the detachable magazine.  A typical AR firing .223 Remington, which would typically have at least two of the above features, is an "assault rifle".

You now see manufacturers making CA compliant "featureless" rifles or guides on how to modify your current rifle to make it featureless.

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/featureless-ar-15-rifle-grips-stocks-muzzle-devices/

None of the features has anything close to a significant affect on the weapons lethality.  Of the features, only a folding stock has any significant impact on the firearm as opposed to a featureless rifle.


So, essentially, the "assault weapons" bans are feel good, do nothing pieces of legislation that will have zero impact on a person willing to commit mass murder.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-27-2018, 10:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Anybody planning on cutting Social Security had better plan on having Uncle Sam send my a full refund for what I paid in.

Just sayin...

Yep, they do that without paying people back what they have TAKEN.....then they'll REALLY need to confiscate the guns!

[BmorePat87]

So a teacher was taken into custody after barricading himself in a classroom and firing a gun

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-georgia-respond-shots-fired-high-school-53417347

[Vas Deferens]

(02-28-2018, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So a teacher was taken into custody after barricading himself in a classroom and firing a gun

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-georgia-respond-shots-fired-high-school-53417347

I doubt this has any effect on the 'lets arm the teachers' narrative.

I wish you well in you upcoming career change.  I wouldn't stick around either.

[GMDino]

(02-28-2018, 05:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So a teacher was taken into custody after barricading himself in a classroom and firing a gun

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-georgia-respond-shots-fired-high-school-53417347

Sounds like a mental issue.

At least it was only a handgun and no one got hurt.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-28-2018, 05:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sounds like a mental issue.

At least it was only a handgun and no one got hurt.

It's funny, but remember when handguns were the things that everyone was going after?  It started after Reagan, the secret service guy and  Brady were shot.  Now with these mass murders, it's all switched around.

[GMDino]

(02-28-2018, 06:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's funny, but remember when handguns were the things that everyone was going after?  It started after Reagan, the secret service guy and  Brady were shot.  Now with these mass murders, it's all switched around.

No.  I don't remember that at all.

A quick google search didn't show anything.  Maybe I missed the big gun grab since I was 12.  lol.

[Belsnickel]

(02-28-2018, 06:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's funny, but remember when handguns were the things that everyone was going after?  It started after Reagan, the secret service guy and  Brady were shot.  Now with these mass murders, it's all switched around.

(02-28-2018, 06:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: No.  I don't remember that at all.

A quick google search didn't show anything.  Maybe I missed the big gun grab since I was 12.  lol.

There was a regulatory push in 1986 and 1988 with FOPA and the Undetectable Firearms Act.