(02-19-2018 09:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 09:25 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 08:17 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 08:13 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think a big part of it is culture. I saw one argument recently that said all personal phones should be restricted from schools too, and I'm fine with that. I think the social media society is also possibly driving up school violence rates - some of the shooters like the one in Parkland are probably driven by the desire to become famous, and certainly social media gives them instant notoriety.

But I think we can do things to explore the 2nd Amendment and give the message that we want to make our society less violent. I don't think a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles from private citizens is a bad thing. Let certain ones of them only exist in the military. If a black market emerges, I don't think it would be that tough to quell the illegal sales.

Other things can be brought into the equation too like violent entertainment, mental health, etc. But to only approach the other issues without talking about guns is wrong IMO.

OK, let's entertain this. Exactly which semiautomatic rifles shall we restrict and why. Please be as detailed as possible.

I have no idea. It's not up for me to make that decision.

If you have no idea then why do you think it wouldn't be a bad thing?

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about in this thread:
http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-843173.html

As is this:

Quote:But I do see that in 1791 when the 2nd Amendment was written, muskets had a one round magazine capacity and could fire about three rounds per minute with an effective range of about 50 meters.

1. Muskets were muzzleloaders and as such did not have a magazine

2. Muskets could be loaded and fired in as fast as 15 seconds, or 45 rounds per minute. Rifles were a little slower to load at about 30 seconds but were far more accurate. Muskets were effective out to 100 yards, not 50 meters and rifles to 300 yards.

3. When the Constitution was written there were already several examples of repeating firearms available. The Puckle Gun, the Kalthoff repeater, the Girandoni air rifle, and the Cookson repeater.

4. Muskets were the M16 of their time. It was the standard issue battle rifle for the troops.


But if we are going to go down the path of applying technology of the time I want you to apply it to everything. Freedom of speech now only applies to the printing press and the non-electronically amplified human voice.

4th Amendment protections of warrant searches only apply to physical searches of the home, and only the home.

Televised or radio communications of religious programming may be banned outright.

This list could get fun.....

If we are going to outlaw a gun to stop the carnage, why not outlaw pistols? They kill thousands more each year than do all rifles, of which "assault weapons" are bu a small subset. As for mass school shootings, they were the weapon of choice for the largest such shooting in our history--Virginia Tech. The were also one of the weapons of choice at Columbine, which occurred while the previous "assault weapons ban" was in effect. They are predominant in our two main sources of gun deaths--suicides and gang shootings.

I would argue that it would be easier to shoot up a school with pistols than an AR-15, largely because it would be a lot easier to hide and sneak on the grounds with. I'm still amazed that Cruz wasn't stopped somewhere with an AR-15.

So, what does the cool scientist say about outlawing illegals who are killing americans. Did he offer up any science on that?

Funny how the OP seems to keep ignoring illegals who kill americans, and keep focusing on gun control. Why is that?

I will take a swing, I bet the vast majority of these type of mass shooters did not grow up with a Dad in the home.
No idea about Paddock the Vegas shooter, he is much older.

The principle of gun control articles like this one is that it's always easiest to enforce the law on law-abiding people because enforcing the law on outlaws, or the mentally ill, or repealing the 2nd Amendment, is something that looks terrifyingly close to hard work.

(02-19-2018 07:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ate-217022

The basic argument is that what is missing from the debate is science. The author is a former director of the CDC injury center and has been a long-time proponent of research into gun violence to figure out how to reduce the rates of incidents. He was fired from the CDC around 20 years ago but he still maintains the CDC should be conducting the research into the various ideas being tossed around as preventative measures.

A lot of his argument is that gun violence reduction research is no different from cancer research.

And many of you will be happy (?) to know he calls them semi-automatic rifles rather than assault rifles (or do you want to play the semantics game on that term too)?

I'm guessing in advance people will quickly bring up the 2nd Amendment. Or perhaps the argument that the CDC should be concentrating on diseases like Ebola and not guns. But personally I don't think either argument bears fruit against the need to explore methods to stem the rates of violence.

I would agree that it should be studied.

(02-19-2018 11:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 07:41 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ate-217022
The basic argument is that what is missing from the debate is science. The author is a former director of the CDC injury center and has been a long-time proponent of research into gun violence to figure out how to reduce the rates of incidents. He was fired from the CDC around 20 years ago but he still maintains the CDC should be conducting the research into the various ideas being tossed around as preventative measures.
A lot of his argument is that gun violence reduction research is no different from cancer research.
And many of you will be happy (?) to know he calls them semi-automatic rifles rather than assault rifles (or do you want to play the semantics game on that term too)?
I'm guessing in advance people will quickly bring up the 2nd Amendment. Or perhaps the argument that the CDC should be concentrating on diseases like Ebola and not guns. But personally I don't think either argument bears fruit against the need to explore methods to stem the rates of violence.

I would agree that it should be studied.

I agree, but it needs to be objective science. What can we do to fix the problem, not how can we one up with a justification to ban scary looking guns.

Somebody needs to do a cost-benefit analysis of any proposals.