Another fucking spree shooting. Great.

It's almost as if calling guns like the AR an assault weapon highlights the difference between it and other semi-automatics. It exists only to kill in large numbers, quickly.

xp true, but I'm cool with just banning "smaller" semi-autos as well, so I think we're better off sticking with "ban all semi-automatic weapons"

also, you're kind of wrong - the VA Tech shooting had very high casualties and was done w/handguns.

(see the clip of Rubio accidentally getting a ton of applause for suggesting that very thing)

can y'all please, at least, say "semi-automatic" instead of "assault"? it's not merely a semantic difference - "assault" is meaningless, "semi-automatic" is not.

no

it's an important legal distinction, but plz continue to be willfully ignorant so you can make rhetorical points

I'm on the "semi-automatic" side -- for one thing, banning semi-automatics would apply to a lot more guns than "assault rifles" does. Also it accurately describes the function (shooting lots of bullets fast) rather than getting into semantics.

thank you

rhetorical points can be extremely powerful

assault weapons make people think of those scary-looking weapons, when tbh yeah the Virginia Tech thing showed those weapons are not the only ones that should be targeted (sorry.)

I don't personally give a shit about this; that said, "assault weapons ban" is the popular term for a piece of U.S. legislation in place 1994-2004.

I've seen "assault-style weapon" a bunch lately. Which is adequate, if not perfect, because choosing the AR for your school-massacre needs is partly a style choice.

If looking badass is part of the appeal, maybe we should require them to be pink and sparkly and covered with faux-fur accents.

tend to fall on the "semi-auto" side, too, for the reasons tipsy outlined --- it actually encompasses more guns, and provides an easier delimiter. iirc wasn't leaning on cosmetic differences (eg pistol grips) how a lot of these loopholes were created in the first place? "ban all semi-automatic guns" is a stronger, bolder political statement than "age limits on assault rifles" imo

^^^ yes

my issue here is that "assault weapon" (or even "assault-style") is a meaningless term that cannot be translated into legalese, and clear legal language will be needed going forward

and like omar says, really what we want here is a total semi-automatic ban (which is even more comprehensive)

I'd think all of you would be on board with this, honestly

"assault weapon" is a wonderfully succinct, evocative phrase that appeals to emotion and will connect with non-gun-owners (aka about 57 percent of the population). if you want to make that synonymous with "semi-automatic weapons" I don't see a problem. acts and laws get imprecise/"umbrella" names all the time, no?

the whole reason these cracks in the NRA facade are finally showing up is because of emotion. exploit it ruthlessly any way you can imo

a meaningless term that cannot be translated into legalese

the problem here is that legalese doesn't translate well into political action, which is the first hurdle to cross. putting the legalese ahead of the emotional appeal is, uh, jumping the gun (plz forget I said that).

this defeatist fucking bullshit pisses me off:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/gun-bill-analysis/index.html

The headline is throwing in the towel just as the new anti-gun movement begins. Cillizza is an idiot.

I'm on the "semi-automatic" side -- for one thing, banning semi-automatics would apply to a lot more guns than "assault rifles" does. Also it accurately describes the function (shooting lots of bullets fast) rather than getting into semantics.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:40 PM (sixteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

thank you

― sleeve, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

rhetorical points can be extremely powerful

― Simon H., Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM (fifteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

assault weapons make people think of those scary-looking weapons, when tbh yeah the Virginia Tech thing showed those weapons are not the only ones that should be targeted (sorry.)

― omar little, Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:41 PM

All these points are correct, which reminds me that every shooting is different. The NRA is good at explaining the limits of action based on the most recent episode of violence. That's why I'm cool with repealing the Second Amendment.

Cillizza is an idiot.

evergreen sentiment

Heard a new descriptor on NPR the other day -- "multi-casualty firearms."

so.....firearms

[me, a goddamned genius expert]: actually, "assault weapon" is a fake term invented by liberal media
[you, a poster who can Google]: pic.twitter.com/0sIjBCFcTB

— Patrick Blanchfield (@PatBlanchfield) February 27, 2018

[me, doubling down on being a fucking epic galaxy brain]: I meant "assault rifle," it's an invention of the gun grabbers
[you]: pic.twitter.com/IoWzDZ15Gl

— Patrick Blanchfield (@PatBlanchfield) February 27, 2018

putting the legalese ahead of the emotional appeal is, uh, jumping the gun (plz forget I said that).

this is more or less what I'm trying to get at. go with the terms that resonate with people, adapt as required later

Obamacare isn't technically called that but people are plenty energized for and against

I regret this derail, should have taken it to the Gun Control thread, going there now

I'm likely to refer colloquially to a thing in a casual conversation that I'd refer to with more rigor and specificity in a more formal context. As such, I'm cool with continuing to call all these shits 'murder machines' itt.

