SE Cupp doesn't know what "rapid-fire" or Military grade weapons" means

[TeamPooka]

on MSNBC right now.
She wants to haggle over definitions and context?
What a dumbass neocon.

[annabanana]

1. please

"those are just words that liberals use to scare people with"

repulsive
reptilian

[bluedigger]

2. It's just like watching a DU gun thread.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. LOL. True! n/t

[99Forever]

50. I had the same reaction.

Say ANYTHING to avoid the real issue.

(should any of the Delicate Flowers be wondering what the real issue is, see my tag line.)

[49jim]

3. I just saw that....

she is trying to confuse everyone.

[OneGrassRoot]

4. She annoys the living shit out of me...

arrogant and condescending, always deflecting.

Talked about "assault" and "rapid-fire" being terms to scare people and are "shiny objects" but have no validity.

She wouldn't clarify though, preferring deflect and take it up with Howard (Fineman) later.

Ugh.

[Recursion]

7. "assault weapon" is quite literally a phrase that was invented to scare people

I think DLC chair Al From came up with it

[OneGrassRoot]

11. It's also redundant, right?

Weapons were created to assault, something or someone.

She included "military-grade" descriptions as being irrelevant and not accurate.

It's not a matter of having a rational discussion by using proper terminology, though it would be nice if we could all get on the same page about terminology.

People like her, and most of the gun enthusiasts I encounter are using that argument to deflect and stop discussion, not engage it.

As the others on the panel said in response, "We're talking about the weapons used in Aurora and Columbine and Sandy Hook."

[Recursion]

14. Aurora and Columbine were plain old shotguns; VA Tech was plain old handguns

Now, the Aurora guy did bring a military-looking rifle with a 100 round drum, which jammed almost immediately so he switched to the shotgun.

And the Columbine kids had modified the shotgun in an illegal way by sawing the end of the barrel off.

People like her, and most of the gun enthusiasts I encounter are using that argument to deflect and stop discussion, not engage it.

Give me the benefit of the doubt here, please. People throw around all kinds of terms all the time with little consistency and I'd like to know what people are trying to actually say.

[OneGrassRoot]

16. I wasn't including you in that description, Recursion...

when I said People like her, and most of the gun enthusiasts I encounter are using that argument to deflect and stop discussion, not engage it. I was referring to her (or my distinct impression of her, not only a few minutes ago but other times I've seen her), and others I've interacted with, family and friends, who are gun enthusiasts.

Just sayin'.

Hopefully someone will show the clip which prompted this OP. I may be wrong about the reply including Columbine.

Essentially, the ability to kill 100 people in a matter of a few minutes due to whatever -- be it the type of weapon, magazine clips, etc. -- is what most of us are referring to.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but the term "weapons of mass destruction" is correct; we don't need such weapons so readily available to all citizens, in my opinion. Criminals can always find means of committing atrocities and mass destruction, but there doesn't seem to be a really valid reason for people having such weapons which can kill many in a few minutes.

Is there a good reason? No one has ever answered that question that I have found.

Most people simply want them because they can have them, it seems.

[Recursion]

20. Here's where I get accused of "deflection", but...

Essentially, the ability to kill 100 people in a matter of a few minutes due to whatever -- be it the type of weapon, magazine clips, etc. -- is what most of us are referring to.

I get that. What a lot of us on the "gun" side of things are trying to point out (some with very little tact, certainly) is that if what you want to get rid of is the ability to kill 100 people in a few minutes, then your problem is really with "guns" period, not this or that kind of gun. (I mean, probably not muzzleloaders, but anything manufactured since, say, 1870). For that matter, my problem is with guns (I don't like them, and wish they didn't exist, but they do), I just don't see of a practical way to actually remove the physical capability to kill a large number of people in a relatively short amount of time.

Lanza killed roughly one person per minute at Sandy Hook. I don't know of any way to technically make any gun slower than that (even a muzzleloader fires faster than that).

[OneGrassRoot]

28. Thank you...

Well, maybe it's more like weapons from 1970 rather than 1870?

Because, really, when I was growing up we were familiar with people having a handgun for protection, and, if hunters, a regular old rifle.

It took time to reload. The ability to kill so effortlessly over a matter of minutes wasn't possible.

I remember in the 80's people started buying Uzi's. To me, a lay person, that's a machine gun.

Rapid fire.

The fact that gun manufacturers have made it so this terminology issue is a hurdle doesn't surprise me. Nor is it surprising that they've essentially turned all guns into weapons of mass destruction.

I don't know enough to have a detailed conversation about weapons. Nor do I really care to, to be honest.

I respect the right of someone to have a handgun for protection (there are many abused women in this category).

I respect the right of someone to have a rifle to hunt, even though in my perfect world hunting wouldn't exist (I said perfect world...not gonna happen, I know).

But the weapons we see purchased so easily at gun shows are in a different league altogether.

I don't care what they're called. The average citizen doesn't need them, even if they have gotten accustomed to such new toys.

And the lax nature of private citizens and their weapons needs to be addressed in general. More responsibility should go along with owning such potentially dangerous things, similar to regulations on owning a vehicle.

That's my opinion.

[Recursion]

30. I'm not sure you're right about that.

Because, really, when I was growing up we were familiar with people having a handgun for protection, and, if hunters, a regular old rifle.

