Rhode Island State Representative Wants to Tax Violent Video Games

Azphira

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,869
Let's tax politicians, they kill thousands of american with their wars, and their gross negligence decisions.
 

sadsteve

Gawd
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
610
Violent video games/media is the current politician buzzword. Right behind AR15 and Assault Rifle.

That's 'Assault Weapon', a made up name by the media or political entity. An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It's basically a rifle can operate as a machine gun. It's a Title II regulated rifle that you're not going to be purchasing without a special license/permit (Gun Control Act of 1968). The 'Assault Weapons' you can purchase (state dependent) are just semi-automatic rifles that 'look' like military assault rifles. They're no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle.
 

groebuck

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 9, 2000
Messages
2,587
You need to get some perspective mate.

You talk about the NRA being reviled, reviled by whom?

Over half of the country are gun owners, means less than half of the country might have a beef with the NRA.

I love it when people who are actually part of a minority start believing their own bullshit and think that they represent a majority of the population.

this is why you guys are always surprised when elections and votes don't go your way.

Sorry but you are incorrect on that fact -

There is no countrywide database where people register whether they own guns (the law doesn't allow it). We have to rely on surveys instead. High quality telephone polls from Gallup and the Pew Research Center in 2017 found that 42% of people in the US live in households with guns. According to the General Social Survey, which has a much higher response rate than telephone polls and interviews people in person, a relatively lower 32% of Americans said in 2016 that they lived in household with guns. Also regarding the election and the outcome -
In the 2017 Pew data, for example, there was a 25 percentage point gap between the Democrats (16%) who owned guns and the Republicans (41%) who did. That's far smaller than the 80 point difference between how many Democrats (8%) and Republicans (88%) voted for Trump in the 2016 exit poll.
 

Etherton

Will Bang for Poof
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
6,997
Yeah, because surveys are completely accurate! Hillary Clinton told me so for the record. Something, something, Election 2016....

119.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
36
I'm going to ignore your Hitler statement as a example of how to deride discussions based on facts and statistics and just trying to add in nonsense to shut down debate.
Going back to the original post, explain why sweeden and germany have seen an uptick in crimes since the refugee crisis? Explain why places with less diversity typically (typically is the key word) have less violent crimes than places with lots of diversity? I'm sure there are socio-economic intricacies at play here as well, but from a broad standpoint there seems to be a correlation between the two.


Damn....are you wearing your white sheet as you type? 90%+ of mass school shooters are white. The common theme is the availability of guns. I love that you ignore that.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
6,000
Damn....are you wearing your white sheet as you type? 90%+ of mass school shooters are white. The common theme is the availability of guns. I love that you ignore that.

90% of mass school shooting in a predominantly white country are perpetrated by white people. If you really want to make your point that way you need to gather a lot more statistics, internationally, and best take into account every school attack regardless of weapon.

Gigas was talking crime stats in general, you ignore that because you have no valid argument to refute it, instead you take it to racism and straw man. Fuck this social media virtue signalling bullshit, either address the post or shut up, calling someone a racist is not a valid argument.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
36
90% of mass school shooting in a predominantly white country are perpetrated by white people. If you really want to make your point that way you need to gather a lot more statistics, internationally, and best take into account every school attack regardless of weapon.

Gigas was talking crime stats in general, you ignore that because you have no valid argument to refute it, instead you take it to racism and straw man. Fuck this social media virtue signalling bullshit, either address the post or shut up, calling someone a racist is not a valid argument.

LOL. Most countries don't have school shooting because they have gun control. The Aussies implemented tough gun laws years ago after a mass shooting and they basically ended their issues with mass shootings.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/


You know why I went to racism, because I can read and hear a bigot when I see one. Typical Trump supporter. Blame everything on black and brown.......and immigration.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
30,106
LOL. Most countries don't have school shooting because they have gun control. The Aussies implemented tough gun laws years ago after a mass shooting and they basically ended their issues with mass shootings.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/


You know why I went to racism, because I can read and hear a bigot when I see one. Typical Trump supporter. Blame everything on black and brown.......and immigration.

Typical Trump supporter? Typical liberals crying racism every chance they get is more like it. Everyone who disagrees with them is a bigot.

