Ask the 59 people who were killed and the 525 people who were wounded and all of those who were traumatized by this horrific event, if we need gun control.
Why does any civilian need access to assault weapons? The problem is the mentally ill are an unknown quantity until after they commit the crimes. It's like striking a match to see if it works. By then it is too late, the match is already burnt out.
This is not the price we pay for freedom as some have said. All of those who have died and are victims of mass shootings have paid the price with their lives, so that others can have access to weapons of mass destruction...and I don't mean missiles. There are many who buy and collect these guns because they are fun to fire and they would not hurt a fly. But they are going to have to learn to sacrifice to save the lives of others.
The only way to prevent mass shootings is to remove the weapons that people use to commit these crimes. Just think if there were no WMDs there would have been no mass shootings. One may argue that they would have used other means. That's true, but they wouldn't have been able to kill 59 and injury over 500 people in less than 10 minutes. Yes, they could have used bombs, but the weapons of choice are assault rifles.
Just follow the money to the NRA, gun stores, the gun and ammunition manufacturers, congress, and their lobbyist. This is not about morality and the notion of protection against tyranny. It is about the all mighty dollar.
It's a simple answer. People who want an assault rifle get off on it.
Well, if you are in favor of banning or regulating the behavior of private individuals if it poses a threat to public health and safety, the logical place to start is sex. In the US alone approximately 658,507 people have died of AIDS. Plus STD rates are at epidemic levels. There are an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 deaths annually from Chronic HepC in USA. The CDC reported that were about 110 million STDs in U.S. men and women in 2008. Health care costs for the treatment of STDs amounted to more than $15 billion for treating the 19.7 million new infections that occurred in 2008.
Now there's an emergency! A situation that any caring and compassionate person would certainly acknowledge as requiring the banning of sex--or at least gay sex and certain other types of dangerous sexual behaviors--and the strict regulation of all sex, if not an outright ban.
No one NEEDS to have sex. We can reproduce the population with artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization. Unregulated sex produces children who are mentally or genetically deficient, with genetic predispositions to many illnesses. All reproductive activity should be controlled, licensed, and regulated by the State.
Plus, since people shouldn't be having sex in the first place, why do they need the equipment to have sex? Allowing people to retain their sexual apparatus just leads to illness and death, and a lower-quality population. People are walking around with weapons of mass destruction in their pants, and there is evidence that they are using them at an alarming rate.
Not only should all sexual activity be banned (or at the very least strictly licensed and regulated), we need to sterilize the whole population (except for those selected for government breeding programs), using means that makes sexual activity impossible.
Plus I hear that people are actually "getting off" on this unsanitary and dangerous activity.
Well, here I go again playing word games and being picky, picky, picky. But... how about trying to make your point seem as valid as you think it is peoplepower73 - without misleading statements and exaggerated rhetoric .
For instance; the shooter did not wound 525 people. That number, whether it is presented as over 400 by some sources, or 525 by others, are estimates of all wounded and injured people. Those numbers have mostly been extrapolated from hospital personnel statements. Although they may have issued estimates by now that I haven't heard, I don't think police authorities have offered official estimates yet.
Regardless, per the hospital statements I have heard, the largest mass of "injuries" were ones suffered in the process of fleeing the event site. Please understand I am not trying to diminish the scope of this tragedy, It was horrific, and there were a lot of people wounded by the shooter - beyond the fatalities. My only point is to address the exaggerated rhetoric being used.
If you want to condemn the shooter - 59 fatalities and being the largest such incident in modern U.S. history should be more than enough for your point.
Concerning your desire to determine what anyone "needs," vs. their Constitutional Rights, whether it be guns or income; we have discussed that several times before, and I don't think any of the logic has changed.
As others have noted, I too think it a poor reflection to be jumping on a political bandwagon even before the smoke of this tragedy has cleared.
I disagree with your criticism of People Power. He doesn't need any smoke to clear, nor do I think it is a poor reflection, to ask his post title: Why does any civilian need assault rifles?
I'm curious to hear your answer to his question other than "I don't think any of the logic has changed" rather than focusing on his use of the word "wounded". And to his credit, he also used the word "injured" in his second reference.
Hi promisem, my answer to his question would address two points; that of "need," and the determination of "assault rifle."
The "need" part seems easy to me. The point is about a defined Constitutional Right, not someone's determination of need. If someone never ever spoke out in protest or support of anything, why would they "need" a Right to free speech?