I don't think "regular old rifles" are as slow as you might think they are, though. Most "regular rifles" (even old ones) are semi-automatic and don't fire any slower than a Bushmaster. When you saw people using hunting rifles, they were generally being very careful and taking time to reload, but there's nothing about the gun that requires that. And even bolt-action or lever-action rifles aren't terribly much slower (though they usually have fixed magazines, and magazines in general are something I think we could productively work at).

I remember in the 80's people started buying Uzi's. To me, a lay person, that's a machine gun.

And there's the rub. What they were buying were pistols that looked like Uzi's. I think it's stupid too. But they weren't machine guns; those have been illegal (for all practical purposes) since the 1930's and very few people are rich enough to afford them.

I don't know why people liked the pistols that looked like Uzi's (I think they're hideous, and they are hard to aim), but people did, and it was pretty much the first time I at least was aware of a big gun control movement to ban specific types of guns. Even though they weren't any different from the handgun a cop carries.

But the weapons we see purchased so easily at gun shows are in a different league altogether.

What about them makes them a different league altogether? What are the differences between the guns you're talking about and the guns you find acceptable for civilians to own?

[OneGrassRoot]

34. Let me ask you a question instead...

What has changed about the technical parameters and capabilities of weapons commonly (and legally) available in the United States in the last several decades? Anything?

Have the gun manufacturers improved their most popular products' ability to fire faster, and to have to reload less often?

[Recursion]

35. Very little has changed since about World War One

Really, there hasn't been that much technical progress in firearms since then. The weapons you can buy today on the inside look like the weapons you could buy at the start of the 20th century; they look different on the outside because just like any other industry they have to change appearances so people will buy new ones (if maintained well, a gun will last essentially forever; that's bad news if your job is selling them).

I guess one big thing is that guns have been getting lighter since the 1950's as polymers and plastics came into wider use. In general the size of the bullet (the "caliber&quot has been getting smaller but that seems to just be a matter of shooters' tastes rather than any technical development (the standard Bushmaster fires what is basically the smallest kind of bullet that a normal gun will fire).

Another important change has been that grip design has been made more ergonomic; that's the very noticeable pistol-style grip on a Bushmaster that a hunting rifle lacks -- however, that's also a very good safety feature because it makes drops less likely and improves control, so it's curious to me that Feinstein's proposed ban makes it illegal.

There do seem to be fads about what kind of weapons idiots like to buy. Like you mentioned, in the 1980s it was those pistols that looked like Uzi's. In the 1990s it was the rifles that looked like AK-47's. Nowadays it's the ones that look like M-16's. But inside they're the same handguns and rifles that people have owned for about 100 years. The one that looks like the M-16 is called the AR-15; people like it because it's mod-able; you can put all kinds of stuff like a flashlight or different kinds of scope or whatever on it. It's silly "play Army" stuff, but it's not more capable of killing people than your generic hunting rifle (actually, it's somewhat less capable because it's smaller caliber than your standard hunting rifle).

As a final thought, the rate of gun homicides is currently lower than it has been since the 1960's. I'd like to figure out why that is (I lean towards lead abatement, but the jury is still way out on this).

[metalbot]

115. I have a theory on the drop in violence

Though it isn't one that would likely be popular here: the war on drugs.

By aggressively pursuing drug law violators, we are locking up more of the violent people who would otherwise not get arrested until they are caught doing something more overtly violent. If you can bust someone who robs liquor stores by catching them with a rock of crack cocaine, you can send them to prison for something easy to prove (you had that rock in your pocket) as opposed to catching them doing something harder to prove (that was you in the mask that robbed the store).

That being said, there are plenty of non-violent people as well who are caught in the net of the "war on drugs", and as you pursue the war on drugs you also create an underworld that drives violence.

(also, very nicely written response to the what has changed question)

[DakotaLady]

17. Loved this ...

... OneGrassRoot that you included --- As the others on the panel said in response, "We're talking about the weapons used in Aurora and Columbine and Sandy Hook."

My neighbors probably heard me yell a loud "way to go"!

[Recursion]

27. OK, but except for Sandy Hook those were "normal" weapons

Handguns and shotguns. Sandy Hook was a military-looking rifle that had its bayonet lug removed so as to not meet the legal definition of an "assault weapon". Aurora was a shotgun (the military-looking rifle with the huge drum jammed almost immediately -- drums tend to do that) and columbine was shotguns and handguns. VA Tech was handguns.

[TeamPooka]

19. by definition assault weapons are the type used by armed forces....

in an "assault" on enemy soldiers, positions or territory.
Hand held machine guns, automatic rifles and sub-machine guns are weapons originally manufactured for this purpose:
To arm a nation's soldiers for combat in wartime.

Every word and term has a real definition and meaning....except to those who need to use a 'semantic argument' to defend something that without said argument they are unable to defend.

[Recursion]

22. Hm ok. Those have been banned since the 1930s

I think something like 4 people have been killed by that kind of weapon in the US in the past 50 years.

[JohnnyBoots]

31. I wish more people were aware of this.

Too many seem to think that AR style rifles are what they see in the movies.

[Paladin]

48. Just Goes To Show That Gun Control Works.

And if you're talking about fully automatic firearms, they haven't been fully banned---you can still get one if you expend a shit-load of money, pass background checks, and fill out a bunch of paperwork---all guaranteed to get your name placed on every geek list that the government maintains.

[Recursion]

49. Yup. The NFA has been very effective

I wish we'd talk about operating under that rubric, rather than the pointless AWB.