You can say what you want about guns, but the reality is the 2nd amendment exists. If there was a systematic effort to undermine the 1st or 4th amendments (arguably making the world a safer place), you'd be going nuts right now. Why don't you show some respect to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights?

Why don't you go post some more about computer hardware with your 24 posts before telling the rest of us why we should listen to you period. Another clown for my ignore list.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
6,000
LOL. Most countries don't have school shooting because they have gun control. The Aussies implemented tough gun laws years ago after a mass shooting and they basically ended their issues with mass shootings.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/


You know why I went to racism, because I can read and hear a bigot when I see one. Typical Trump supporter. Blame everything on black and brown.......and immigration.

Typical ignorance of an internet poster.

First you ignore the post almost in its entirety, for example you completely glossed over taking into account all incidents of school attack regardless of weapon. Of course it doesn't fit your narrative, only guns cause violence, and mainly white people with guns.

Then continue to disregard the post or the post that triggered the post, stick in hard to your opinion because on some level you know your right, so double down on your narrative that guns are the problem. You see the issue with this thinking is, your too late. Simple, there are too many guns already in circulation in the us, combine that with the gun culture that exists across the political spectrum and all you'll do is create a larger black market. Gun control is too little to late, and if you try to take the guns away... best course is to address the underlying social issues that create these instances.

Then you double down on the racism claim because you 'know', which is not real its just in your head. You seek to shut down someone you disagree with by making them inferior to you because your 'x' and they are 'y' rather then presenting something with merit.

I'm left compared to most of you, being canadian our conservatives on a political spectrum are your democrats. I vote liberal, conservative and sometimes ndp, every time I see one of your type on the internet it pisses me off because of the level of ignorant arrogance gives the rest of us a bad name.

You want to fix violence in the US, start with why people fall so far as to do these things, and how can you catch them. as long as people get to that level of disenfranchisement from society, gun or no gun, they are going to hurt people. We can stop most of them if we act with intelligence.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,836
The common theme is the availability of guns. I love that you ignore that.

The common theme that people ignore is mental health. Well over 90% of school shootings involve a individual that was previously bullied or has an underlying mental condition. People just don't wake up in the morning out of the blue and decide to commit mass murder, it usually takes years of conditioning ones self to commit such an act, whether it be internally or an external factor such as bullying or personal loss.
 

Kor

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,175
Seems fitting this comes along the year after the Night Trap remaster :p

Welcome back mid 90's
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
36
The common theme that people ignore is mental health. Well over 90% of school shootings involve a individual that was previously bullied or has an underlying mental condition. People just don't wake up in the morning out of the blue and decide to commit mass murder, it usually takes years of conditioning ones self to commit such an act, whether it be internally or an external factor such as bullying or personal loss.

LOL....Mental Health. Nice excuse. Sure.......everyone who does a Mass Killing goes crazy....atleast temporarily. So, then why did Trump sign a bill last year that makes it easier for people with Mental Health issues to get guns?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness

You see, The NRA and Republicans are using EVERY excuse except the availability of guns. You can see it in Australia......restrict guns....Mass shootings disappear.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
36
Typical ignorance of an internet poster.

First you ignore the post almost in its entirety, for example you completely glossed over taking into account all incidents of school attack regardless of weapon. Of course it doesn't fit your narrative, only guns cause violence, and mainly white people with guns.

Then continue to disregard the post or the post that triggered the post, stick in hard to your opinion because on some level you know your right, so double down on your narrative that guns are the problem. You see the issue with this thinking is, your too late. Simple, there are too many guns already in circulation in the us, combine that with the gun culture that exists across the political spectrum and all you'll do is create a larger black market. Gun control is too little to late, and if you try to take the guns away... best course is to address the underlying social issues that create these instances.

Then you double down on the racism claim because you 'know', which is not real its just in your head. You seek to shut down someone you disagree with by making them inferior to you because your 'x' and they are 'y' rather then presenting something with merit.

I'm left compared to most of you, being canadian our conservatives on a political spectrum are your democrats. I vote liberal, conservative and sometimes ndp, every time I see one of your type on the internet it pisses me off because of the level of ignorant arrogance gives the rest of us a bad name.

