12 dead in Thousand Oaks, Ca bar

[Petrasylvania]

All the guns. They can have guns. Even here in California which is supposed to be their Auschwitz there are at least four gun shops walking distance from my house. We're so anti-gun we can support four different stores and a shooting range in a few block radius. But they can't have all the guns. Having to wait to buy a gun and verify you're not someone who say, has used a gun before to do shitty things is apparently worse than death and a "compromise" so egregious that they've abdicated their seat at the table. Which, cool. WE'll just make laws without their input. They're gonna whine either way.

And despite that things like this happen. so what's the point of banning scary guns when a hunting shotgun or handgun can work just as well?

Things like ammunition capacity and firing rate tend to affect casualties. The Las Vegas shooting wouldn't have been anywhere near an atrocity with just a handgun or shotgun.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And despite that things like this happen. so what's the point of banning scary guns when a hunting shotgun or handgun can work just as well?

Things like ammunition capacity and firing rate tend to affect casualties. The Las Vegas shooting wouldn't have been anywhere near an atrocity with just a handgun or shotgun.

It probably would have been tbh. While there's no real info on it because of how oddly tight lipped the ATF has been about that case I'm still willing to bet most of the casualties were from being stampeded rather than shot.

[Petrasylvania]

Things like ammunition capacity and firing rate tend to affect casualties. The Las Vegas shooting wouldn't have been anywhere near an atrocity with just a handgun or shotgun.

It probably would have been tbh. While there's no real info on it because of how oddly tight lipped the ATF has been about that case I'm still willing to bet most of the casualties were from being stampeded rather than shot.

The killer shot from a high hotel floor across from the concert. Are you saying he could have killed just as many with a handgun or shotgun?

[Sovaal]

And despite that things like this happen. so what's the point of banning scary guns when a hunting shotgun or handgun can work just as well?

Things like ammunition capacity and firing rate tend to affect casualties. The Las Vegas shooting wouldn't have been anywhere near an atrocity with just a handgun or shotgun.

The kid in Texas kiled ten people witha shotgun and a revolver if I'm not mistaken. Vegas is in a field all of it's own.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It probably would have been tbh. While there's no real info on it because of how oddly tight lipped the ATF has been about that case I'm still willing to bet most of the casualties were from being stampeded rather than shot.

The killer shot from a high hotel floor across the concert. Are you saying he could have killed just as many with a handgun or shotgun?

I'm saying he probably didn't kill all that many people at all and most of the casualties came from people stomping each other to death which can and does happen in such situations.

Of course we'll never know because all the agencies involved with the case have been really quiet about everything about it.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It probably would have been tbh. While there's no real info on it because of how oddly tight lipped the ATF has been about that case I'm still willing to bet most of the casualties were from being stampeded rather than shot.

The killer shot from a high hotel floor across from the concert. Are you saying he could have killed just as many with a handgun or shotgun?

Considering the target rich environment he had, absolutely the possibility exists.

Also, bump stocks by design make you less accurate, just a FYI.

[Telconi]

Yup.

So you don't care about victims of gun violence?

This might be a difficult concept, but it's possible to care about people without punishing innocents to virtue signal that care.

[Petrasylvania]

The killer shot from a high hotel floor across from the concert. Are you saying he could have killed just as many with a handgun or shotgun?

Considering the target rich environment he had, absolutely the possibility exists.

Also, bump stocks by design make you less accurate, just a FYI.

Handguns and shotguns have the range to let someone hit a concert across the street from a high altitude, much less kill a person or several? Seriously sounds bullshit.

[Petrasylvania]

So you don't care about victims of gun violence?

This might be a difficult concept, but it's possible to care about people without punishing innocents to virtue signal that care.

But it's fine to virtue signal that firearms are more valuable than human lives.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Considering the target rich environment he had, absolutely the possibility exists.

Also, bump stocks by design make you less accurate, just a FYI.

Handguns and shotguns have the range to let someone hit a concert across the street from a high altitude, much less kill a person or several? Seriously sounds bullshit.

Firing slugs from a revolving, semi or repeating shotgun would make that very doable.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Handguns and shotguns have the range to let someone hit a concert across the street from a high altitude, much less kill a person or several? Seriously sounds bullshit.

Firing slugs from a revolving, semi or repeating shotgun would make that very doable.

Don't even have to go that far, all the shooter had to do was just change the avenue of attack.

This might be a difficult concept, but it's possible to care about people without punishing innocents to virtue signal that care.

But it's fine to virtue signal that firearms are more valuable than human lives.

Straw, straw everywhere.

[Telconi]

This might be a difficult concept, but it's possible to care about people without punishing innocents to virtue signal that care.

But it's fine to virtue signal that firearms are more valuable than human lives.

Of course not.

[Petrasylvania]

But it's fine to virtue signal that firearms are more valuable than human lives.

Of course not.

Yet you did it anyways. :^]

Yes because the real victims of mass shootings arn't the people who lost their lives but rather right wing gun fetishists being annoyed that people are debating gun control.

Yup.

[Telconi]

Of course not.

Yet you did it anyways. :^]

Yup.

I didn't tho, but don't let pesky facts tear your painstakingly crafted straw man down.

[Len Hyet]

It probably would have been tbh. While there's no real info on it because of how oddly tight lipped the ATF has been about that case I'm still willing to bet most of the casualties were from being stampeded rather than shot.

The killer shot from a high hotel floor across from the concert. Are you saying he could have killed just as many with a handgun or shotgun?

