No mental health issue in america.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes the fortunately was sarcastic.

The gun is an inanimate object. But certain guns like the AR-15, unfortunately, do fuel the fantasies of a small number of deranged folks. We can’t pretend that’s not true. I’m not saying the gun is the sole cause, but in some cases, it is a contributing factor. Some people are turned on by these guns.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there was no such thing as an AR-15 type, would slick looking hand guns (which are semi-automatic and can shoot at the same rate of speed as an AR15) fuel the fantasies of the deranged folks you speak of? If those folks kill because their fantasies are fueled by AR-15s, are we to assume they would not go on killing sprees if there were no AR-15s?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If there was no such thing as an AR-15 type, would slick looking hand guns (which are semi-automatic and can shoot at the same rate of speed as an AR15) fuel the fantasies of the deranged folks you speak of? If those folks kill because their fantasies are fueled by AR-15s, are we to assume they would not go on killing sprees if there were no AR-15s?

I'd think that to fire at that rate and hit anything at much distance would take a lot more skill with a handgun than an AR-15. But a big issue here is simply muzzle velocity, capacity and the ability for victims to survive. The AR-15 was designed for war, not hunting or home protection. This is the opinion of so many military leaders and veteran doctors. A high velocity wound is very deadly.

Handguns certainly have their own cool factor, but it doesn't seem to be much of an influence for the worst mass shootings.

As I've said before, shooting for sport is fun, hunting (most of it) is good and home defense is a real thing. Doesn't mean we need nearly instant access to near military grade weapons.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd think that to fire at that rate and hit anything at much distance would take a lot more skill with a handgun than an AR-15. But a big issue here is simply muzzle velocity, capacity and the ability for victims to survive. The AR-15 was designed for war, not hunting or home protection. This is the opinion of so many military leaders and veteran doctors. A high velocity wound is very deadly.

Handguns certainly have their own cool factor, but it doesn't seem to be much of an influence for the worst mass shootings.

As I've said before, shooting for sport is fun, hunting (most of it) is good and home defense is a real thing. Doesn't mean we need nearly instant access to near military grade weapons.

This doesn't answer my question to Jim. Now, if you're saying that if there were no AR-15s there would be no mass killings, that would be closer to an answer to my question.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This doesn't answer my question to Jim. Now, if you're saying that if there were no AR-15s there would be no mass killings, that would be closer to an answer to my question.

That's just another rhetorical deke you're leaning towards. The "if you stop all of them you can't stop any of them" defense. It's a complex issue but to be paralyzed to any action because of political interests is really stupid.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That's just another rhetorical deke you're leaning towards.

I actually burst out laughing when I read this notion of leaning toward a deke. Every time I repeat that locution, I chuckle. I actually was blunt and straightforward. You did not answer the question I posed to Jim. You just bloviated some pseudo expert talking points.

The "if you stop all of them you can't stop any of them" defense. It's a complex issue but to be paralyzed to any action because of political interests is really stupid.

And then you leaned toward the deke of the straw man. I didn't apply nor even imply the "if you can't stop all you can't stop any" notion. It was stupid of you to put words or intentions in my statement that were not remotely in it. That is not an argument. That is not a reasonable discussion. And I was wrong, that is not even a leaning toward a deke. It is a deke.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If there was no such thing as an AR-15 type, would slick looking hand guns (which are semi-automatic and can shoot at the same rate of speed as an AR15) fuel the fantasies of the deranged folks you speak of? If those folks kill because their fantasies are fueled by AR-15s, are we to assume they would not go on killing sprees if there were no AR-15s?

I don’t know what would happen if things were different. I only know that mass killings not related to terrorism, seem to be frequently carried out by these things. He didn’t pick a handgun. I wouldn’t say the gun caused this. But I’d bet every cent I have, that in some cases, it fuels the fantasy. And I’d be right. I never took a psychology class but I know I’m right. I don’t know that this truth suggests any public policy that addresses it. Im just stating something that I don’t think can be refuted. If there were no such thing as rifles, I’d bet that this guy and Adam Lanza would have done what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don’t know what would happen if things were different. I only know that mass killings not related to terrorism, seem to be frequently carried out by these things. He didn’t pick a handgun. I wouldn’t say the gun caused this. But I’d bet every cent I have, that in some cases, it fuels the fantasy. And I’d be right. I never took a psychology class but I know I’m right. I don’t know that this truth suggests any public policy that addresses it. Im just stating something that I don’t think can be refuted. If there were no such thing as rifles, I’d bet that this guy and Adam Lanza would have done what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Before AR-15's, the guns that existed, hand or rifle, held the fascination of deranged, as well as normal, men, especially young ones. You, personally, may be sure of yourself in your opinion. I'm not sure of your opinion. I remember a fascination with six shooter pistols being almost universal among young boys who, most of them, had fancy looking cap guns they got for Christmas or birthdays. Almost all of us had them, and we played shoot-em-up games with them. Cowboy movies and comic books and heroes from Tom Mix, to Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and several others were models which we emulated. A lot of the guys had BB guns. Some acted dangerously, malevolently with them. Later, post-cowboy era, there were some neat hand-guns wielded by movie types like Dirty Harry. Clint Eastwood had a really cool long barrel six gun in his Spaghetti Western movies. There was a kind of reverence for the .44 Magnum among young guys because it was supposedly so powerful, almost God-like among guns. Even now there are a lot of really cool looking and highly effective as well as a great variety of hand guns that owners like to proudly show off and talk about how easily they handle and how accurate they are.