You want to fix violence in the US, start with why people fall so far as to do these things, and how can you catch them. as long as people get to that level of disenfranchisement from society, gun or no gun, they are going to hurt people. We can stop most of them if we act with intelligence.


We are not talking about Crime. We are talking...SPECIFICALLY about MASS Shootings. Stop trying to change the topic. AR-15 might as well be called the Mass Shooter Special. No reason for civilians to have an AR-15, AK or any other weapon of war.

By the Way..........44 years on this earth.....I know a bigot when i hear, see, or read them. Of course bigots will deny....doesnt change the fact they are one.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,911
We are not talking about Crime. We are talking...SPECIFICALLY about MASS Shootings.

Okay, let us look at everyone's favorite example of Australia and see what happened when Australia banned them and heavily restricted other firearms. What did that accomplish in Australia?

- 15 murdered in the year 2000, without a firearm.
- 10 killed in the year 2009, without a firearm.
- 5 killed in 2009 without a firearm.
- 11 killed in 2011 without a firearm.
- 8 killed in 2014 without a firearm.
- 6 killed, 30 in 2017 wounded without a firearm.

And the average fatality rate (outside of the outlier or Port Arthur) seems to have gone up since. Great job. And the rate of mass murder incidents seem to be roughly on par with California when accounting for population size difference. That is not what I'd call success, but a massive fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

So now that we have that out of the way, what would be the purpose of banning said firearms? Because you don't like them? May as well find your nearest KKK recruiter because you share a similar thought process. :p

I didn't have to click the link to know it would be a Republican politician. But I did anyway and it was a Republican. Guess next time I'll just save myself an extra click when I read dumb stuff like this.

Remember Leland Yee, the Democrat from San Francisco who wanted to ban "violent video games" entirely? Later known for his anti gun legislation (how is that a surprise!).

https://kotaku.com/5978958/leland-y...utional-anti-game-law-tells-gamers-quiet-down

"Gamers have just got to quiet down," Leland Yee told the San Francisco Chronicle. "Gamers have no credibility in this argument."

Good thing he is in jail for corruption.
 
Last edited:

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,836
LOL....Mental Health. Nice excuse. Sure.......everyone who does a Mass Killing goes crazy....atleast temporarily. So, then why did Trump sign a bill last year that makes it easier for people with Mental Health issues to get guns?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
.

Probably because the NRA helped fund his election. That's a question none of us really know though.


I guess it's a better coping mechanism to blame the person you hate than the factors that led up to the shooting, such as the proven total failure of law enforcement & Sheriff Deputies who were there as it happened.
 
Last edited:

dark_reign

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
2,314
You see, The NRA and Republicans are using EVERY excuse except the availability of guns. You can see it in Australia......restrict guns....Mass shootings disappear.
Banning guns wouldn't stop mass shootings. Thinking that a nutcase can't buy guns because the government restricted them is laughable. Black market guns (over 260K) are widely available in Australia.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
36
Nobody is saying “ban all guns” . However, semi-auto rifle (assault rifles) need to banned from civilian purchases. Universal background checks (including at gun shows) need to be implemented. Along with other measures to make sure restrictive list (from and military and mental health agencies) prevent people who shouldn’t have guns...don’t get them. If you need an AR-15 to hunt, you are doing it wrong.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,911
Nobody is saying “ban all guns” . However, semi-auto rifle (assault rifles) need to banned from civilian purchases. Universal background checks (including at gun shows) need to be implemented. Along with other measures to make sure restrictive list (from and military and mental health agencies) prevent people who shouldn’t have guns...don’t get them. If you need an AR-15 to hunt, you are doing it wrong.

Well it has been shown in at least a few examples (Switzerland, Australia) that what you're suggesting doesn't work. If anything semi auto rifles are the firearms that need the least regulation because they're used in so few homicides. We're talking about a class of weapons that kill less that being beaten to death with hands/feet. In 2014 it looks like the number dropped down to 248, which includes all rifle types. Consider that these types of rifles are more common than ever before yet the numbers have gone down.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

If you really care about saving children's lives, ban private home owned swimming pools. They claim more lives from children than these types of firearms. And they certainly aren't necessary by any stretch of the imagination.

