Misinformation, rumors and just plain nonsense mistakes

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I'm not suggesting that TeenVogue is the place to go for news, politics and criminology information. But imagine that you've read this while in high school and that other equally misguided sources that you've heard or read agree with the some of the errors there. How long would it take for you to realize that the incorrect info was even wrong? Who would you trust to point that out?

My daughters read this publication and I'm sure it's popular today. I'm sure many teens are being misinformed here:
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/assault-rifles-ar-15-explained-orlando-shooting

"We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents," President Barack Obama...

Neither AR-15s nor any similar styled rifles are military issue in any country. Using the phrase "weapons of war" is incorrect. Quoting that without explaining in what sense that phrase is used is misinformation.

"Assault rifles, like the popular AR-15, usually fire smaller bullets than handguns. But they’re capable of firing many more bullets without reloading, which makes them potentially more lethal."

The term "assault rifle" properly refers to a select fire rifle that is actually capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull. I often read that gun-control proponents aren't interested in learning technical terminology or hearing knowledgeable folks point out their mistakes. Guns and gun-control necessarily involves technical info. The first step in making progress is accepting that. The second step is accepting that you may not have all the info you need to talk intelligently. The third is to actually learn.

"The system of background checks meant to keep guns out of the hands of people who might be dangerous is also notoriously flawed."

The system, like a chain, is only as strong as it's weakest link. It works the way it was designed to work. Most criticisms pointing out "loopholes" are talking about aspects of the system as it was design to work. Sales between private individuals were intended by the law mandating BGCs to be excluded no matter where they take place: gun show, parking lot or Burger King ladies room. The reason: regular folks are by law not allowed to access the NICS database.

Quoting the family of Eugene Stoner who invented a precursor of the AR-15: "He died long before any mass shootings occurred," the family said. "But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."

Horrified? Sure as most everyone is. But this materially incorrect. Mr Stoner invented the AR-10 in 1955. Wikipedia lists 4 mass shootings prior to the AR-10's invention and at least 26 before his death 1997. If you take the government's word for the history of "mass shootings" they often do leave out events like Bloody Island and Sand Creek.


The effect of quoting people (people who ought to be informed) is to lend credibility to an idea. Quoting info that you don't verify only serves to perpetuate those inaccuracies I name in the title of this post, which also detracts from your credibility on the subject...

...or, at least, it should.



Here's a huge incontestable fact. If you're a terrorist or other criminal with mayhem and murder as a goal and you plan on using a gun, an AR-15 isn't more deadly or more effective than many other options. The second deadliest modern mass shooting was at Virginia Tech where the shooter used semi-auto pistols with stock magazines. If a criminal with a gun is seeking to maximize death and injury, the single factor that determines the potential level of carnage is not his choice of weapon but his choice of venue for the attack. Places with large numbers of people removed from the chance of any organized armed response will always be potential deathtraps.

[Ford_Prefect]

1. In that case we need to put ALL the guns down so no one can get hurt by them.

Actually I support the proposal to make the ammunition so expensive that no one can afford it on the scale used during these assaults... And by the way if you really, really, really must have one you also carry liability insurance and a license that proves you were trained in safe use the way we do for drivers.

[Puha Ekapi]

2. Since...

...is a right enumerated in the constitution, good luck trying to restrict the right by restricting ammunition. It would rightly be seen as akin to restricting freedom of the press via restrictions on printer's ink.

[Ford_Prefect]

3. The right is to bear arms in a state organized militia. It is not and never has been a guarantee

that entitled individuals to be armed to the teeth and threaten anyone they chose to be afraid of.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. And if anyone had actually made such a ludicrous argument, *I'd* be the first to argue with them

But since, AFAIK, no one has- what you offer is merely a strawman argument, and a lazy
one at that.

[Puha Ekapi]

18. Interesting...

...that you disagree with President Obama, who is on record stating that the right to arms is an individual one.

[safeinOhio]

5. What if we treated the 2nd

Like we do the 7th. No one seems to care about that one. It has been stretched so thin it means nothing. Even the NRA disregards it and pushed for a law to ban suing gun manufactures.

