Mass shootings

[hollodero]

(03-05-2018, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No serious person says that, on its own, is convincing evidence of such.  Both lung cancer and a cold can cause a bad cough.  Having a cough, though, is not sufficient evidence that you have lung cancer.

Yeah... I feel that was my point actually :) but maybe I read it wrong. I believe pointing to totalitarian regimes that took the guns away is not a particularly strong argument against any gun control measures. The whole doomsday-like scenario behind that premise - citizens need to rise against a totalitarian, oppressing government - seems a bit academical. For the US that is.

(03-05-2018, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're asking for a long discussion here.  First off, I will treat your grenade launcher question as serious.  A grenade launcher is designed to fill a blast area with shrapnel.  Within that area its effects are indiscriminate.  Also, a grenade launcher is not as precise as a rifle.  Both qualities make it a poor option for self defense.

It was a serious question. My thinking behind that question was something like: There are restriction to the second amendment, somewhere around grenade launchers. US laws says, ok, these kinds of arms are not protected by the constitution. So that proves there IS a line.
Which to me shifts the whole discussion to where this line should be drawn - not that there can't be a line to begin with.

And while what you say about grenade launchers sounds true - I guess strictly speaking it is not a second amendment argument. The second amendment doesn't mention self-defense, it mentions a militia, and fighting militias could make pretty good use of grenade launchers. Still they are forbidden (for most guys, although on the old board someone had such a piece anyway) - and it's a bit of an arbitrary line, not a god-given one. And arbitrary lines can be moved. End of my thinking :)

(03-05-2018, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Additionally, a grenade launcher has little in common with firearms already in common use, and that have been in common use for decades.

I'll return to the idea of an "assault rifle" in a moment.  Prior to that I would point out that AR's, AK's and other magazine fed semi-automatic weapons have been in public hands for close to fifty years.  There is precedent in the public possessing them, nor were the "mass shootings" of today as big a concern.  Ironically, the homicide rate in the 60's, 70's and 80's was considerably higher than the rate now.  The crime rate has been, until recently, dropping every years since about 1992.  Within those twenty-five years the number of firearms in private possession has exploded.

Now we'll return to this question, what is an "assault rifle?  Is it a particular feature, a mix of features or the ability to accept a detachable magazine?  The traditional definition is a man portable rifle capable of selective fire.  There are very few such weapons in the hands of civilians in this country, and they have almost never been used in a criminal act.  If we allow for the features argument, what features do we use?  What makes an AR15 more deadly than an M14 or an M1 Garand?  When someone can actually answer these questions then you can actually start talking about what should, and should not, be banned.

I have to be honest, you lose me on the technical details, of course not by your own fault. So forgive me for not addressing details I know nothing about.
Overall, I guess the same way you say "grenade launchers don't serve the purpose of self defense", one could say "assault rifles (now however you want to define them, or the law, maybe 100 shots a minute or whatever - I don't mind the details here) don't serve the purpose of self-defense". And I believe this case can be made, that a person doesn't need those kinds of weapons for self-defense purposes. (Shortly put, I'd say spreading around hundreds of bullets isn't the best way to self-defend and potentially puts people like family in harm's way - so a gun with fewer rounds per minute, a handgun of sorts, could and I'd say should do to defend yourself and loved ones.)

I feel the line needs to be shifted and that it's possible to do so without breaching the constitution more than it was already breached before, as stated. And the reason why I believe the line should be shifted is mainly that obviously quite a large majority of Americans are for some gun control measures too. (I personally would propose a licence much like a driver's licence, but I'm getting all over my head here.)