And who gives a shit about your hunting dilemma? Not like it has any importance to the discussion anyways.
 

tec1500

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
68
If you need an AR-15 to hunt, you are doing it wrong.

You're right! Who in their right mind would hunt with an AR-15?! Go with something more powerful like a 308 or 30-06. You're there to kill a moose, not put in agony. Actually most of the hunters around here hunt with 300 magnums.
 

wizdum

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
1,943
You're right! Who in their right mind would hunt with an AR-15?! Go with something more powerful like a 308 or 30-06. You're there to kill a moose, not put in agony. Actually most of the hunters around here hunt with 300 magnums.

AR-10 would probably work too. Though up here you have to get special mags of 5 rounds or less.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,911
AR-10 would probably work too. Though up here you have to get special mags of 5 rounds or less.

Yeah you can get ARs in dozens of calibers and apparently many hunters are using them these days. Some people just think because the grip doesn't look like something designed pre-1940s it is somehow not suitable for hunting. I'd say regardless of what angle the grip is or whether it is made of wood, steel or plastic, the animal probably hates it just as much. I don't have any interest in every hunting, but to say someone cannot hunt while I go to a restaurant and eat slaughtered animals would be hypocritical.
 

TheOne5

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
149

TheOne5

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
149
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

People can blame Eminem, Marilyn Manson, Saw, Grand Theft Auto, rap, etc. on murders, but it doesn't change the fact that people have been killing each other since the dawn of man. As shown by the latest military advancements, there will always be a way to mass murder and people will find a way to murder or mass murder. There really isn't a way to stop people from being psychopaths, sadistic, overreact to a jilted lover, lose jobs and homes, and the many other reasons that people choose to kill. It's unfortunately a bad aspect of humanity.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Sorry but you are incorrect on that fact -

There is no countrywide database where people register whether they own guns (the law doesn't allow it). We have to rely on surveys instead. High quality telephone polls from Gallup and the Pew Research Center in 2017 found that 42% of people in the US live in households with guns. According to the General Social Survey, which has a much higher response rate than telephone polls and interviews people in person, a relatively lower 32% of Americans said in 2016 that they lived in household with guns. Also regarding the election and the outcome -
In the 2017 Pew data, for example, there was a 25 percentage point gap between the Democrats (16%) who owned guns and the Republicans (41%) who did. That's far smaller than the 80 point difference between how many Democrats (8%) and Republicans (88%) voted for Trump in the 2016 exit poll.


So you are willing to rely on polls and there aren't any people out there who would never admit to owning guns no matter who asked?

If you have no proof one way, then there is no proof the other way. You can claim there is no way to prove my statement is correct, but there is also no way to prove it's not.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
No. The NRA spends 100s of millions of dollars bribing the government to get their own laws passed, force their puppets to attack children that were victims of a school shooting, and create diversionary bullshit like this. The NRA needs to die.

Not a member I take it
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
School shootings weren't a thang until these mental health drugs hit the market....


That's not the only thing that's changed in kids lives over the last few decades.

When I was a kid, kids used to get into fights, usually nobody got suspended for fighting back then. The idea that a kid shouldn't take up for themselves is part of the problem, no excuse for fighting is wrong and it makes kids feel helpless. It's time for adults to figure this out. It's part of growing up and not allowing it is wrong.

There are other things wrong as well.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
6,000
We are not talking about Crime. We are talking...SPECIFICALLY about MASS Shootings. Stop trying to change the topic. AR-15 might as well be called the Mass Shooter Special. No reason for civilians to have an AR-15, AK or any other weapon of war.

By the Way..........44 years on this earth.....I know a bigot when i hear, see, or read them. Of course bigots will deny....doesnt change the fact they are one.


We are actually talking about taxing violent video games, which has nothing to do with the BS your spewing. You responded to a post about *edit* crime statistics and social demographics...

Good for you. Bye.
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
7,541
Look at the people the NRA gives the most money to (like Trump and the thirty god damn million they "donated" to his campaign) and look at how they talk about certain issues. Funny how it lines up exactly with the NRA's statements isn't it?