(Well, the NFA hasn't been nearly as effective with sawed-off shotguns as it has with machineguns... that should probably tell us something too.)

[TeamPooka]

68. A Bushmaster AR 15 is an automatic rifle so you are wrong.

[Recursion]

72. No, it's not

It is not an automatic rifle. The one Lanza used isn't even an assault weapon, which is why it was legal under CT's ban.

[HooptieWagon]

77. No, its not.

During initial development in the fifties, the AR15 was an automatic weapon. Upon going into production for the military, it was renamed the M16. The manufacturer then reused the AR15 designation for a semiautomatic version available to the public. While an AR15 can be converted to automatic fire, the parts to do so are as tightly regulated as an actual automatic weapon. Plus, it takes a high level of machining and gunsmithing skills. The AR15s used in recent shootings fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled...just like a semiautomatic hunting rifle or handgun.

[jeff47]

21. It was invented by the Nazis.

No really, it was. For this gun.

Hitler wanted traditional long-range automatic rifles. But some folks in his arms industry realized what modern gun designers did - infantry doesn't fight thousands of yards from each other.

Enter the Sturmgewehr. They made it without permission, but it worked so damn well that it was later accepted.

And we can say that Hitler named it, without invoking Goodwin:

The name was chosen personally by Adolf Hitler for propaganda reasons and literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault&quot an enemy position". After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation "assault rifle" became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm.

[Recursion]

26. Yes, the phrase "assault weapon" was coined to make people think of assault rifles

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

That conflation you're making was the intent.

[The Magistrate]

23. Actually, Sir, It Was There From the Start

The grandpa of the breed, from which all the rest are descended, the Sturmgewehr 44 --- literal translation, from German and jargon, being 'assault rifle, model (year) 1944'.

[Recursion]

25. I said "assault weapon" not "assault rifle"

Assault rifles are tightly controlled, and have been for almost 80 years.

Having looked it up, the phrase seems to have been coined in 1988 by Josh Sugarmann.

[The Magistrate]

32. That, Sir, May Be the Silliest Quibble Seen Yet From 'Team NRA' And Associates

Thank you for presenting yourself as such an entertaining spectacle and volunteer object for mockery; we can all use a laugh, and you have just provided many with one....

[Recursion]

33. Do you honestly not know that there's a huge difference between the two?

Really?

I suppose it's not that surprising; the phrase "assault weapon" was pretty deliberately chosen so that people would think we were talking about assault rifles like the military uses, along with the fact that the most infamous models look like rifles that the military uses.

[The Magistrate]

37. Do You Honestly Have Such An Inflated View Of Yourself, Sir, As That?

What began all this was the usual practice of marketing ex-military rifles as hunting arms; no problem with Springfields and Garands and the like, but once standard infantry arms went fully automatic, there was a problem. Those sold to civilian trade were de-natured, by removing a bit which enabled full automatic fire. Leaving aside that it is not particularly difficult to 'fix' this, and other tweaks, the potential remains that semi-automatic fire, combined with magazine capacities in excess of the five to eight typical of bolt action military rifles, and the Garand, can produce results very different from those of an old military arm turned deer rifle, and well in excess of what is needed in hunting.

It is true enough that 'assault weapon bans' are in some degree cosmetic measures, and political chips, since the great bulk of criminal shooting is done with pistols. Laws ought to aim at curbing trade and transfer, making it a frightening thing to serve as a straw buyer or to engage in underworld traffick in fire-arms, even in informal trafficking, and at tracking and tracing fire-arms in circulation. It is exactly such measures that in fact the NRA and gun lobby work hardest against. People who propose 'assault weapon bans' seem to hope that if something can be passed, it may be possible to move on to more substantial and beneficial enforcement measures.

But the kind of semantic swill you have tried above is exactly as I have described it; laughable, and deserving of mockery. As others have pointed out, it is simply a diversionary tactic aimed a derailing discussion. Best to leave it go, if you want to be taken seriously. I have seen some of your other comments, and by and large you seem a reasonable enough fellow --- don't fuck it up.

[Recursion]

39. You are factually mistaken about converting a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic rifle

Those sold to civilian trade were de-natured, by removing a bit which enabled full automatic fire. Leaving aside that it is not particularly difficult to 'fix' this

With respect, sir, neither of those statements are accurate. A semi-automatic has a completely different mechanism inside from an assault rifle: even in semi-automatic mode an assault rifle uses a different firing mechanism than one only capable of semi-auto.

There were some weapons that fired from an open bolt, which could be converted to full-auto (sort of) by filing down the serre ("sear" seems to have taken over as the popular spelling, but I prefer the old way). These were banned in the 1980s, rather effectively (they tended to be crappy guns in the first place).

I'd add that I don't think I've done anything to deserve your tone, and I've only seen you be very respectful to people you disagree with over the years, so that's disappointing.

It is true enough that 'assault weapon bans' are in some degree cosmetic measures, and political chips, since the great bulk of criminal shooting is done with pistols. Laws ought to aim at curbing trade and transfer, making it a frightening to serve as a straw buyer or to engage in underworld traffick in fire-arms, even in informal trafficking, and at tracking and tracing fire-arms in circulation.

Absolutely agreed.

People who propose 'assault weapon bans' seem to hope that if something can be passed, it may be possible to move on to more substantial and beneficial enforcement measures.