Tied in with that is the determination of what an "assault rifle" is. And I am not addressing this as a matter of semantics or perception, (like those who equate it to the definition of porn). This has been discussed to death, but I haven't seen any anti-assault rifle positions that were based on anything but perception.
The facts I accept are that an "assault rifle" is specifically a military-grade weapon, unavailable to the public in general. Another that I perceive to be a fact is that anti-assault rifle folks accept any semi-automatic gun that looks like, (as in scary), an assault rifle to be one.
This first image is a typical "kid's" first gun. Used for learning, target shooting, and varmint hunting.
It is .22 caliber, has a 16 - 25, (approx.), bullet, tube-load capacity, and fires one bullet per trigger pull.
Is this an assault-rifle to you?
This second image is also a .22 caliber, looks to have an approx. 20-round magazine, and also fires one shot per trigger pull. It has the exact same fire-power and firing rate as the "kid's" gun above, but I am betting most folks will call it an assault rifle.
Two shooters standing side-by-side would have the exact same power of the weapon in their hands.
So, which gun do we ban? Which gun is the assault rifle no citizen "needs?"
I'm sorry, I believe your reply actually is based on semantics that serve to confuse the issue with secondary details rather than identify a starting point for solutions.
First, I believe the 2nd Amendment is far from a defined right because of the militia clause. But that's a debate for another time.
Second, common sense says we have to start somewhere. That somewhere is the magazine size, firing rate or some other relevant characteristic of a firearm regardless of the type of firearm. It is no different than the laws on abortion that pick a limit on the age of a fetus.
Third, as I have stated elsewhere, we close the private sale loophole and strictly adhere to the existing mental health database. Both actions would reduce the number of private sales to convicted felons and dangerous mentally ill people like the mass shooter at Virginia Tech.
I don't understand the semantics part of your reply promisem, but I do understand we have different perspective of the Second Amendment.
I also understand that our society demands some restrictions on guns, a power the Supreme Court says is inline with the intent of the Second Amendment. So I can agree that restricting magazine size is a possible choice. It will only restrict the less adept shooters, but it will appease the public demand for some action, and may limit the ability to cause harm for those less adept shooters - without impinging on our Second Amendment Right, so I see it as a price to be paid. And not an exorbitant price at that.
Once again I want to shy away from your private sales/mentally ill mantra points. They are a separate issue from this discussion. I don't believe their answers are as cut and dried as you seem to, but if you want to start another discussion on those points - I promise to chine in.
GA, I appreciate your willingness to consider a limit on magazine size. It potentially lowers the risk of the kind of massive destruction that took place in Vegas and elsewhere.
I hope you agree that bump stocks should become illegal. Otherwise, other shooters will try to start using them too. I suggest gun advocates need to support some kind of action. If we have more shootings like Vegas, I think a big part of the country will push back hard and you will lose a lot more.
I'll drop the private sales issue with you. But it remains a serious loophole.
Don't be too appreciative of my considerations promisem, I am certain you would not like my reasons for such willingness.
I would accept the magazine and bump-stock limitations only because I accept that the public will demand, and politicians will scramble to provide, some action of restriction, and neither of those infringe on my Second Amendment Rights.
Put a removable or folding stock on the second one, along with a piece of sheet metal filled with holes around the barrel and you have the legal definition, in some states, of an "assault rifle" that was banned. That it is functionally and effectively identical to the picture of the first is irrelevant; it is scary looking and has that removable stock and barrel shroud.
It isn't about truth or reality; it's about how much you can scare people.
No, it's about muddying the waters with inane details designed to confuse the issue.
Inane details. Like folding stocks and barrel shrouds. For once we agree; such things are completely inane, serve no purpose but to muddy the waters and have no place in an honest discussion.
Wonder what their place is in state laws then - weren't they discussed in a legislature before becoming law?
Folding stocks enable such a weapon to be hidden easily on one's person and flash suppressors are to prevent anyone--such as law enforcement officers--to fire without being easily seen. Duh!
Sure thing! A twenty or thirty inch pipe is "easily hidden" about the person. Along with a stock and other parts. Didn't say a "flash suppressor"; said a barrel shroud. One of those perforated pieces of sheet metal so you don't touch a hot barrel. They make a gun super deadly, don't you know?
(When was the last time a killer walked by observers with it concealed about his person because of the folding stock?)
Guess what? Banning illegal drugs has not made them any less accessible to people who want to get them. This is the same with guns. People even abuse legal drug prescriptions, just like legal guns. This question is like asking why should anyone own a machete? Thousands of people own machetes, and they are used in many attacks every year. Do we need machete control? Now, if we're going to ban or control items that cause mass death and injury; there are a number of household items that can be quite dangerous. Bombs can be created from combining many different common household items. Should we ban all of these household items? When does it stop? Banning anything doesn't work. People with the intent to kill people will always find a way. Just ask Israel.