Lobbyists in general really. I despise the practice. It should never have been allowed in the first place. Lobbying is nothing more than legal bribery.

Proof they gave 30m?


They spent like 6 million last year in lobbying, 1/2 as much as Milk and a few hundreds times less than big Pharma.

I think you are pulling numbers out of thin air.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
We are not talking about Crime. We are talking...SPECIFICALLY about MASS Shootings. Stop trying to change the topic. AR-15 might as well be called the Mass Shooter Special. No reason for civilians to have an AR-15, AK or any other weapon of war.

By the Way..........44 years on this earth.....I know a bigot when i hear, see, or read them. Of course bigots will deny....doesnt change the fact they are one.


I disagree pretty much completely and across the board.

Ignore the fact that AR-15 type weapons have only been used in two or three school shootings out of how ever many there have been. Let's continue with this idea you have that an AR-15 is such an effective weapon of war.

The current US Military combat rifle is typically either the M4 Carbine, or the M16A2. Both weapons are select fire, they fire in semi-auto or three round burst. Special Forces etc, they are different and their weapons have much greater variety. Back during the Vietnam War, the M16 and M16A1 were issued as replacements to the M14. The M14 is a select fire version of the Springfield M1A and both weapons fire 7.62x51mm NATO ammo. Soldiers rarely every used the full-auto capability of the M14 because in full-auto it was pretty much uncontrollable. The M14 replaced the M1 Garand and the M1/M2 Carbine from the Korean and WW2 era.

These rifles represent the US Army and Marine Corps' "weapons of war" since before 1940. All of these weapons have essentially a "civilian version" of the weapons, and in many cases, they are almost identical in capability.

What you don't seem to get is that there are many other equally capable rifles that were never "weapons of war" simply because they were not selected to be "the weapon" that the military selected for their contracts. It's not because they are in some way more powerful or designed specifically for the purpose of war, it's just because these are the ones that were picked. Sure, there are some small differences, like the addition of a bayonet lug, rifle slings, etc. But the there really are no features that are unique to these weapons that actually effect the firepower of the weapons themselves, and any other weapon, had they been selected, would have had these same features added.

I own rifles that are just what you might call hunting rifles, or sporting rifles, in many combat situations these rifles would be just as effective or even more effective than an AR15 or any of these other "weapons of war". I also own an AR15 and I have hunted with it but I didn't magically kill more deer because it was a "weapon of war".

The AR15 is extremely popular with many. Most of the Military wish they could get a better service rifle but the Army is sticking with it for now because of costs. In short, an change is going to be expensive so they are dragging their feet making a change to a better weapon. They are also having a hard time deciding doctrinally what kind of weapon they think they will need. They can't make up their mind what the maximum effective range is that they will want. One thing you need to understand though is that it is now a very strong belief amount service members that Semi-Automatic is all they need, and that burst fire and full-automatic are mostly just good for wasting ammo in a service rifle and Squad Support weapons fill the need for Full-Automatic suppression fire needs. If the military chooses to drop selective fire as a requirement, then a soldier might be better served by larger caliber weapons say 7.62mm NATO for example. Since 7.62mm NATO has greater range than 5.56mm rifles, these rifles will be larger, heavier, and naturally have smaller magazines, 20rd or even 10rd are easy choices. The farther the next "weapon of war" swings toward larger calibers like the M1 rifle was 30.06, the smaller their magazine size, and the more they will look like and have in common with so many more of the typical rifles of today that are not Ar15 style weapons.

What I am trying to point out and help you understand is that every weapon is a weapon of war in the same manner that, when it comes to individual rifles, no weapons of war exist. It's a false concept that some people just still can't get into their heads. The AR15 style of rifle is exceedingly popular for many many reasons. You might think it's the best weapon for war, but it's not. Certainly not if you don't take into consideration logistics and costs, and training because these are the factors that make it so attractive to the US Military, and because we have a few million of them in service and replacing them is pretty expensive and for that money you have to ask yourself what are you going to get that is so much better.

Why do you think it hasn't really changed much in over 40 years?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
20,034
Proof they gave 30m?