And people who oppose them (or at least "me&quot think that burning political capital on what a legal firearm can look like is worse than doing nothing, because it means we won't have the capital to pass actual effective restrictions on guns.

[The Magistrate]

43. The Eighties, Sir, Was About the Time I Stopped Paying Much Attention To Weaponry

If the newer ones employ a different mechanism, I appreciate being informed of it.

I did a lot of shooting when I was young, which was well before the eighties, too....

[Recursion]

46. The gas ports are in different locations and the gas follows a different path

The semi-auto-only AR-15 doesn't need as complex a gas mechanism as one capable of automatic fire, so it skips IIRC two turnbacks in the piping (with the caveat that I haven't taken apart an M-16 since I left the military; I just remember the armorer describing the difference to us in class).

That gas mechanism is why conversion is so difficult; you would need the machine shop capabilities that would allow you to make an automatic rifle in the first place to convert it, and you have to replace basically all of the upper receiver.

[spanone]

76. sir, you are wasting your time.

this is tragic comedy.

i applaud your efforts but i fear they are wasted on this soul.

[Recursion]

78. I do listen, and it's not a waste to talk to me

If you'll notice I've been calling for common ground here

[TeamPooka]

69. Semantics: the last refuge of a weak argument

[Recursion]

74. Have you seen the threads about the word "entitlement"

People who don't know what "automatic" or "assault weapon" mean aren't much different from people who misuse "entitlement" to mean "handout", and should be corrected as well.

Theses aren't piddling trifles; these are fundamental to past and proposed legislation.

[jmg257]

94. After being used by the people at Gun Digest, in 1986

Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons
Publication Date: 1986
Binding: Paperback


http://www.abebooks.com/9780910676960/Gun-Digest-Book-Assault-Weapons-0910676968/plp

From browsing that book on Amazon, the term was initially MUCH more broad, included just about any military weapon.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Recursion]

5. Was her point that those are ambiguous phrases?

Because, generally, I'm not usually sure what someone means when they say either of those.

[annabanana]

8. ambiguous how

exactly

[Recursion]

10. Well, what does "rapid fire" mean?

Automatic? Semi-automatic? Single action? People use it to mean different things in different contexts.

What does "military grade" mean? Used by a military? Pretty much every gun has been used by a military or is based on one that was; it's militaries that pay to develop guns.

[1-Old-Man]

15. They are utterly meaningless terms

[TeamPooka]

9. then I'm not sending you to the store with a shopping list without supervision.

You might buy 'military grade' supplies and not know it.

[JoePhilly]

38. So you create a measurement system that qualitfies it.

In many places, the laws which govern hunting describe exactly what kind of weapons and ammo you can use.

The quantify things like RANGE of fire.

The same basic approach can be used here to help those who are easily confused with such ambiguous terms, by simply quantifying them.

You can quantify the amount of damage a weapon does at specific distances when hitting certain objects, like people.

You can quantify the average number of fragments that a bullet will break into (thus causing more damage).

Those who pretend to not have an idea what these terms mean tend to be intentionally trying to keep the situation as murky as possible so as to stifle all discussion, and progress forward.

That's what the idiot Sippy Cupp was doing today.

She basically said "But how can we ever possibly come to know what a term like 'rapid fire' means, its just so confusing?" ... winky winky.

[Recursion]

40. I *love* that idea

I wish somebody would *do* that and actually come up with an objective classification system of firearms based on their capabilities.

Those who pretend to not have an idea what these terms mean tend to be intentionally trying to keep the situation as murky as possible so as to stifle all discussion, and progress forward.

OK, but look at the last time we tried this: we wound up banning rifles based on whether or not they had bayonet lugs. I have no idea whether SE McIdiotCupp was playing dumb or not; I do know that in general I literally have no idea what many gun control activists think they mean when they call for certain restrictions, because in the nature of things these are for the most part not people who are very familiar with guns.

Look at this from the perspective of someone who is very familiar with guns: you have two guns that operate exactly the same and look different. Large numbers of people call for one to be banned but not the other. Can you at least grant the possibility that this fact is actually confusing to some of us?

[JoePhilly]

45. I grant you you last point ... however ... I'd suggest that what happens is ...

Folks like Sippy (she was playing dumb, I watched it) ... work very hard to make the laws as ambiguous as possible from the start. The goal is to ensure that even if a law passes, you can't enforce it, or its so full of holes, everything can slip through.

Personally, I think military and police fire arms experts could develop the base metrics on this topic.

You combine this approach with a graded licensing system in which I can have any weapon I want, but I have to demonstrate profeciency with that weapon. And the kills I need to demonstrate get harder and harder to achieve.

In addition to helping to ensure that only those who are proficient with a weapon can get it, it should also create more hopes thorugh which a crazy person is more likely to expose themselves.

I believe this is all doable.

[Recursion]

47. I would love to see licensure adopted

I think that's probably the best path forward, and well within the bounds of a "well regulated militia", particularly if there are objective requirements rather than the whim of your local law enforcement officer (which runs the risk of turning into "you aren't WASPy enough&quot .

This is why talking about this or that irrelevant feature bothers me: it ignites the whole discussion and drowns out sensible ideas like yours.

[OneGrassRoot]

61. Thank you, JoePhilly and Recursion...

I greatly appreciate your interaction here. I learned a lot in the last few hours due to this thread.

(Recursion, thanks also for the reply above to my question.)

[Recursion]

64. After only a few million flaming threads

I like finding common ground.