Mike, I ask the following question without sarcasm:
If we removed the 70 mph limit on highways, will everyone except for a small minority continue to limit their speed? I hope we agree that some would, but more people would certainly drive faster.
No law absolutely controls all human behavior. Laws modify behavior for most law-abiding citizens but not all.
Just as we have laws to modify driving speeds, we need laws to modify access to guns. Otherwise, do we get rid of all guns laws?
Let me give a crack at answering you. Why?
The answer is, it is our insurance policy against a potential over reach by a tyranical government.
This is the history of our world, like it or not. Down through history, there has been dictators and tyrants who wants to supress their citizens. Hitler and Stalin came to mind but there were many others. If you were a citizen at that time period, living in those conditions, anyone would be happy to have some access to weapons for self defense and for defending against a corrupt government.
I realize with each mass shooting incidents, we will re-address the question of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms...
It does not change a thing. It is human nature and there will always be criminals and insane people and they are a small minority but as we saw, they can cause a lot of harm and damage. It is not just domestic or foreign terrorists but average individuals, neighbors and citizens.
If a law can prevent this or change human nature, I will be supporting it but unfortunately, no such law exist.
If people are really concerned about violence and murder and race and society...what about addressing the daily shootings in Chicago? Why is people dying from gun shots in the inner city of Chicago less meaningful than people attending a concert in Las Vegas? I wonder?
Yes, this is why the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. Gun control would do little or nothing to reduce gun violence. Chicago is an object lesson in this case. The death toll in the Las Vegas shootings is about the same as the monthly death toll in Chicago. Statistically, states and cities with strict gun control laws have far higher rates of gun violence than those with little gun control. There is no advantage to gun control, in terms of preventing gun violence, and there are great disadvantages.
Tyrannical regimes have always disarmed their citizens. Most historians estimate that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 20 million. Solzhenitsyn estimates the death toll at 60 million. The same is true wherever there has been tyranny: The populace must first be disarmed.
Personally, I would prefer that "our" government--which is notorious for corruption, venality, injustice, and violence--not disarm its citizens. This is a government that is fully capable of the crimes of Stalin. I'd be much more worried about government crimes against American citizens--of which there are many, and which far surpass the violence in Las Vegas--than about the possibility of occasional random gun violence by individuals.
This is also a government that is incapable of--or possibly just disinterested in--protecting its citizens from crime, and maintaining law and order during riots or natural disasters. At some point in the future mass civil unrest is a distinct possibility. You may want a means of self-defense in such a case.
For many people, gun ownership for self-defense is essential. There is a reason why there is a gun or three (and a mean dog) in every rural farmhouse, where the wife and kids are often isolated and alone during the day. Self defense is at least equally important in the cities.
What is to prevent those very same people to use their vast arsenal of weapons (the U.S. owns 48% of the total civilian guns in the world) to be part of the tyranny instead of opposing it?
"Ask the 59 people who were killed and the 525 people who were wounded and all of those who were traumatized by this horrific event, if we need gun control. "
Let's first ask them if they would prefer to have been murdered by some other weapon. That way we can all feel relieved that they aren't being killed by a weapon they don't approve of.
Let us start with your first point "Why does any civilian need access to assault weapons", The weapons used in the attack are ILLEGAL. Let that sink in, they were not purchased legally. Paddock did buy some legal guns but, the automatics he used in the attack are already ILLEGAL. Obviously the guns being illegal kept him from shooting 500+ people. Right? You can think about it I'll wait.
All reports that I’ve seen so far suggest that he obtained all of his guns and the modifications to allow them to rapid-fire legally. Can you link me to something that says the weapons he used were illegal?
Hi michelleonly3, it's good to see new a new voice in this forum, but... since I appear to be on a "get it right!" kick with the regulars, it is only fair to ask you; "How do you know he had an illegal automatic weapon?" I haven't seen any confirming reports of that.
It's a relatively easy process to convert legally obtained assault rifles from semi-automatic to fully automatic. The parts can be purchased online or there are gunsmiths who will do it for you. Despite the ban on machine guns owned by common citizens made in the late 1930's, anyone who wants one can get one.
These rifles will hold upward of 40 rounds with easily changed clips. This is the main reason for people to be against assault rifles. No serious hunter would consider such as a favorite deer hunting rifle.
