Originally posted by Tzeentch._
... they're both semi-automatic weapons. They fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, basically.
Yet the AR-15 can potentially hold double the ammo of two M9s and it's easier to reload one rifle than trying to reload an M9 in each hand after you've spent the 15 rounds in each. This isn't Resident Evil or Equilibrium.
Edit: Even with your self-stated lousy aim, you'd probably have better accuracy with an AR-15 than the M9 you use.
Okay, so we're switching back to the magazine size.
Yeah, an AR-15 has a bigger clipsize. Considering it takes about 2 and a half seconds to reload a gun though, I see that difference as pretty marginal, tbh. I don't think having a bigger clipsize outweighs the benefit of it being easier and cheaper to stock-up on handguns and ammo, as well as the mobility and concealability.
edit- I saw someone mention earlier that I might be advocating keeping assault weapons legal. To clarify, I think both handguns and assault weapons should be illegal for average citizens to use. If you need a weapon for self-defense, get a shotgun. My issue with assault weapons is that I think their threat level is overblown. Considering what history has shown us in regard to shootings like this, the huge majority of them are orchestrated with handguns, not assault weapons, and thus far no massacre with assault weapons has matched the massacres performed with handguns in terms of body count. I think handguns are more dangerous for various reasons.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The whole "limit media coverage" is bullshit. Millions of people see non-stop reporting on violence in general, and shootings in particular, and don't go out and shoot up a restaurant or a bus. I can't believe this argument is still floating around.
Tell me/us more about this theory. Is there any science to back up what you're posting, here? Is there any science or research that supports the other side? I've only seen one person, a psychiatrist, point out that this gun massacre stuff is bad. That is not enough 'evidence' to convince me that we should stop doing a media frenzy over these events. However, I see no evidence or expert opinion backing up your perspective.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Tell me/us more about this theory. Is there any science to back up what you're posting, here? Is there any science or research that supports the other side? I've only seen one person, a psychiatrist, point out that this gun massacre stuff is bad. That is not enough 'evidence' to convince me that we should stop doing a media frenzy over these events. However, I see no evidence or expert opinion backing up your perspective.
It's very obvious that the vast majority of people who see coverage of shootings on the news don't engage in shootings.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Exactly what do you want me to substantiate?I'm expressing skepticism of the view that clamping down on media coverage would somehow mitigate/prevent gun violence.
How about, "Media coverage of mass shootings has no influence, at all, on repeat mass shootings because of evidences x,y, and z."
I want to know what those are.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
In that case I don't care nearly enough. You win. Have a cookie.
Well, there is your problem: you think this is some sort of petty competition. But if you're offering cookies, I would prefer you say, "It is my unsubstantiated and unscientific opinion that I tried to pass off as factual."
I am genuinely interested to know if censoring the media could reduce mass gun shootings in the US (and abroad). Being the "rights for everyone" person that I am, it would take a shit on my generally libertarian perspective on personal liberties.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm expressing skepticism of the view that clamping down on media coverage would somehow mitigate/prevent gun violence.
The argument "lots of people watch media violence and don't murder people thus it has no influence" (which is what you seem to be saying) is rather trivially stupid. You're making an all or nothing argument which is completely counter to the way people work. It may be that certain people are significantly more susceptible. In fact I'd wager that if media violence does cause violence in people it's probably just in some vulnerable group. Reducing media violence might have an effect (it might even have a large one, though I doubt that) but we have no ethical way of finding out.
This actually reminds me of the last time I spoke to a physicist about psychology.
The argument "lots of people watch media violence and don't murder people thus restricting the rights of the media may be more harmful than beneficial" is much more reasonable as is "lots of people watch media violence and don't murder people thus we should look to help those people rather than restrict the media."
I find it incredible that people bring up the way these things are reported in the media, before they bring up that maybe there is a sub-standard level of mental health care.
I think it would be very difficult to limit media coverage of something like this. The fact is that people all over the world want know what's happened. They want to know how this happened and they want worldwide debate on how it can be avoided in the future. Like it or not, that debate is usually spearheaded by media reporting. The one thing that disgusted me about the media in this particular instance was them interviewing five year olds for eyewitness accounts. They shouldn't have done that and they should be reprimanded for it.
I do think that before a debate begins on how these infamy hungry sociopaths might be encouraged by mainstream media reporting, there should be discussion on what's in place to spot and help these people before it gets to that stage.