I feel like now is the time to mention that the Las Vegas dickwad was wildly rich and owned his own plane, and that if he'd loaded said plane up with say... a bunch of gasoline or fertilizer and rammed it into the concert at terminal velocity he could've killed hundreds.

But hey lets go ahead and do the thing that we already tried but didn't work before, because repeating the same action and expecting a different result is historically the definition of sanity.

[Petrasylvania]

Yet you did it anyways. :^]

I didn't tho, but don't let pesky facts tear your painstakingly crafted straw man down.

At least put some effort into the gaslighting, so lazy.

[Telconi]

I didn't tho, but don't let pesky facts tear your painstakingly crafted straw man down.

At least put some effort into the gaslighting, so lazy.

Gauth: *lies*

Tel: That's a lie

Gauth Stop gaslighting!

[Costa Fierro]

Things like ammunition capacity and firing rate tend to affect casualties. The Las Vegas shooting wouldn't have been anywhere near an atrocity with just a handgun or shotgun.

Having a large crowd in a confined space also makes it much easier to hit and kill people. You don't have to be especially accurate, just manage to get a lot of rounds into the crowd.

Of course not.

The one thing I don't understand is that why any regulation is seen as an affront to the very existence of gun owners.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Of course not.

The one thing I don't understand is that why any regulation is seen as an affront to the very existence of gun owners.

Because there's already a LOT of regulations between the state and federal level and we're smart enough to realize that our "compromises" have been consistently one sided and that we've never gotten much of anything from them.

[Kernen]

Things like ammunition capacity and firing rate tend to affect casualties. The Las Vegas shooting wouldn't have been anywhere near an atrocity with just a handgun or shotgun.

Having a large crowd in a confined space also makes it much easier to hit and kill people. You don't have to be especially accurate, just manage to get a lot of rounds into the crowd.

Of course not.

The one thing I don't understand is that why any regulation is seen as an affront to the very existence of gun owners.

Because lawful owners aren't interested in having their rights curtailed when they did nothing wrong.

[Scomagia]

And despite that things like this happen. so what's the point of banning scary guns when a hunting shotgun or handgun can work just as well?

Things like ammunition capacity and firing rate tend to affect casualties. The Las Vegas shooting wouldn't have been anywhere near an atrocity with just a handgun or shotgun.

Why should normal people face restrictions because an incredibly tiny minority of people are evil and kill others?

[Costa Fierro]

Because there's already a LOT of regulations between the state and federal level and we're smart enough to realize that our "compromises" have been consistently one sided and that we've never gotten much of anything from them.

Because lawful owners aren't interested in having their rights curtailed when they did nothing wrong.

Are the rights of lawful owners being curtailed?

[Telconi]

Because there's already a LOT of regulations between the state and federal level and we're smart enough to realize that our "compromises" have been consistently one sided and that we've never gotten much of anything from them.

Because lawful owners aren't interested in having their rights curtailed when they did nothing wrong.

Are the rights of lawful owners being curtailed?

Unless you think every Californian with a wrist is a criminal, yes.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Because there's already a LOT of regulations between the state and federal level and we're smart enough to realize that our "compromises" have been consistently one sided and that we've never gotten much of anything from them.

Because lawful owners aren't interested in having their rights curtailed when they did nothing wrong.

Are the rights of lawful owners being curtailed?

Without question and have been for decades now.

[Len Hyet]

Because there's already a LOT of regulations between the state and federal level and we're smart enough to realize that our "compromises" have been consistently one sided and that we've never gotten much of anything from them.

Because lawful owners aren't interested in having their rights curtailed when they did nothing wrong.

Are the rights of lawful owners being curtailed?

Alright, you're asking good faith questions, I'll give you a good faith effortpost.

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, yes, but here's why. Most of the proposed legislation (and I mean the stuff currently in Congress) is a restriction on the rights of law abiding gun owners. The most common piece of legislation that the DNC likes to introduce with regards to gun control is something called an Assault Weapons Ban, or an AWB for short. Leaving aside for a moment the (largely but not entirely) semantic argument about the term assault weapon, this bill in its most recent forms would outright ban almost every single semi-automatic rifle currently on the market, with a few exceptions. Those exceptions prove why the bill is stupid, but that wasn't your question.

Your question was "are the rights of lawful owners being curtailed". Not being allowed to buy, sell, or own, a product is a curtailment of rights. Period end of. And yes, I realize that is an incredibly open-ended statement that could apply to anything from black-tar heroin to nuclear warheads. The key is balancing a pressing government interest with the rights of the people. Pressing governmental interest: preventing nuclear proliferation. That checks. Pressing governmental interest: preventing the societal decay that is the result of hard drug use. That checks.

So the question is balancing rights versus securities. In my opinion the right at stake (keeping and bearing arms) outweighs the probable benefits (of which there are few). Now, the people supporting an AWB say it will reduce mass shootings. What they do not say is back in 1994 the Clinton administration already tried passing an AWB for similar reasons. It didn't work.There was a study performed in 2004 on the AWB, and one of its conclusions was it:

“failed to produce evidence of a post-ban reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the proportion of cases involving multiple wounds.”

and

"Although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with AWs [Assault Weapons], any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics with LCMs [large-capacity magazines], which are used in crime much more frequently than AWs. Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AWs and LCMs."

The authors caution that it is possible that had the AWB not expired in 2004 it:

may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.