They spent like 6 million last year in lobbying, 1/2 as much as Milk and a few hundreds times less than big Pharma.

I think you are pulling numbers out of thin air.

Sorry, the numbers I've seen people quote were a bit off:

The NRA gave Trump $11.4m directly and then spent another $19.7m to lobby against Clinton. So, in total, they spent $31m in 2016 to support Trump.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/15/nra-contributions-politicians-senators/

If you feel like exploring Fortune's source (opensecrets.org) check out the By Candidate contribution for 2016. I find the for and against numbers for all the presidential candidates fascinating. The whole website is kind of fun to poke around if you've got the time and inclination.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,911
I disagree pretty much completely and across the board.

Ignore the fact that AR-15 type weapons have only been used in two or three school shootings out of how ever many there have been. Let's continue with this idea you have that an AR-15 is such an effective weapon of war.

The current US Military combat rifle is typically either the M4 Carbine, or the M16A2. Both weapons are select fire, they fire in semi-auto or three round burst. Special Forces etc, they are different and their weapons have much greater variety. Back during the Vietnam War, the M16 and M16A1 were issued as replacements to the M14. The M14 is a select fire version of the Springfield M1A and both weapons fire 7.62x51mm NATO ammo. Soldiers rarely every used the full-auto capability of the M14 because in full-auto it was pretty much uncontrollable. The M14 replaced the M1 Garand and the M1/M2 Carbine from the Korean and WW2 era.

These rifles represent the US Army and Marine Corps' "weapons of war" since before 1940. All of these weapons have essentially a "civilian version" of the weapons, and in many cases, they are almost identical in capability.

What you don't seem to get is that there are many other equally capable rifles that were never "weapons of war" simply because they were not selected to be "the weapon" that the military selected for their contracts. It's not because they are in some way more powerful or designed specifically for the purpose of war, it's just because these are the ones that were picked. Sure, there are some small differences, like the addition of a bayonet lug, rifle slings, etc. But the there really are no features that are unique to these weapons that actually effect the firepower of the weapons themselves, and any other weapon, had they been selected, would have had these same features added.

I own rifles that are just what you might call hunting rifles, or sporting rifles, in many combat situations these rifles would be just as effective or even more effective than an AR15 or any of these other "weapons of war". I also own an AR15 and I have hunted with it but I didn't magically kill more deer because it was a "weapon of war".

The AR15 is extremely popular with many. Most of the Military wish they could get a better service rifle but the Army is sticking with it for now because of costs. In short, an change is going to be expensive so they are dragging their feet making a change to a better weapon. They are also having a hard time deciding doctrinally what kind of weapon they think they will need. They can't make up their mind what the maximum effective range is that they will want. One thing you need to understand though is that it is now a very strong belief amount service members that Semi-Automatic is all they need, and that burst fire and full-automatic are mostly just good for wasting ammo in a service rifle and Squad Support weapons fill the need for Full-Automatic suppression fire needs. If the military chooses to drop selective fire as a requirement, then a soldier might be better served by larger caliber weapons say 7.62mm NATO for example. Since 7.62mm NATO has greater range than 5.56mm rifles, these rifles will be larger, heavier, and naturally have smaller magazines, 20rd or even 10rd are easy choices. The farther the next "weapon of war" swings toward larger calibers like the M1 rifle was 30.06, the smaller their magazine size, and the more they will look like and have in common with so many more of the typical rifles of today that are not Ar15 style weapons.

What I am trying to point out and help you understand is that every weapon is a weapon of war in the same manner that, when it comes to individual rifles, no weapons of war exist. It's a false concept that some people just still can't get into their heads. The AR15 style of rifle is exceedingly popular for many many reasons. You might think it's the best weapon for war, but it's not. Certainly not if you don't take into consideration logistics and costs, and training because these are the factors that make it so attractive to the US Military, and because we have a few million of them in service and replacing them is pretty expensive and for that money you have to ask yourself what are you going to get that is so much better.

Why do you think it hasn't really changed much in over 40 years?

