Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#26 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:08 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:My definition would be based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle, the rate of fire available, and the number of shots it's possible to take without reloading. A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects. --Bob
I didn't ask you.
I don't care. --Bob
Which is exactly why I didn't ask you.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#27 Post by BackInTex » Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:28 pm

ghostjmf wrote: but its not the right shade, so dentist is sending it back to be reglazed the proper shade. Of yellow.
I had the same issue with my replacement crown in December. The new crown was too white.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#28 Post by Bob Juch » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:57 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: Please recall that I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-assault weapons and anti-nuts-with guns.

I have an FN Five-seveN, two Colt 1911s, and a 20-gauge shotgun.
What is the 'official' definition of an assault weapon? Why is it different from any other firearm that makes it a particular target of the gun control crowd?
My definition would be based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle, the rate of fire available, and the number of shots it's possible to take without reloading. A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects. --Bob
Exactly, you beat me to it.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#29 Post by BackInTex » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:23 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:What is the 'official' definition of an assault weapon?
Bob78164 wrote:My definition would be based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle, the rate of fire available, and the number of shots it's possible to take without reloading. A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects. --Bob
Bob Juch wrote:Exactly, you beat me to it.
So, both Bobs admit there is no definition for an assault weapon and that they'd have to make up one base on three unique subjective measures.

How do you call for a ban on something that does not exist, or has not been defined?

This folks is how ethical sue happy liberal lawyers want to modify the Constitution....on whims.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#30 Post by Bob Juch » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:27 pm

BackInTex wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:What is the 'official' definition of an assault weapon?
Bob78164 wrote:My definition would be based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle, the rate of fire available, and the number of shots it's possible to take without reloading. A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects. --Bob
Bob Juch wrote:Exactly, you beat me to it.
So, both Bobs admit there is no definition for an assault weapon and that they'd have to make up one base on three unique subjective measures.

How do you call for a ban on something that does not exist, or has not been defined?

This folks is how ethical sue happy liberal lawyers want to modify the Constitution....on whims.
Wikipedia wrote:At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#31 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:38 pm

BackInTex wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:What is the 'official' definition of an assault weapon?
Bob78164 wrote:My definition would be based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle, the rate of fire available, and the number of shots it's possible to take without reloading. A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects. --Bob
Bob Juch wrote:Exactly, you beat me to it.
So, both Bobs admit there is no definition for an assault weapon and that they'd have to make up one base on three unique subjective measures.

How do you call for a ban on something that does not exist, or has not been defined?

This folks is how ethical sue happy liberal lawyers want to modify the Constitution....on whims.
There's nothing subjective about a measurement of kinetic energy (mv^2/2), rate of fire, or clip size. They're all easily measured physical quantities or characteristics.

And this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Even in Heller v. District of Columbia, the Court majority made clear that regulations of firearms are permissible. If a State Legislature or Congress wants to pass such a ban, there is no constitutional impediment to doing so. It's all about finding the necessary political will. And I think there are an awful lot of new voters, many of them currently in high school, who will insist that their representatives demonstrate that will, or start writing their concession speeches. It looks like the efforts of our kids to organize the Democratic Party are bearing fruit, and that should be a terrifying thought for any Republican in anything remotely approaching a swing district who wants to keep his or her elected position.

The former assault weapon ban (the one that was permitted to sunset) also had an assault weapon definition but it was too easy to evade because it was keyed to model names. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#32 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:05 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
What is the 'official' definition of an assault weapon? Why is it different from any other firearm that makes it a particular target of the gun control crowd?
My definition would be based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle, the rate of fire available, and the number of shots it's possible to take without reloading. A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects. --Bob
Exactly, you beat me to it.
Apparently, there is no 'official' definition of an assault weapon.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definit ... issue.html
I have no idea what the definition of an assault weapon is, other than a weapon used to assault other people. I'm not a gun guy. But the David Hoggs of the world believe we should 'ban' AR-15s. Let's take it a bit further. Let's let David Hogg define what an assault weapon is. If it looks nasty, like something the military would use, we'll call it an assault weapon. And let's 'ban' it. Let's pass a law that it's illegal to own, possess or even talk about any assault weapon on David's list.