Is your definition of "assault rifle" then the same as the more common term of "machine gun"? Or is it still just anything black and mean looking that needs to be banned?
A serious question as the meaning of "assault rifle" seems to continue to change to include ever more guns; basically anything the speaker wishes to include. No more than a scary name intended to convince the reader that military weapons are what are being talked about.
My term for machine gun would include any fully automatic weapon, Dan. What 's your idea of a machine gun? And why would anyone following the law need one? Personally. for self defense I'd choose a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. Unless you want to ambush and murder lots of people, of course, then you'd use an assault rifle. There's a reason for the name you know....
No, no! I meant what is an "assault rifle", according to your definition? Is it a machine gun, or is it anything black and scary looking regardless of rate of fire? The terminology has gotten unbelievable sloppy in the past few years as it began to be used to scare people into thinking ordinary rifles were military. (I agree a "machine gun" is any fully automatic gun).
Assault rifles are any which fire semi-automatically and can use a large clip to increase the number of bullets being fired up to 50 or more rounds. I don't know what you mean by "scary looking" as all weapons pointing in one's direction usually causes fright.
You may agree a machine gun is better for killing massed people instead of sniping single individuals, or can you?
We disagree on the definition of an assault rifle, then, and neither of us agree with any of the laws in various states. Did you know that things like a removable stock, a barrel shroud and even an over 10 shell magazine might make a gun an "assault rifle" legally? My grandkids .22 becomes an "assault rifle", suitable for military assault on bunkers!
An "assault rifle" is a military weapon, automatic, and unavailable in this country to the public except in very special circumstances. It can be reasonably used to assault enemy positions. IMO
Varies by speaker, but "scary looking" generally means black, with a metal stock with hole in it. One state went so far as to include any gun that looks like an AR15 on their ban, though I don't recall which one. Looks are important - it kills more people!
Oh yes - while I wouldn't ban machine guns, I wouldn't lessen the requirements for one (pretty strict), either. And if they really did begin to be used for murders I would certainly consider a ban. We have no disagreement here, unless you would ban a style of weapon that has been used to murder just 2 people in the last 79 years (legal, fully automatic guns).
Is that only in the US? If so, it just went up with the Las Vegas tragedy. Do you believe it will end there?
You lost me. Do you refer to deaths by legally owned, automatic weapons?
I don't know the answer to that one - is it legal in Nevada to own automatic weapons, without special permits? Or was that not an automatic (technically, it wasn't). Either way, I trust you actually did understand the statement, notwithstanding the argument over terminology.
An assault rifle is a rifle used to assault people via the size of the magazine or the ability to fire rapidly. That's not hard to figure out.
Hi Randy, you are right about how easy it is to get a full-auto conversion kit for the AR-15, but, once it is converted, I don't think it is legal for a non-licensed, (machine gun license), person to own.
According to NBC news tonight the guns themselves were quite legal. How they were obtained wasn't addressed.
Wilderness: Does it really matter what it is called? The scary part is what it can do in the wrong hands. It's like porn. It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
Yep. Like porn. Or fertilizer. Or knives. Or cars. Or a brick. They're all dangerous.
Except that not a single one is particularly dangerous if used correctly - only people are dangerous. And yes, it matters a whole lot when the intent is to convince others that the tool was the cause - it scares them into thinking taking the tool away will diminish the carnage. We know better, but continue on doing it.
So your answer is to find a tool and ban it. When it doesn't work, find another and ban it. And another and another and another, ad infinitum, and always with a total lack of results. Always address the tool rather than the one doing the actual killing, in the forlorn hope that if he doesn't have the specific tool he wants he won't kill. The only question is why? Why do you and so many others continue the same path - the path that has failed for decades and shows every indication of continuing to fail?
You don't like automatic weapons (yes, I know you would ban all guns, but this was done with a faux automatic). Fine. Ban any part and any effort to modify a gun designed or resulting in an increase in rate of fire. If banning the gun will help, so will that step, and help just as much.
The people who died and and those that have been wounded in mass shootings could care less what you called them weapons or tools. How about if you gun advocates were in that audience and your loved one was killed by this guy and you were wounded by him would you care what it was called or argue over how many people were killed or wounded?
It's only you people who are afraid of your guns being taken away are the ones who get wrapped up in this minutia as means of argument. When Obama was president, there was much talk of tyranny for the excuse to be armed. I don't hear that anymore now that Trump is president.
We are the only country that I know of that has a second amendment. When the second amendment was ratified, they were using muskets and flint lock pistols. Today we use rapid fire mass killing devices. The technology has changed. Therefore the law needs to be changed.