[gejohnston]

10. because they were always thrown out of court as friviolus

do you support SLAPP suits? That is what the theory is based on. Tell you what, if some drunk hits you, sue the manufacturer if his car or Jack Daniels, see how far that goes. Also, there is no ban on legitimate lawsuits.

[safeinOhio]

11. Unless you

Are damaged by a drug maker in Michigan or if a jury in Texas or Ohio think your doctor did more damage than $250,000 to name only a few.

[gejohnston]

12. drugs and guns are not comparable

guns and cars are.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Ahem. I give you the Remington 700, with its dodgy quality control

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.google.com/search?q=remington+700+lawsuits&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Remington would have *loved* to have been exempted from their legal woes by
the PLCAA but they are not, and anyone that has told you that the PLCAA
did has either misinformed you or disinformed you

[Duckhunter935]

19. That could never have happened

Just like that Wisconsin gun dealer could not have been sued from what I have learned here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. product liability:

-> the legal liability a manufacturer or trader incurs for producing or selling a faulty product.

I have it on good authority (DU scuttlebutt) that guns were designed to kill and maim so the only folks who should be eligible to sue would those who shot and missed... right?

[virginia mountainman]

4. Please do..

I know how to make it, i can make LOTS of money by making it, and teaching people how to make it, want me to teach you?

[Ford_Prefect]

6. You enjoy threatening an old man?

I've built, and made, and gone on from more than you can imagine. Take your childish toys and play where they'll do no harm to anyone.

We've had enough of them and the dangerous ridiculous rituals and games played with them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. "Threatening an old man" with what? Knowledge? You lot always were prone to anti-intellectualism...

and hyperbole, but that takes the cake...


BTW, your attempt to limit a Constitutional right is in no wise new, and the Supremes
shut down a similar attempt with printers' ink:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. And about that 'old man' remark: I qualify to buy into one of those 'active adult' (gag)

...communities, now have to ramp up my retirement planning,
and I'm pretty sure v.m. does as well.

Try that on someone who'll believe it

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Ever hear anything back about that "threatening" accusation? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Nope. Seems like Ford has driven away...

[virginia mountainman]

16. Threat?!

Where did you read that one?? I am just informing you that I, along with possibly MILLIONS of Americans, happen to have a certain set of skills that will come into very high demand if YOUR wishes come true.

I am highly willing to share this info with anyone who asks, as I say, would you want ME to teach you how to make some good money if they ban ammo? Go ahead, create a very lucrative black market for us. I am sorry if "YOU" view me having the ability to make my own ammunition practically from scratch as a "threat", I really cannot help you with that problem.

I have no problems whatsoever helping good folks practice their constitutional rights.

BTW, I am not a spring chicken myself.

[Puha Ekapi]

22. FFS...

...a "threat"?

Good grief.

[virginia mountainman]

27. It really says alot about the anti-gun mindset..

When having knowledge is threatening...

I guess they prefer to not have knowledge..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Actually...

...I humbly request that you read several of the threads here which cover in detail all of those ideas range from oppressive and tyrannical to entirely ineffective and counter productive.

Here's a short synopsis:
- driving is not on par with a corollary to the right to life, the most basic human right. (self-defense)
- insurance to cover what?
- expensive ammo was proposed by Chris Rock... on stage... even he recognized it was a joke.

[Straw Man]

17. Well, well, well.

Last edited Mon Jun 20, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Actually I support the proposal to make the ammunition so expensive that no one can afford it on the scale used during these assaults... And by the way if you really, really, really must have one you also carry liability insurance and a license that proves you were trained in safe use the way we do for drivers.

Leaving aside the fact that this is a de facto ban of the same biased nature as laws that used to limit voting to property owners, it would also effectively guarantee that gun owners wouldn't be able to get sufficient practice in the safe use of their weapons.

I guess the re-branding of gun control as "gun safety" doesn't extend to actual ... safety.

[Duckhunter935]

20. It was never about "gun safety"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. So under that program I suppose there would be...