[OneGrassRoot]

65. Indeed.

[JaneyVee]

6. The difference? Semantics. In Aurora for example, James Holmes shot 30 rounds in 26 seconds.

Zero time to react to that sort of carnage.

[Hangingon]

12. I have not followed Aurora in detail.

How do we know the number of rounds and the time. Real question - no snark

[TeamPooka]

13. There was a police investigation and eyewitnesses.

[billh58]

24. Semantics and gunz gobbledygook

are all the NRA/Gungeon crowd has left. They believe that they can use gun jargon and buzz words in order to dazzle non-gunners with bullshit NRA talking points, and then actually believe that they have "won" an argument based on this feature vomit.

Gungeoneers have always been a sad group of losers, but now they're becoming pathetic.

[JoePhilly]

36. Bingo ... that's exactly what she was doing ... that and playing dumb.

Who could possibly know what "rapid fire" means ... wink wink.

[riverbendviewgal]

29. she is a better fit

For Fox News

[bamacrat]

41. She has all the potential but lacks a rational brain. n/t

[qazplm]

63. physically she looks perfect

and it feels like there is a brain in there somewhere too, unfortunately, I think the connections have corroded.

[bamacrat]

71. True.

I know hot girl, glasses, self proclaimed atheist, can speak full sentences..seems like she would be a liberal.

[Rex]

42. Funny for a propaganda artist to forget her lines.

And then fake dumb...all in a days work for a few million dollars!

[jody]

44. If "definitions & context" don't matter, then intelligent people can't have a productive discussion.

IMO that's exactly why anti-RKBA types are easily frustrated in discussions with pro-RKBA proponents.

If one hopes to write a federal law to control firearms, courts will demand "definitions and context".

[Paladin]

51. Come On, Jody. We're Talking S.E. Cupp, Here.

The terms "intelligent" and "productive" don't enter into it.....

[jody]

54. Paladin I bow to your insight and conclusion. Happy New Year and peace to you and yours.

[Paladin]

55. Same To You, Bud. Best Wishes. (nt)

[JoePhilly]

52. They matter, which is why some work so hard to muddy the water.

Today on MSNBC Sippy Cupp played dumb regarding the definition of the term "rapid fire".

"Its just such a confusing term ... how in the world can we ever come to know what it means??" Gasp Gasp. Throw up hands and shrug.

What we need to do is quantify the terms so little Sippy's head doesn't explode from all the confusion.

What is range and the effective kill distance of a weapon?
At what rate can it kill at a specific distance (how many human targets could it drop)?
What is the damage caused by a particular piece of ammo, fired from a specific weapon, at a specific range?

And so on...

Take quantifiable elements like these and you can construct a model in which weapons and ammo are classified, and then regulated.

You can have any weapon you want, but as the weapon and the ammo's lethality increase, you need to demonstrate greater levels of proficiency with that weapon.

Sippy can't play dumb and pretend that no definitions exist, and the hoops required are tough enough that those with mental issues will find it harder to maneuver through the system and obtain weapons with the higher levels of lethality.

[jody]

57. Understand and then slip into law granting the Attorney General unilateral authority to ban any

firearm she/he decides might be used by the military would almost certainly lead to banning the most widely used firearms such as the Remington 1100.

That was attempted with H.R. 1022 110th CONGRESS http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

[JoePhilly]

58. You should build strawmen for a living ... you're good at it.

The last thing you want is real "definitions and context" ... because once they exist, you can't throw up your hands and claim nothing can be done.

Nowhere in what I proposed is the Attorney General given unilateral control.

But because I proposed something that could be done to create real definitions and provide context, you whine about a bill that I at no time recommended.

Its a transparent tactic you are using.

[jody]

62. You replied to MY #44. I pointed out how a bill like H.R. 1022 could be deviously modified

to the detriment of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

I see nothing transparent, in fact I made my point most clearly.

I haven't read ONE proposal by the gun-creationist community that is supported by facts that has a promise of preventing another Sandy Hook Tragedy or reducing crime.

I have read too many posts by people trying to refill the Augean Stables.

[JoePhilly]

66. Another throw up hands and shrug response. Not a big surprise.

[jody]

67. I have no idea what is your problem. I asserted "44. If 'definitions & context' don't matter, then

intelligent people can't have a productive discussion."

Are you saying only stupid people can solve the problem?

[TeamPooka]

70. Assumption Alert!

[Kolesar]

56. You and recursion just live for the moment to whine about terminology on DU

and again and again and again

[JoePhilly]

59. As long as the terminolgy and its meaning remains muddied, there can be no

progress.

And that's the underlying intent.

[Recursion]

75. I think it's unfair to say that pushing for accurate usage

is muddying, particularly with terms like "automatic" or "assault weapon", which are very much central to proposed legislation.

Yes, DU is currently awash with gun trolls; I'm not blind and I don't like it either. But when an OP is premised on a factual inaccuracy (rather than just incidentally having one) I'm not going to apologize for correcting it, or at least trying to.

[JoePhilly]

79. But did you try to correct it?

Did you propose some tighter definitions? Did you put forward a model for such definitions?

What I tend to see more is not an attempt to "push for accurate usage" but a set of responses that are used to demonstrate that whatever term is being used, its not completely defined, with little effort to improve the definition.

Sippy Cupp's display on MSNBC yesterday was a perfect example. When Howard Fineman used the term "rapid fire", she was happy to demand that he define that term exactly, when he asked her how SHE would define it, she stammered like an idiot, because the last thing she wants is a complete and accurate definition.