That is all great and all that, but most won't care. No one ever seems to mention why the mass murders by lone individuals hasn't stopped in Australia since the heavy firearms restrictions were introduced. And they're still reaching double digit numbers. I prefer to hit them with that angle, because to someone who doesn't know anything about guns cartridge size or "full-automatic" just doesn't register. They really have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyhow, two minor points. The Army actually uses the M4A1 as standard issue now; they did this a few years back. The main reason for this was the poor trigger of the burst FCG. The Marines used to issue the M16A4, but swapped it out for the M4 about two years back. Sounds like the plan is to make the M27 standard issue. And the Army isn't replacing the M4 because they're looking for new technology. Case telescoped is something they're heavily looking into. I do respect their stance. The AR series is essentially just as good as other modern rifles, and switching to a new one won't provide any notable advantage. May as well save money and wait for ground breaking technology to come along.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Damn....are you wearing your white sheet as you type? 90%+ of mass school shooters are white. The common theme is the availability of guns. I love that you ignore that.

90% of all mass school shooters are white? School shootings have been happening since there were schools and guns. But for a long time the only people going to our schools were White. People of color didn't start going to schools in the US until the White folks had a long head start in the school shootings race. You want to talk about the availability of guns, "No Shit", hard to have a school shooting without a gun or two. But in all honesty read this listing and look at the descriptions and tell me guns have not always been available in this country.

So here is a full list of school shootings for the USA;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

You can each read it for yourself, but I do want to highlight a few things;

The first one is an honorable mention as only the teach was shot, all the children were killed "with meleee weapons".
Enoch Brown school massacre during the Pontiac's War. Four Delaware (Lenape) American Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and nine children (reports vary).

So I was going through this list and it's really long but what becomes clear is that there have been mass school shootings for as long as there have been guns and children were being killed in schools even before that. There have been at least 71 mass shootings,(2 or more killed), since Colt started selling the semi-automatic Colt AR-15 in 1964. AR15 style rifles have only been used in 3 or 4 of them. Here below are the big ones;

I have highlighted the ones in which a "military style rifle was used.
I've put these in order of number killed, then number wounded;

April 16, 2007 Blacksburg, Virginia 33 Dead, 23 Wounded Virginia Tech shooting February 14, 2008
December 14, 2012 Newtown, Connecticut 28 Dead, 2 Wounded Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting October 1, 2015
August 1, 1966 Austin, Texas 17 Dead, 31 Wounded University of Texas massacre
February 14, 2018 Parkland, Florida 17 Dead, 14 Wounded Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

April 20, 1999 Littleton, Colorado 15 Dead, 21 Wounded Columbine High School massacre
Roseburg, Oregon 10 Dead, 9 Wounded Umpqua Community College shooting
March 21, 2005 Red Lake, Minnesota 10 Dead, 7 Wounded Red Lake shootings

January 17, 1989 Stockton, California 6 Dead, 32 Wounded Stockton schoolyard shooting
DeKalb, Illinois 6 Dead, 21 Wounded Northern Illinois University shooting

March 24, 1998 Craighead County, Arkansas 5 Dead, 10 Wounded Westside Middle School shootings:
May 21, 1998 Springfield, Oregon 4 Dead, 23 Wounded Thurston High School shooting


If someone must have their gun control, let's just skip to England's Gun Control solution because it's been so effective.

England has their own issues;
The nearest equivalent in the United Kingdom was the mass killing by Thomas Hamilton of 16 children and a teacher at Dunblane Primary School, in 1996. However, the killer in that case was motivated by personal grievance rather than politics.
The Dunblane school massacre took place at Dunblane Primary School near Stirling, Stirlingshire, Scotland, on 13 March 1996, when a gunman killed 16 children and one teacher before killing himself. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in British history.

After entering, he made his way to the gymnasium armed with four legally-held handguns—two 9mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers.

After this, England passed a law to limit handguns to .22 caliber only.

