We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[SeanEasley]

It's interesting to read people talking about 'automatic' weapons and then see pro-gun folks haze them for not knowing the difference between semi and fully automatic. In reality a weapon that has both full and semi-auto capability is far less accurate when operated on full-auto mode, which is why in military training you almost never run your personal weapon on full auto. After the first couple of rounds the barrel is bouncing all over the place and most of the rounds will go high and right not to mention you run through the magazine very quickly. For this reason it is really a meaningless difference imho. The type of weapons widely available to civilians (with detachable, high-capacity mags) are just as deadly as a true military AR-15 and have no place in our society.

[GeneK]

And yet people I know, and work with, seemingly rational people, argue that that they should be able to own military-style weapons. And they do.

[ericpmoss]

It is impossible not to read this thread and come to the conclusion that you guys are just doomed to keep playing this out again and again.

I agree. The people who want their guns want them. Period. End of discussion. I'm done talking to them. It's a waste of my time. It doesn't matter what happens, how many people get cut down, what I say, or what anyone else says. They want their guns. I'm done with this thread. It's a waste to even try.

[caleb]

I'm having some problems with terminology here, as I think it confuses those who don't understand firearm actions. A Ruger 10/22 plinker is a semi-automatic, so is an AR-15 or an AK. The destructive difference between the two is orders of magnitude (of course, ignoring extended magazines, bump stocks, other accessories, what have you). Referring to destructive power of a firearm by action only is really missing the boat.
All "semi-automatics" are not military-style tools of killing.
FWIW, I'm a firearms owner who is 100% in favor of MUCH stricter gun laws.

I don't think hardware is the entire issue. Another major part is the fetishization of a people-killing aesthetic, which I think lots of folks grok when they vaguely wave at violent video games as a cause. We're usually leery of politicizing or criminalizing aesthetics, but in this case I think it's warranted. It's not just the capabilities of the guns, it's the physical appearance of the guns that's part of the killer fantasy and implementation of that fantasy. It's an essential part of the heroic image they imagine of themselves.

Functionally, the 10/22 stacks up pretty well against an AR with a .22 header. The difference isn't really the function. The difference is the aesthetic. And in the case of mass shooters, the aesthetics seem defining and motivating. Effective gun control isn't going to be just a matter of action type or magazine capacity, it's going to have to go after appearances and the make-believe, dress-up game.

Bill Ruger understood the danger of allowing military aesthetics in American civilian guns. When, under financial pressure, he agreed to make the Mini 14, he insisted that it only be made with a wood stock so it wouldn't look anything like the guns guys were coming back from Vietnam having used. He understood human psychology around guns, and it's a shame he's no longer with us in this moment.

[mzilliox]

couple ideas after a couple days away form this crap

if we are the same in terms of having guns, but different in terms of the way we use them, as one person said, "guns havent changed, we have", then perhaps its time to change the way we govern guns... i mean if the gun is the same and we are different, WE need to do something, right? if we are different, a change is needed to ccord with our being different. this seems obvious. also, there are amendments to the constitution, as im sure those 18yr odl boys who wrote it thought perhaps the world and WE might change. maybe we should make use of them, as a 230yr old document written by 18yr old boys may need a bit of an update from time to time. itd be a bit naive of us all to think that a world with cell phones and drones should be treated the same as a world with muskets and horses and candle light.

next idea, perhaps part of the problem of this being uniquely American is that we are bullies used to using superior force to enforce what we say is right. why would this attitude not extend to our citizenry? when we need resources or think another culture is not playing nicely with us, we just go in guns blazing, all threats and bluster. we see this as our right, as being tough, as being policemen of the world. perhaps these folks think they are doing the same when these acts are committed?

the pedantic details are boring as hell. this talk is about philosophy, not which rifle is blah blah blah and what the military actually uses. you are missing the point if details like this are what pops into your head. when the laws come time to write, we can make sure we dot all the Ts, until then, we are talking about humanity, right vs wrong, the right to feel safe vs the right to own an overpowered inanimate object simply because you have a beating heart, and we are talking about how to move forward.

next person to mention cars, think about why? there is no compare. one is completely necessary to function in modern society. one is completely unnecessary to function in modern society. the drunk driving talk comes with the why is our country so addicted to drugs talk.

[sine]

It is impossible not to read this thread and come to the conclusion that you guys are just doomed to keep playing this out again and again.

It's going to keep happening until vast numbers protest at the mall in D.C., at NRA h.q., at congressional offices, etc.

[thollandpe]

I also believe we have a problem with young white men in this country, and the targeting of women. Despite the efforts of the current administration to convince us the danger is elsewhere.

A Common Trait Among Mass Killers: Hatred Toward Women

Violence against women is unacceptable. Mitch McConnell and the NRA have both opposed the Violence Against Women Act. That is unacceptable. They are both tainted by financial deals with a certain hostile foreign power.