I agree with you that Lanza and this guy (and others) would have done what they did if there were no AR-15s. And this guy, apparently had bombs as well as other guns. Times are different in our society from what they were when I was a kid. And I don't think AR-15s are the reason for that difference.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd think that to fire at that rate and hit anything at much distance would take a lot more skill with a handgun than an AR-15. But a big issue here is simply muzzle velocity, capacity and the ability for victims to survive. The AR-15 was designed for war, not hunting or home protection. This is the opinion of so many military leaders and veteran doctors. A high velocity wound is very deadly.

Handguns certainly have their own cool factor, but it doesn't seem to be much of an influence for the worst mass shootings.

As I've said before, shooting for sport is fun, hunting (most of it) is good and home defense is a real thing. Doesn't mean we need nearly instant access to near military grade weapons.

The Ruger Mini 14 (pic attached below) is more accurate than most AR15s and has been around a helluva lot longer.

The AR15 is like when we used to tune out Abu 6500 series reels - we'd would simply customize them how we woulds want.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don’t know what would happen if things were different. I only know that mass killings not related to terrorism, seem to be frequently carried out by these things. He didn’t pick a handgun. I wouldn’t say the gun caused this. But I’d bet every cent I have, that in some cases, it fuels the fantasy. And I’d be right. I never took a psychology class but I know I’m right. I don’t know that this truth suggests any public policy that addresses it. Im just stating something that I don’t think can be refuted. If there were no such thing as rifles, I’d bet that this guy and Adam Lanza would have done what they did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For some perhaps, but for most, the AR15 is a fine shooting, comfortable, customization rifle. Just a Swiss Army knife of a rifle for sport, fun, or even hunting

What we need to do is find a way to get the Adam Lanzas away from firearms.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The Ruger Mini 14 (pic attached below) is more accurate than most AR15s and has been around a helluva lot longer.

Any so why aren't they used in mass shootings? Is it because they don't have the killing power afforded all those "cosmetic" options or perhaps as Jim says just don't have the sex appeal a killer is looking for?

Easy access to assault weapons is but part of the problem but it is part of the problem.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Easy access to assault weapons is but part of the problem but it is part of the problem.

Agreed 100%.

Unfortunately, every different part of the problem, has people who make a lot of money from the thing in question. The entertainment industry gets rich by glorifying violence. The NRA gets rich off the gun culture. So we are incapable of doing anything.

Someone really needs to get Chris Murphy to shut the hell up. He'll be a US senator until my kids are older than I am now. That's just great.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by spence

Any so why aren't they used in mass shootings? Is it because they don't have the killing power afforded all those "cosmetic" options or perhaps as Jim says just don't have the sex appeal a killer is looking for?

Easy access to assault weapons is but part of the problem but it is part of the problem.

Honestly you have just gone full blown stupid

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The Ruger Mini 14 (pic attached below) is more accurate than most AR15s and has been around a helluva lot longer.

The AR15 is like when we used to tune out Abu 6500 series reels - we'd would simply customize them how we woulds want.






For some perhaps, but for most, the AR15 is a fine shooting, comfortable, customization rifle. Just a Swiss Army knife of a rifle for sport, fun, or even hunting

What we need to do is find a way to get the Adam Lanzas away from firearms.

"For some perhaps, but for most, the AR15 is a fine shooting, comfortable, customization rifle. Just a Swiss Army knife of a rifle for sport, fun, or even hunting"

Agreed 100%. I am talking about a very small (not small enough) number of very sick people with dark and violent fantasies. When they snap, they don't usually show up with my granddad's Marlin .22.

I'm not saying we should ban them. I guess I'm just pointing out, that since many here deny that there is any connection between these "sexy" guns and the rare mass killings, it shows how impossible it is to have a productive dialogue. Both sides are too rigid in their ideology.

It's not the guns causing this. You solve a problem, ultimately, by addressing the underlying cause. and the underlying cause, is that we don't care about each other the way we used to. We can put armed guards in schools, we can ban bump stocks and high capacity magazines, and those things might reduce the body count, but they are addressing the symptom, not the underlying problem.

The underlying problem, is that our moral compass is broken. We mock traditional family values, when we should be doing everything we can to encourage them, because they work better than anything else that we know of. Secular progressivism and the internet, are exacerbating the underlying problem. Probably not causing it, but obviously making it worse. 75% of black babies are now born without a dad. Hooray! If that represents some great cultural leap forward, the benefit is sure lost on me.