...a $999 tax on a $1 9mm round. I think there would be some dealers "losing" some on a regular basis. If shoplifting became a problem, those would have to be locked away.

Once the ammo became too scarce to reliably steal, a criminal would have to resort to...
...
...
...using a credit card to buy a box,
then return to his car and load the gun while pondering the tough choice...

...'Do I return to store with the now loaded 9mm to rob them of their remaining ammo or do I hit the bank across the street?'


OTOH, since the guy just wants to use the gun to rob, rape and/or threaten others, maybe he's just desperate enough to do his deeds with the gun unloaded. After all, many pro-control folks preach cooperation with armed assailants because 'it's better to be robbed or raped than injured or killed'.

[jimmy the one]

23. Misinformation, rumors and just plain nonsense mistakes (the OP)

We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents," President Barack Obama...
dscntnt: Neither AR-15s nor any similar styled rifles are military issue in any country. Using the phrase "weapons of war" is incorrect. Quoting that without explaining in what sense that phrase is used is misinformation.

No, what you spit out above is misinformation. The AR15 was the prototype for the m16 assault rifle, which was indeed a weapon of war.

Although the AR-15 has been standard issue for American service members for decades, .. the AR-15, (ArmaLite Rifle) was born in the late 1950s and came of age during the Vietnam War as an answer to Mikhail Kalashnikov’s AK-47.
.. the AR-15, and eventually the M-16, was introduced as a replacement for the U.S. military’s M-14... A small number of AR-15s were first bought by the Air Force in 1962 ..With the Air Force’s initial purchase, the AR-15 entered the U.S. military’s arms procurement pipeline.
After a series of tests and eventual adoption by other branches of the U.S. military, the AR-15, now the M-16, entered the jungles and rice paddies of Vietnam as a malfunction-prone mess. The weapon, after failing in combat time and time again,
The M-16 and its civilian counterpart {Today} bear only an external resemblance to its Vietnam-era ancestors and are considered mostly reliable, if properly maintained, by today’s standards. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/06/13/the-history-of-the-ar-15-the-weapon-that-had-a-hand-in-americas-worst-mass-shooting/

dsscntnt: The term "assault rifle" properly refers to a select fire rifle that is actually capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull.

You provide the technical definition of an assault rifle. The 'term' in common political usage is to distinguish many military rifles from conventional rifles. You actually know this & simply reiterate pro gun lobby propaganda to impress the board.
Also, an assault rifle in political terms can be one which can be converted back to full auto, using either a conversion kit or simple tools.

obama: "The system of background checks meant to keep guns out of the hands of people who might be dangerous is also notoriously flawed.
dscntnt: The system, like a chain, is only as strong as it's weakest link. It works the way it was designed to work.

Gong. The background check system does not collapse if a link is broken. The BG check system is like a stranded rope, if one or several strands are cut, the system weakens but does not break.

dscntnt: Most criticisms pointing out "loopholes" are talking about aspects of the system as it was design to work. Sales between private individuals were intended by the law mandating BGCs to be excluded no matter where they take place: gun show, parking lot or Burger King ladies room..

No it is a loophole in the law.

Quoting the family of Eugene Stoner who invented a precursor of the AR-15: "He died long before any mass shootings occurred," the family said. "But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
dscntnt: But this materially incorrect. Mr Stoner invented the AR-10 in 1955. Wikipedia lists 4 mass shootings prior to the AR-10's invention and at least 26 before his death 1997.

The Stoner family is likely meaning mass shootings with a high number of casualty & fatality, not simply a shooting with 4 deaths as was classified a mass shooting & could occur perhaps during a bank robbery.
And you evidently cite 1 mass shooting per 10 year time period, accd'g to your wiki link, prior to 1955.

wiki: "public mass shooting" if four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition of the term "mass murder". Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period. Related terms include school shooting and massacre..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. so much facepalm

"AR-15 has been standard issue for American service members for decades..." I don't care if the post said it, it's still wrong and an AR-15 is not an M-16. You say that I can change a few parts and make them work the same. In the legal sense at least one of the parts required is what the law defines as AN M_16. So you're saying that an AR-15 can be converted to being an M-16 if I just buy and add the essence of AN M-16 to it. I could take out certain AR parts and add certain M-16 parts. That's kind of like me saying that I can list parts for you to remove from an AR and also list other items to add which turn an AR into tuna salad.
Who do you write for? Is it Bill Maher? Are you unemployed now that George Carlin has passed?