The NRA has prevented any and all action, and I believe they have lost all credibility (after Sandy Hook, after Mr. Lapierre’s spending and wardrobe habits, after Russian infiltration, after Mr. Lapierre’s mansion?).

Kompromat.

We can make our country a better place. Let’s begin by not making it worse. I’ve had enough of the unending and deliberately divisive, always confrontational, self-serving, unpresidential, and downright dangerous stream of consciousness that is the Twitter feed of "at real donald trump".

Wow.

Let's take action on guns. Action, in the form of better laws, is certainly an option. In my opinion, gun enthusiasts should realize that if "nyet" remains the only legislative option in Washington, this issue is going to get away from them.

TH

[Dallas Tex]

Wow.

Let's take action on guns. Action, in the form of better laws, is certainly an option. In my opinion, gun enthusiasts should realize that if "nyet" remains the only legislative option in Washington, this issue is going to get away from them.

TH

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. This cycle has been soooo predictable.

Anyone want to bet this president will get more meaningful, effective gun legislation passed than any of the passed 3 presidents ?

[thollandpe]

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. This cycle has been soooo predictable.

You mean the cycle of mass shootings? Inured indeed.

TH

[Dallas Tex]

You mean the cycle of mass shootings? Inured indeed.

TH

Yes, the cycle of mass shootings and the response.

It’ll be interesting if something actually happens/improves this time.

[vertical_doug]

HuffPost is now part of Oath

Initially reported as 'good guy with gun stops massacre', the man had an open carry permit and may not have done anything wrong. case will be fascinating to watch as it raises questions about open carry laws. What would have happened if the fireman had proactively shot a man merely exercising his 2nd amendment right?

[e-RICHIE]

HuffPost is now part of Oath

Initially reported as 'good guy with gun stops massacre', the man had an open carry permit and may not have done anything wrong. case will be fascinating to watch as it raises questions about open carry laws. What would have happened if the fireman had proactively shot a man merely exercising his 2nd amendment right?

I have a question. Social experiment or not, why would a man need these weapons in the first place? Is that he can have them legally under the 2nd amendment enough of a reason? I'm not a gun owner, or shooter, and in fact I'm anti-guns. I'll leave my opinions about people who need these for another thread. What I'm interested in hearing is what purpose these weapons serve, especially if you don't fire them.

[King Of Dirk]

You've taken a quote out of context and run with it. Good job.

"Look, we have serious economic problems in many parts of our country. And Roland is absolutely right. Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trump does, let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities.

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

So whether it's coal country or Indian country or poor urban areas, there is a lot of poverty in America. We have gone backwards. We were moving in the right direction. In the '90s, more people were lifted out of poverty than any time in recent history.

Because of the terrible economic policies of the Bush administration, President Obama was left with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and people fell back into poverty because they lost jobs, they lost homes, they lost opportunities, and hope.

So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work."

I've done no such thing. I've observed a candidate who has been under intense media scrutiny since at least 1991 phrase her remarks in a way that makes it very easy to take her out of context. No big surprise, the Trump propaganda machine did exactly that, and she lost some fraction of the 70,000 votes in that part of the country that likely would have changed the outcome of the election.

At least two things are true: 1) I'm not as uninformed as you think I am, and 2) you're not as bright as you think you are. But hey - keep up the shitty, condescending tone; I enjoy watching you guys lose easily winnable elections. Have a good one!

[sk_tle]

What I'm interested in hearing is what purpose these weapons serve, especially if you don't fire them.

I'd wager that it is something in between penis size compensation and making a point about exercising ones 2nd amendment rights to the extreme.

[becomingblue]

I'd wager that it is something in between penis size compensation and making a point about exercising ones 2nd amendment rights to the extreme.

What's the analysis for a woman that owns and/or carries?

[e-RICHIE]

What's the analysis for a woman that owns and/or carries?

Have we ever read a news story that includes a woman shooter?
Curious.

[colker]

Have we ever read a news story that includes a woman shooter?
Curious.

Good question and hard to answer without stereotyping.

[King Of Dirk]

Have we ever read a news story that includes a woman shooter?
Curious.

I can't remember reading one, at least not in a mass shooting context. Other than a very small number of "crime of passion" events with a body count of one or two (which would never be anything other than local news, though to be fair one wonders why that's so), the accounts of female shooters I've read are nearly always defensive situations (abusive partner, home invasion, self defense, etc).

I see plenty of women at our local range. Concealed carry license data in Texas suggests there are many, many armed women (at least down here among the Deplorables), but for some reason this doesn't translate into a large number of female aggressors.

[colker]

According to gun enthusiasts we should get rid of males since it´s not about the guns but who fires the guns.

[e-RICHIE]

According to gun enthusiasts we should get rid of males since it´s not about the guns but who fires the guns.

That doesn't make sense.