What will we get? Well, we will never have anyone killed in a school, or anywhere for that matter, by an assault weapon that was obtained through a legal channel, unless of course, the enforcement of that law is lax, or one is overlooked. But that never happens, right. And because of the law, every one of those 'assault' weapons will somehow just disappear. They will automatically melt down.

But there will still be 'non-assault' weapons, because David says he believes in the 2nd Amendment. Not sure he understands what it says, but he believes in it. So he probably wouldn't ban all guns. So some law abiding citizen who wants to shoot kids in a school would probably choose a 'non assault' weapon, because he doesn't want to be arrested or fined for having one of David's 'assault' weapons. Someone who doesn't necessarily obey the law might somehow get one or more of David's 'assault weapons' from other people who don't necessarily obey the law all the time. But we have to do it, because, as Hockey Puck says, we can't let the fact that a law can't stop every instance deter us. No matter what the cost in taxpayer dollars or constitutional freedoms.

I just think it's pretty dumb to think a law banning assault weapons is going to do anything to solve anything. Just my opinion. I don't expect to change anyone's opinion. But I say go for it. Why not? It doesn't bother me. I can pretty much guarantee that when it doesn't work, the next solution will be more laws and bans.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#33 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:20 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:My definition would be based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle, the rate of fire available, and the number of shots it's possible to take without reloading. A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects. --Bob
Exactly, you beat me to it.
Apparently, there is no 'official' definition of an assault weapon.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definit ... issue.html
I have no idea what the definition of an assault weapon is, other than a weapon used to assault other people. I'm not a gun guy. But the David Hoggs of the world believe we should 'ban' AR-15s. Let's take it a bit further. Let's let David Hogg define what an assault weapon is. If it looks nasty, like something the military would use, we'll call it an assault weapon. And let's 'ban' it. Let's pass a law that it's illegal to own, possess or even talk about any assault weapon on David's list.

What will we get? Well, we will never have anyone killed in a school, or anywhere for that matter, by an assault weapon that was obtained through a legal channel, unless of course, the enforcement of that law is lax, or one is overlooked. But that never happens, right. And because of the law, every one of those 'assault' weapons will somehow just disappear. They will automatically melt down.

But there will still be 'non-assault' weapons, because David says he believes in the 2nd Amendment. Not sure he understands what it says, but he believes in it. So he probably wouldn't ban all guns. So some law abiding citizen who wants to shoot kids in a school would probably choose a 'non assault' weapon, because he doesn't want to be arrested or fined for having one of David's 'assault' weapons. Someone who doesn't necessarily obey the law might somehow get one or more of David's 'assault weapons' from other people who don't necessarily obey the law all the time. But we have to do it, because, as Hockey Puck says, we can't let the fact that a law can't stop every instance deter us. No matter what the cost in taxpayer dollars or constitutional freedoms.

I just think it's pretty dumb to think a law banning assault weapons is going to do anything to solve anything. Just my opinion. I don't expect to change anyone's opinion. But I say go for it. Why not? It doesn't bother me. I can pretty much guarantee that when it doesn't work, the next solution will be more laws and bans.
It worked pretty well right here in the U.S. when we actually had such a ban. And I think my proposed definition would work pretty well in dealing with attempts to evade the law. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#34 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:34 pm

Well, then

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#35 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:49 pm

Fair enough. Let's look at the findings of CDC research regarding gun violence.

It's a fair point that data on this issue is incomplete and subject to good faith disagreements about how it should appropriately be interpreted. But a significant part of the reason for that state of affairs is that the NRA has strong-armed Congress into maintaining the Dickey Amendment, which prevents federally funded research on gun violence. Given that a lobbying group that vehemently opposes pretty much any and all regulation of firearms has successfully prevented the acquisition of data, I think it's entirely fair to impose upon them the burden of proving that the proposed ban wouldn't help matters. You don't get to have it both ways by (a) preventing the collection of relevant data and then (b) arguing that there isn't enough data to support the proposed law. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14889
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#36 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:54 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Fair enough. Let's look at the findings of CDC research regarding gun violence.