I'm having a discussion with some one else in this thread. And what I take away from that discussion is that there is a group of folks who is not only against reasonable gun control legislation, they find any such idea or discussion totally unreasonable from the very start.

They contribute nothing to a reasonable discussion on the topic, and I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that as a result, they should simply be excused from the discussion completely.

[Recursion]

82. There is a group of weapons that are all essentially the same, functionally

These are semi-automatics with detachable magazines. They are capable of firing one bullet per pull of the trigger, and having their magazines quickly swapped out for new magazines.

A sub-class of these weapons were labeled in the 1990's as "assault weapons". Briefly, these are the semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines that "look military", or at least that's what the law tried to target, but it wasn't written very well and things like the Bushmaster slipped through.

On the one hand, I understand the desire to strengthen the assault weapons ban so that the Bushmaster doesn't slip through. On the other hand, I don't see the point of banning one subset of semi-automatic rifles based on how they look, while leaving identically-functioning weapons that look more traditional (in many cases literally different stylings of the same model) alone.

Sippy Cupp's display on MSNBC yesterday was a perfect example. When Howard Fineman used the term "rapid fire", she was happy to demand that he define that term exactly, when he asked her how SHE would define it, she stammered like an idiot, because the last thing she wants is a complete and accurate definition.

OK, but here's the thing: semi-automatics (the only weapons we're really talking about) all fire at the same speed. Really. It's not that I want a line at "rapid fire" at one place and you want it at another, it's that you are simply factually mistaken about there being a line at all: any semi-automatic fires just as quickly as any other. So how would you define rapid fire? Because I would say "all modern guns are rapid fire", or "no modern guns are rapid fire".

[JoePhilly]

83. I'm not only talking about semi-automatic weapons.

And I'm not only talking about the term "rapid fire".

The speed of fire is only one measure.
Range of accurate fire is another.
Kill potential of the weapon's ammo is another.
Clips sizes available for the weapon is another.

And many more could be selected. And this is just the elements associated with classifying the weapons.

Then there would be the kind of license you need for various weapons.

The need to periodically demonstrate proficiency. Think car inspection.

Proof you have an appropriate gun safe for your weapons (like proving you have car insurance when you buy a car).

As I said previously, the set of regulations placed around this area also creates a set of opportunities for the mentally ill, or the dangerous, to be identified and be prevented access.

I'm often surprised how often guns are lost or stolen. The fines for this should be very large, including temporary suspension of the right to own guns.

Lanza selected the weapons and ammo he used from a larger set of weapons because even he knew which weapons and ammo would be best for the type of killing he was planning to do. If he can figure that out, we should be able to as well.

[Recursion]

86. I'm specifically talking about "rapid fire" because you brought that up

She stammered like an idiot when asked to define "rapid fire". Now, this is Sippy Cup, and she is an idiot, so there's that. But I would have trouble defining "rapid fire", for the reasons I listed.

The speed of fire is only one measure.

And, as I mentioned, not a very helpful one since they all have the same speed of fire.

Range of accurate fire is another.
Kill potential of the weapon's ammo is another.
Clips sizes available for the weapon is another.

Those are good ideas. They also lead us the opposite direction gun control has been going. "Military style" weapons are smaller caliber and shorter range than traditional hunting rifles.

Magazine size is going to be difficult. If it accepts a detachable magazine, anyone can make a magazine for it in any size (it's just a box with a spring in it).

Lanza selected the weapons and ammo he used from a larger set of weapons because even he knew which weapons and ammo would be best for the type of killing he was planning to do.

Not really. His mother had a shotgun, which would have been more effective at what he was trying to do.

[JoePhilly]

89. I'm pretty sure he left the shotgun in the car.

And from what I've read about the way he killed them ... each had multiple gun shots, which would be easier with the AR-15 with far less reloading.

The shotgun seems less methodical.

[Recursion]

90. And now that I think of it I don't know what kind of shotgun it was

Some would be "better" (weird term to use, but you get what I'm saying) than an AR-15, some would be worse. Lanza's motivations are, obviously, opaque to me, but just speaking as a combat vet I wouldn't have chosen an AR to do what he did (obviously I wouldn't choose to do what he did in the first place). But then again I have no idea how much he knew about guns; he may have had the same illusions about what the AR is capable of (or what non-AR guns are capable of) that a lot of people have.

[JoePhilly]

92. Yea, getting inside his head is pretty tough ...

Some of these nuts include some form of fantasy (fantastical) element to their actions. And so the selection of weapon might have to fit into that as well.

[Recursion]

93. I do get that, and I think that's a fair point

If the military shape of the AR does push some soldier-fantasy button in nutjobs, despite the platform not being objectively more deadly than less military-looking rifles, then I could see some point to banning it. Irrational man must be governed irrationally, etc.

OTOH it's the most popular rifle sold today for a reason: it's reliable, it's mod-able, and its shape (the thing that makes people want to ban it, for the most part) is actually a safety feature. But, crazy people are the reason we can't have nice things.

[jody]

60. I want to discuss solutions that become law that will prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy and reduce

murder.

When cases reach courts involving violations of those laws, then judges will consider definitions and context.

I understand that and see nothing productive coming from discussions with gun-creationists who faithfully believe guns create crime, start by spouting unsupported-assertions and failing go back to insults, invective, and vilification.