"assault rifle"... Oh yes, I forgot, words don't mean anything, assault weapon, assault rifle, a salt n' pepper... which way is the wind blowing now???


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole Look it up. Evading the intent of a statute through a private sale/transfer is plainly a load of crap. If said statute intended to cover private sales, it would have provided a means by which the private seller could run a BGC. Alternatively, the law could have forbidden private sales and transfers and mandated all such transactions take place via an FFL. It did not.


Thanks for your conjecture on what the Stoner meant. I think most of us are able to infer the same. However, my point in addressing the inaccuracy which was related to the POOR JOURNALISM which hit me over the head rather than someone's innocent mistake. The article's author and the editing staff evidently never heard of obscure events such the Whitman shooting at the University of Texas/Austin or the St Valentine's Day Massacre.


I leave it to you to 'impress the board' but I won't be holding my breath.

[beevul]

25. Equivocation.

No, what you spit out above is misinformation. The AR15 was the prototype for the m16 assault rifle, which was indeed a weapon of war.

The AR-15 that was a prototype for the mM-16, is not the civilian legal semi-auto AR-15 commonly owned by by people now days.

No it is a loophole in the law.

The law failing to do what it was never intended to do, is no loophole.

[tortoise1956]

29. Speaking of misinformation...

The original AR-15 was a select-fire rifle in .223 caliber, based on the AR-10 design (7.62x51). It was sold to the military, by Colt, as the M-16. The models that were available on the civilian market were semi-auto only versions, beginning in 1963. It was originally marketed as a sporting rifle, NOT a poor man's battle rifle. As a matter of fact, there is a blurb at the following link about what they did to prevent converting the original semi-auto version to full-auto.
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1964issues/G1264.pdf

The modern AR-15 is quite different from the original M-16, due in large part to extensive modifications to prevent easily converting them to full-auto. Yes, it can be done, but it is neither easy, nor is it legal for the average Joe, unless they have the correct paperwork in place. And since the number of crimes committed with full-auto !R-15's is on the order of infinitesimal, it's a safe bet to assume that there's no stampede of gun nuts making their AR-15's in to "weapons of war."

There is one definition of an assault rifle. Just because American politicians have co-opted the phrase and twisted its meaning into something else, doesn't make it correct.
http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Army_Gives_Definition_Of_Assault_Rifle.pdf

And the phrase "assault weapon" is mainly an invention of the gun control groups.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

The Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically addressed private sales, exempting them from any background check requirement. This is NOT a loophole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Anyone who tries to identify it as such either doesn't understand what a loophole is,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
or is deliberately distorting facts in an attempt to make them fit their narrative.

Anything else you wish to use your pretzel logic on?

NOTE: Modern AR-15 semi-auto rifles are NOT in use in any military that I have ever heard of. However, I can't state that as an indisputable fact. If you know of one, please provide some documentation.

Edited to add a link to a story about the Associated Press Stylebook definition of Assault Rifle (fully automatic), and Assault weapon (semi-automatic only):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/17/is-it-fair-to-call-them-assault-weapons/

Edited again to soften the tone and remove what could be construed as a personal attack.

[RME_SFC]

31. far better and more patient

response than I could've mustered.

[tortoise1956]

33. It wasn't easy...

I had to go back in and edit out some semi-inflammatory language.

Jimmy and I have gone around and around in the past. I find the best way to respond to J the 1 is to include links from unbiased websites that reinforce your arguments, and/or undermine his foundation. He's pretty good at debating, up to a point - but sooner or later he's forced to resort to leaps of faith to reach the conclusions he favors. At that point, you just rhetorically dynamite the virtual ledge he's metaphorically standing on...

[Duckhunter935]

32. Great post, thanks