Steve0
Player Valuation: £35m
Erm that's precisely what he's saying lol lol
He's dismissing their right to comment on the issue. He hasn't even done in a subtle way, I'm not sure why you're not getting it.
Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread
- Status
Erm that's precisely what he's saying lol lol
He's dismissing their right to comment on the issue. He hasn't even done in a subtle way, I'm not sure why you're not getting it.
Probably a fair argument. I think the scenario is being exploited by the media for the media's political (and ratings) purposes, but I think characterizing these teens as fragile children being pushed to advocacy is unrealistic.
I’m presuming the veteran is suggesting that they rarely used the fully automatic mode, either in drills or in actual combat situations, and that the modes they did use it in most frequently the AR-15 is the same.
But I’m neither a veteran or a gun enthusiast so could well have it wrong, just found it interesting that there seems to be significant disagreement from your statement that the AR-15 isn’t a weapon of war.
“Weapons of war” is probably a term to get away from the “assault weapons/rifles” morass that a lot of these discussions end up in - I think one area we can both agree on is that in any legislation what weaponry is and isn’t covered needs to be precisely defined.
I'm not going to equate the right to comment with the standing/authority/expertise to influence. I welcome their comments. I reject the "heed their warning" and "we must listen to the wisdom of babes" tropes by the media outlets they're speaking to. I read Shapiro to be saying the same thing.
Steve0
Player Valuation: £35m
Another thing, if anyone other than the survivors call for greater gun control after one of these shootings the right uses the shaming tactic by lambasting them for 'politicising the issue'.
It's crude but remarkably effective.
I never said you were wrong.
The article states it as "weapons of war". I would bet my house they mean a weapon that can kill many at once. As in its design is ultimate effectiveness in battle.
The US military was not mentioned nor can we say it was considered as an example of what they use and have as stock etc...
That court decided that it is a weapon of war based on its design and use as a weapon was enough for them to consider it a weapon of war. Sure it wouldn't take them long to google the companies that make them and what their adverts and taglines say. They never mention whether the auto/semi auto feature was considered.
Either way there is enough proof and evidence to suggest that to the court they are right in labeling it a "weapon of war"
Now, obviously, i do agree that they should define what they mean by "weapons of war", a little better. To me that is an absolute must. Breaking it down into categories and defining what each weapon is etc...
But it seems they are saying anything that could be used by military is a weapon of war. Which this weapon could be, even in the semi auto state. Pretty sure the kids using them to kill other kids in mass have now proved.
It's a theoretical discussion and I think we're on the same page. A lot of AR-15s are certainly capable of being weapons of war, in my opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of technical caveats here, including build tolerances of issued rifles vs 500 dollar store bought rifles and the like. But yes, an AR-15 could be effective even without selective fire, definitely. But even if I say it's "essentially the same" as the M16 or M4 (I'm not saying that, although they are closely related platforms), I don't think that eliminates issue with the terminology.
The M24 is a sniper rifle, which is a military version of the Remington 700, a popular deer rifle. "Weapon of war" is going to be problematic as some sort of bright line rule. On one hand, it might be useful for gun control proponents, as it's broad enough to include plenty of firearms not currently subject to that group's ire. But I think it'll be legally suspect.
It's both effective and true, and done by both sides. And, in theory, there is nothing wrong with it. Wasn't it Obama (I may be getting that wrong) who indicated we should politicize the issue after shootings?
That may well be, but if so, all the other weapons I listed fall into that category as well. Which is going to be deemed overbroad by other courts, most likely, and which will probably not help on the legislative front.
I don't disagree with this.
Like i said they will have to sit down and consider all of their options and all of the guns used by joe public and ultimately decide categories and what should be acceptable and what shouldn't
That is the only fair way of doing it without lumping everything in "weapon of war"
As most people don't consider sidearms weapons of war so i'm not sure they thought about using that phrase would make people believe they meant all weapons used by the military.
They're on the move in Boston too.
Has the superintendent actually met any teenagers? This sort of letter seems pretty counterproductive to me but guess we’ll see.
- Status