It's a fair point that data on this issue is incomplete and subject to good faith disagreements about how it should appropriately be interpreted. But a significant part of the reason for that state of affairs is that the NRA has strong-armed Congress into maintaining the Dickey Amendment, which prevents federally funded research on gun violence. Given that a lobbying group that vehemently opposes pretty much any and all regulation of firearms has successfully prevented the acquisition of data, I think it's entirely fair to impose upon them the burden of proving that the proposed ban wouldn't help matters. You don't get to have it both ways by (a) preventing the collection of relevant data and then (b) arguing that there isn't enough data to support the proposed law. --Bob
I don't believe you have relevant facts, or disregard them anyway, or make stuff up that fits your insular legal point of view. So there's that.
Well, then

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#37 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:01 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Fair enough. Let's look at the findings of CDC research regarding gun violence.

It's a fair point that data on this issue is incomplete and subject to good faith disagreements about how it should appropriately be interpreted. But a significant part of the reason for that state of affairs is that the NRA has strong-armed Congress into maintaining the Dickey Amendment, which prevents federally funded research on gun violence. Given that a lobbying group that vehemently opposes pretty much any and all regulation of firearms has successfully prevented the acquisition of data, I think it's entirely fair to impose upon them the burden of proving that the proposed ban wouldn't help matters. You don't get to have it both ways by (a) preventing the collection of relevant data and then (b) arguing that there isn't enough data to support the proposed law. --Bob
I don't believe you have relevant facts, or disregard them anyway, or make stuff up that fits your insular legal point of view. So there's that.
What relevant facts do you think I'm missing or disregard? The legal analysis (assault weapons can be regulated, or even banned) is crystal clear from the District of Columbia v. Heller opinion. It's easy enough to find the opinion in full if you think I'm misunderstanding it. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#38 Post by BackInTex » Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:39 pm

Bob78164 wrote:It looks like the efforts of our kids to organize the Democratic Party are bearing fruit,
David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez are quite possibly the best thing to happen to the Republican party in quite some time.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#39 Post by Bob Juch » Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:18 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:It looks like the efforts of our kids to organize the Democratic Party are bearing fruit,
David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez are quite possibly the best things to happen to the Republican party in quite some time.
Yep, a lot of Republican Congresscritters are going to have a nice long vacation.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#40 Post by BackInTex » Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:37 am

Bob78164 wrote:My definition would be based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle, the rate of fire available, and the number of shots it's possible to take without reloading. A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects. --Bob
BackInTex wrote:So, both Bobs admit there is no definition for an assault weapon and that they'd have to make up one base on three unique subjective measures.
There's nothing subjective about a measurement of kinetic energy (mv^2/2), rate of fire, or clip size. They're all easily measured physical quantities or characteristics. wrote:There's nothing subjective about a measurement of kinetic energy (mv^2/2), rate of fire, or clip size. They're all easily measured physical quantities or characteristics.
You are correct, but only because your answers are incomplete, and there is no credit for partial answers. The answers are not 560, or 10 per sec, or 16. The answer to your question is either "too much" or "O.K., not enough" and those are subjective measures.


"based on the amount of kinetic energy possessed by its projectiles when they exit the muzzle"
This is problematic because the round put in the chamber determines this, not the weapon itself. Now you'd have to have a separate classification for assault ammunition. And no one would be able to elk hunt anymore.

"rate of fire available"
This, in non-fully automatic weapons is mostly determined by the person using the weapon.

And about "A good start would be to cap all three of these aspects." How do you propose to do that. If a weapon can be fired 20 times before reloading (number of shots it's possible to take without reloading), does that by itself determine its classification? If so, then pretty much every Daisy BB gun in existence would be classified as an assault weapon.

The bottom line is we don't have a weapons issue in this country. We have a morals issue, and a mental health issue (affected largely by the first issue).
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#41 Post by BackInTex » Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:37 am

Bob Juch wrote: Yep, a lot of Republican Congresscritters are going to have a nice long vacation.
I love it when you predict outcomes.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Active shooter at youtube HQ, northern Cal

#42 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:47 am

BackInTex wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: Yep, a lot of Republican Congresscritters are going to have a nice long vacation.
I love it when you predict outcomes.
In this case it's pretty easy. An awful lot of them have already announced that they're not running for reelection. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Post Reply