I also know that people who are pro-RKBA are equally guilty of the same behavior and I say a pox on both groups.

[JoePhilly]

81. So propose something.

And your use of the term gun-creationist is really rather quite telling.

You've apparently decided that any discussion of reasonable gun control legislation is itself an unreasonable effort.

If you were interested in a serious proposals, you'd be making some.

But instead, you are playing an old game used to gum up the works in any effort to reach consensus on a topic when some of those involved are totally against reaching a consensus in the first place.

That game is called ... "Nope, that's not it." You propose nothing, but you shoot down any and all proposals put forward as being "not it." The goal of this tactic is to frustrate the group and get the members to simply give up.

Its a common tactic used in corporate politics. Your group is against some potential change, even of the change is unspecified. So you send some one who will play the "Nope, that's not it" game.

Leaders who understand group dynamics know how to resolve this situation. You simply drop the members of the group playing that game from the larger effort. You cut them out. They don't provide any value to the effort, in fact they impeded progress.

I think this is what's about to happen to the gun-absolutists.

[jody]

95. I've posted my position many times since 2001.nt

[JoePhilly]

97. Then surely you have a link handy to your

very detailed proposals.

[jody]

100. LOL 1. enforce federal law aggressively, 2. mandatory sentence for use of firearms, 3. Sentence for

use of firearms served sequentially after all other sentences, 4. no plea bargain of firearm charges.

Presidents already have authority for some of that, e.g. 1 and 4, and the other could be worked out with the court system.

Presidents should include in budgets, funds for the expanded effort.

Good ideas expressed in "The Clinton Administration's Law Enforcement Strategy: Combating Crime with Community Policing and Community Prosecution Taking Back Our Neighborhoods One Block at a Time" (March 1999) BUT LITTLE HAPPENED.

See http://www.justice.gov/archive/dag/pubdoc/crimestrategy.htm

Trouble is everyone likes to talk about reducing crime but seems like no one wants to do the actual work, day after day after day . . . . after day.

OR provide funds for that continuous effort.

[JoePhilly]

101. Above, you called for proposals that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

I don't see any of those in what you've just put forward, including within the Clinton strategy document.

And nothing on limiting the access of certain weapons, or ammo, to the civilian population.

[jody]

102. JoePhilly you did what you accused me of doing, "Nope, that's not it." You didn't read carefully

what I carefully wrote.

Are you serious about finding a solution to the problem?

What "certain weapons" and "ammo" do you believe would be part of a solution.

Long guns at 5.4% are used less often to commit murder than "Hands, fists, feet, etc." at 5.7% and "Knives or cutting instruments" at 13.3%

Next 44% of murders are committed by people who know each other: Husband, Wife, Mother, Father, Son, Daughter, Brother, Sister, Other family, Acquaintance, Friend, Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Neighbor, Employee, Employer.

Have a great day.

[JoePhilly]

106. I refered to a specific condition that you put forward previously.

You'd have a point if I picked that condition from thin air.

And the stats you provide are easily refuted with world wide statistics on gun control and the reduction of gun deaths in other countries. Which of course is the actual topic of this debate.

What you did here is a common dodge. Rather than focus on reducing death by guns, which is the topic of debate, you tried to broaden the scope in an attempt to make the gun problem look smaller, and I guess, less urgent.

The approaches used to reduce domestic violence that you reference are different than the approaches you would use to prevent the kind of mass killings we're talking about. So trying to bind them together is really just another attempt to muddy the water.

And ironically, Lanza killed his mother prior to committing mass murder, and then suicide.

[jody]

109. Stats I quoted are from the site below. You say they are "easily refuted" then prove it by refuting.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[Recursion]

73. Maybe because the gun Lanza used wasn't an assault weapon?

So if you want to get rid of that kind of gun you might want to take that into consideration?

Besides, as often as I see DUer's parsing the word "entitlement", I have no problem being specific with words about guns, too

[JoePhilly]

84. Can you name ANY weapon or ammo that we should ban from civilian use?

Rather than bind up on terminology, can you name any weapon that is currently available for sale to civilians, that you, as one who is apparently knowledge about weapons, think we should ban?

[Recursion]

85. Sure, semi-automatics with detachable magazines

I don't think those are appropriate for civilian use, and they should be rescheduled under the NFA

I think that's both politically impossible to pass and practically impossible to enforce (we're talking about 200 million weapons or so out there now), but that's personally where I would draw the line if I were starting fresh.

[JoePhilly]

87. So, I'd say start with that law ... sell no more ... and then ...

leverage buy back programs and/or tax incentives for turning them in (or for demonstrating proficiency), or exchanging them for approved weapons.

Create incentives for shooting clubs to purchase them, and then allow them to loan those, under supervision, to visitors to the club. I don't own an AR-15, but I can go to the club, rent one and use it.

Increase the penalties if your existing weapon is used improperly.

Get home insurance companies to include incentives for the purchase of a gun safe.

There are creative ways to place downward pressure on that 200 million.

[Captain Stern]

99. Thanks JoePhilly and Recursion...

...for actually having a reasonable discussion of the issue at hand.

I don't think the people that question the definitions of "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are the ones muddying the waters. I think it's the folks that are using those terms in the first place. When words or terms have too many perceived meanings, they essentially have no practical meaning at all.