In casual conversation I don’t think it matters. But in talking about policy, starting with “semi-automatic” leapfrogs the insipid “there’s no such thing as an assault weapon” nonsense.

eh, if someone throws up some “there’s no such thing as an assault weapon” nonsense, then "semi-automatic" is just fine to be your second move.

Your next step after that is to play "Closing Time" by Semisonic. That'll shut them them DOWN.

I am desperate for a pollster to ask Republicans if they think Parkland was a false flag and the teens are crisis actors. I would bet so much that it’s over 50%.

— Virgil Texas (@virgiltexas) February 27, 2018

In casual conversation I don’t think it matters. But in talking about policy, starting with “semi-automatic” leapfrogs the insipid “there’s no such thing as an assault weapon” nonsense.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, February 27, 2018 3:19 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

agree on both points

There are countries with high gun ownership, including of semi-automatic rifles, and low gun violence. This is a solved problem. Gun ownership licensing, requiring a witness to character and thorough background check.

American gun owners of Reddit who have moved to a country with strict gun-control, what has this been like, what are the differences?

American living in New Zealand. For the most part it’s no different, with some very notable exceptions.

When you get a firearms license here it actually means something. It’s good for 10 years and specifies what class of firearm you can own. The license requires a background check and interview. Someone came to my home, asked me, my partner and a witness questions about my character. Any answer they don’t like, likely results in no issue of license. For example, if I’m violent, use drugs, etc. But that’s it. From application to issues it took 2 months. After that I can own / use anything in my class. And I don’t pay DROS fees or wait every time I want to buy a gun.

Shooting here is pretty similar to North America. Ranges, public land etc. Hunting is big, so is competitive shooting.

So called ‘assault rifles’ are legal here just like the US. You can get a semi automatic AR here and as long as it has a legal magazine it’s considered a basic class A. You can also get silencers here. In some respects I feel it’s more liberal than the US.

when ur totally not getting owned by teens pic.twitter.com/CBJnbUzDt4

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) February 28, 2018

lol @ li'l marco trying to zing both Trump and angry shooting victims there

BREAKING: Police in Georgia respond to shots fired at high school and have taken a teacher into custody; no children hurt.

— The Associated Press (@AP) February 28, 2018

arm the students

Lunch lady with a rifle could’ve stopped this

arm the students, arm the teachers, let God sort em out

arm god

Wish Christians would stop fucking saying “Jude[ o ]-Christian”, don’t use us as a fig leaf for your bigotry

abolish schools

Abra-Goin' Ham-ic religions

think this teacher didn't understand how Trump's bonus was intended to work

countdown to cries of "crisis actor paid by liberals to weaken the NRA's position" in 5, 4, 3, 2....

already seen FALSE FLAG tweets about it

Lol there’s no countdown that was the immediate reaction

I don't know if we are here because of something we did, or if whoever is in charge of everything just hates us for no reason. maybe there's something even worse coming after this, i dont know. but we are all definitely in hell right now. this is hell. pic.twitter.com/feBJlFmYgl

— jesse farrar (@BronzeHammer) February 28, 2018

http://www.thinkingcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Reservoir-Dogs-Standoff.png

an absolute mortal lock that this shooting is deemed a false flag by progressives intending to undermine the argument that we should arm teachers

checking in on the deranged

Worshippers clutching AR-15 rifles and some wearing bullet crowns, participated in a commitment ceremony today at World Peace and Unification Sanctuary, in Newfoundland, Pa. The event led a nearby school to cancel classes for the day. Photos @jacquelinelarma pic.twitter.com/GXzrZeK41z

— AP Images (@AP_Images) February 28, 2018

are those...military personnel?

we are so fucked