Of course the crazy thing about .22 caliber is, .22 caliber is pretty quiet and you can carry a hell of a lot of .22 ammo and the guns are easier to conceal.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
That is all great and all that, but most won't care. No one ever seems to mention why the mass murders by lone individuals hasn't stopped in Australia since the heavy firearms restrictions were introduced. And they're still reaching double digit numbers. I prefer to hit them with that angle, because to someone who doesn't know anything about guns cartridge size or "full-automatic" just doesn't register. They really have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyhow, two minor points. The Army actually uses the M4A1 as standard issue now; they did this a few years back. The main reason for this was the poor trigger of the burst FCG. The Marines used to issue the M16A4, but swapped it out for the M4 about two years back. Sounds like the plan is to make the M27 standard issue. And the Army isn't replacing the M4 because they're looking for new technology. Case telescoped is something they're heavily looking into. I do respect their stance. The AR series is essentially just as good as other modern rifles, and switching to a new one won't provide any notable advantage. May as well save money and wait for ground breaking technology to come along.

Yes well, it's really more about the ammo then anything. All 5.56mm NATO weapons are going to have very similar ballistic results and the same is true for 7.62x39 and 7.62 NATO, etc. There are a few odd balls out there in the military world but not a lot. The rules are mostly simple. It's like someone's description of what an Assault Weapon(Rifle) actually is, the idea that you take a Rifle cartridge and cut it down so it's weaker and a soldier can manage to fire and control it in full-auto. After several decades of development what we find out is that the most elite troops in the world rarely actually use full-auto and are much more efficient killers most of the time with well aimed semi-auto fire.

"Only noobs Spray and Prey" :D
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
6,000
90% of all mass school shooters are white? School shootings have been happening since there were schools and guns. But for a long time the only people going to our schools were White. People of color didn't start going to schools in the US until the White folks had a long head start in the school shootings race. You want to talk about the availability of guns, "No Shit", hard to have a school shooting without a gun or two. But in all honesty read this listing and look at the descriptions and tell me guns have not always been available in this country.

So here is a full list of school shootings for the USA;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

You can each read it for yourself, but I do want to highlight a few things;

*Snip*


Want even more stats?

Excerpt from New York Times:
Since then(Sandy Hook), there have been at least 239 school shootings nationwide. In those episodes, 438 people were shot, 138 of whom were killed.

School shootings is specifically what most people want to address (because of course, it is undeniably horrible).
Excerpt from The National Center for Education Statistics
In fall 2017, about 50.7 million students will attend public elementary and secondary schools.

Now the NYT article includes college/university shootings, the National Center does not, but lets keep them in because it will skew the numbers in the direction that gun control proponents want.

So assuming that the about 50m students can be used as an annual average, because I can't be bothered to put more work into this for such small numbers, the total number of school shooting victims (including wounded) is approximately .0008639% of the total school population.

Governments have finite energy and money on any given year, a responsible government will utilize those finite resources to maximize impact. This event has occupied the attention of the nation now since the 14th of February, is this responsible?
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Want even more stats?

Excerpt from New York Times:
Since then(Sandy Hook), there have been at least 239 school shootings nationwide. In those episodes, 438 people were shot, 138 of whom were killed.

School shootings is specifically what most people want to address (because of course, it is undeniably horrible).
Excerpt from The National Center for Education Statistics
In fall 2017, about 50.7 million students will attend public elementary and secondary schools.

Now the NYT article includes college/university shootings, the National Center does not, but lets keep them in because it will skew the numbers in the direction that gun control proponents want.

So assuming that the about 50m students can be used as an annual average, because I can't be bothered to put more work into this for such small numbers, the total number of school shooting victims (including wounded) is approximately .0008639% of the total school population.

Governments have finite energy and money on any given year, a responsible government will utilize those finite resources to maximize impact. This event has occupied the attention of the nation now since the 14th of February, is this responsible?


That list I went through, if you read it, you start getting a feeling for the kinds of things that happen. The shootings start taking on patterns or categories if you will.

There is the "Fellow student pissed me off or picked on me so I'm going to kill him" category
There is the "You used to love me so I'm going to kill him and her" category
There is the "You killed someone I love so I am killing you back" category
There is the "I'm a truly disturbed person and I'm going to kill some people because it makes sense to me" category
And the "Professor gave me bad grades so I'm going to kill him and anyone who gets in my way" category
And lastly "The only way anyone will ever notice me is if I kill a whole bunch of people" category

You'll see the same themes over and again. Not really anything new, just more people in school, and a lot more people on drugs, prescribed or otherwise.
 
Top