I think the firearms that we should be limiting ownership of are the ones that can fire a lot of bullets within a short period of time.....either by firing a lot of bullets without being reloaded, or by having the capacity to be reloaded very quickly.

[Recursion]

104. That's sensible

I think the firearms that we should be limiting ownership of are the ones that can fire a lot of bullets within a short period of time.....either by firing a lot of bullets without being reloaded, or by having the capacity to be reloaded very quickly.

I agree. I make such a point of being very clear about terminology (as irritating as I know that can be) because that is a vastly larger portion of currently legal firearms than a lot of people may think. Like 80%. The capability of firing at the speed that you are talking about isn't just limited to some fringe collection of "extreme" guns, it's essentially any modern (say, post-1900) firearm design.

[JoePhilly]

105. I think part of what happens is that people use certain terms as a short hand.

This is also a problem for most classification systems. Any classification system is inherently imperfect at least to some degree because the description of a thing is not ACTUALLY the thing being described. So if you look hard enough, exceptions can be found. That reality does not necessarily mean that the terms used have no validity, or usefulness.

So for instance, Recursion and I have been going back and forth in what I'd describe as an attempt to develop some comment agreement on how we might use such terms (or not use them) in an effort to make progress.

I find in this particular debate, when some one says "rapid fire" or "assault weapon" they are usually trying to convey something similar to what you said ... "the ones that can fire a lot of bullets within a short period of time.....either by firing a lot of bullets without being reloaded, or by having the capacity to be reloaded very quickly" ... but using fewer words.

Some, when hearing those short hand term, will accept that its not perfect and understand that it probably means something close to what you said. Or others, like Sippy Cupp, will pretend that the term has no likely meaning, it can have no perfect meaning, and so there is no discussion to be had and no progress to be made.

I say pretend because in some cases, like in the case of Sippy Cupp referenced in the original OP, its a delaying tactic.

[Captain Stern]

110. The terms aren't clearly understood.

"Some, when hearing those short hand term, will accept that its not perfect and understand that it probably means something close to what you said."

When only some people, think a term probably means something close to something else, that's not all that useful a term. Too many people have different ideas about what the terms "rapid fire" and "assault weapon" mean, or should mean. I think the terms either need to be tightly defined so that both sides of the debate actually understand what is being discussed when they are used, or they should be removed from the debate altogether.

[JoePhilly]

112. Correct, and so you start there and BOTH SIDES work on tighening the defintions.

And they do so, together.

When you hear some one say "assault weapon" you can probably safely assume that the weapons they are thinking about have the ability to fire many shots in a short period of time.

What you don't know is how many is "many", and how is short is a "short period of time".

So that's a good place to start the discussion. Rather than give up because those terms are not yet quantified, you, together, discuss how those would be defined.

If you can come to a basic agreement on those, perhaps you introduce the concept of "effective kill range" to the discussion. A weapon that has an effective kill range of from 3 feet to 100 feet, is probably more dangerous than one with an effective range between 1 foot and 10 feet.

Perhaps certain weapons provide the ability to use ammo that is more deadly by the nature of how the ballistic performs on impact with the human body. This can be quantified and included.

My point here is pretty simple. A model of the kind I describe is possible, even if I am not the right person to ultimately select the quantifiable elements. And my issue is with those who would say, no such thing is possible, so we should not try.

[Recursion]

116. While that may be what they mean...

When you hear some one say "assault weapon" you can probably safely assume that the weapons they are thinking about have the ability to fire many shots in a short period of time.

I'm still not sure about that, because whenever assault weapons are legally defined, it's not at all related to how many shots a weapon can fire at a time. It's about what the weapon looks like.

If people meant "capable of firing many shots in a short period of time", then we haven't just done a bad job of writing an AWB, we've done an absurd, Kafkaesque job of it.

Now, at the risk of being overly cynical, I think it's pretty safe to say that the people who wrote the various Assault Weapons Bans are very much aware of that, and chose military looking features because most voters (incorrectly but stubbornly) think that a weapon that "looks military" must fire more rapidly than one that doesn't.

I mean, I get your tendency to think there's a line that needs to be drawn, and we're trying to find the right place to draw it, but in actual fact the laws being written (except for high-capacity magazine bans, which also have fairly broad support) are orthogonal to that question. It's politically damaging legislation that doesn't do what its supporters think it does, and I'm very concerned that we're moving towards trying it again.

[Warpy]

53. Most neocons are like that, especially in the media

They've been handed a script and they obediently parrot it. However, if you start to question them about what's behind that script, you soon realize they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I wish we could just toss them their crackers and cover their cages.

[hobbit709]

80. She knows as much about that as she does about anything.

[jpak]

88. S.E. Cupp is Hawt

[uponit7771]

91. Typical, they go to simantics when their positions are found wanting

[LiberalFighter]

96. She has to know

She's in a picture with a pack of guys in camo with firearms.

[Recursion]

98. Just to be clear, this is 97 replies and nobody here has been able to say what they mean either?

*shrug*

[jpak]

103. Let me summarize - gun nuttery sucks

yup

[JoePhilly]

107. I think your response to me in post #85 works.

[Pryderi]

108. I'm sick of this wheezing wacko. n/t

[arthritisR_US]

111. republicons love to play their semantic BS...let them try and play

semantic soup with 20 dead babies....

[Ganja Ninja]

113. Lets not wait for her slow ass to catch up.

We don't have to educate every dumb ass before we take action.

[Enrique]

114. ladies and gentlement of the jury