When cars were first used by the public, the speed limits were like 20 miles per hour. With today's cars the laws have changed because the technology changed. When airplanes were first used by the public, a pilot didn't even need a license, now there are very strict rulings for the safety of the people.
According to those congressmen who are beholden to the gun industry for campaign funding, NEVER is a good time to talk about gun control. All you have to do is follow the money and it becomes very apparent as to why they don't want to talk about gun control.
Promisem, you're making my point. Only the law abiding are affected by laws, those who break the laws won't care. A significant number of deaths are caused each year by people breaking the speed limit and other traffic infractions. Here's my question to you. Chicago, Washington DC and other places have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and some of the highest deaths by guns. How is that explained. Also, it has been shown places where legal gun purchases increase, crimes go down. How do you explain this?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ … fd90e03f7c
Mike, it's a valid question. I think they prove that local gun laws are worthless. My state is one of the top three in the country for exporting guns used in crimes to other states. A local law won't stop someone from going to the next state or city to buy one.
We need a national solution. Gun murders in Australia have dropped to the point where there are fewer of them than murders with knives. The gun murder rate there has had a steep decline since the country started putting more controls in place in the late 80s.
The chart below of the gun murder rate comes from the Australian government.
Comforting, is it, to realize that people are killed with something besides a gun? A really warm feeling, gets you right in the heart!
What is it that makes such tidbits of information so common? Because it's so easy to imply that reducing gun deaths equates with reducing deaths - the speaker doesn't have to say a thing. It's just assumed so by the gullible listener.
Are you now disagreeing with the very stats you gave to me? You can mock the truth all you want, but it doesn't change the this critical truth:
An entire country reduced the rate of murder by guns by doing a better job of legislating them.
Well said! At least if you ignore that it happened before that legislation, if you ignore that there was no change in the rate of decline after the legislation and if you pretend that event X, following event Y is always caused by event Y.
And, most importantly, if you pretend that lowering gun deaths has anything to do with lowering violent deaths by all causes. That is the goal is it not? Or is it just to disarm the populace, using any verbal tactics possible?
Gosh, I'm amazed at how many things people claim I say when I didn't say them at all.
Fair enough: I'm amazed how quickly it's forgotten and common the spin of only discussing gun murders is, as opposed to murders of all types. It's almost as if we're expected to think lowering one equates with lowering the other! Or that the listener is too stupid to see the gun grab going on...
Wait. Are you trying to indicate that because Indiana has loose gun laws, lots of guns and little gun violence (example - don't know if true), it causes Chicago, Ill to have lots of gun homicides because their strict gun laws aren't effective and guns come in from Indiana, the state with high guns and low gun deaths?
Don't see how that follows.
Promisem, I knew someone would bring up Australia or England. Here's the problem...we have American criminals and not Australian criminals. Australia has 22 million people, the United States has over 316 million people. Australia is an island. The United States shares a boarder with Mexico and also Canada. Read about "Fast & Furious" incident. Illegal guns will always get into the country like a number of illegal things. Our immigration policies are different. Australia doesn't have a problem with illegal immigrants streaming into their country on a daily basis. This includes many gang members and other criminals. So, Australia is not a good example as out country's problems and their country's problems are very different. I hope people can understand this.
I'll ask the question again in a little bit different way. Why do civilians need rapid fire semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms? I don't want to get distracted by the definition of scary looking tools. We have been there too many times.
It's true laws are made to be broken by some. So the logic of gun advocates is why have any laws at all for guns. People are going to break the laws anyway, so why have any laws? Let's just take away all laws that govern our safety. They will be broken anyway by some.
If state laws, don't work, then why not have federal laws? They would provide standardized laws across all states, just like the FCC, FAA, DOT, etc, I understand that right now, there are over 200 state laws on the books and no standardization by states. That's one of the reason for all the gun trafficking across states.
We need federal laws that track every single gun, just like we track every single motor vehicle. I know that strikes fear in the heats of "patriots" everywhere, but hey, if you're a law abiding citizen you won't have any trouble getting and keeping your guns.
The term "assault rifle" actually came from Hitler's created propaganda. He didn't seem to think "sub-machine gun" had a strong enough tone to it, that he wanted something that would strike fear into the hearts of the enemy. So, "assault rifle" didn't really mean anything, it still doesn't.
When the media repeats "assault rifle" over and over again they are actually spreading Nazi propaganda that was created by Hitler to strike fear into the hearts of people.
Look it up, I am not making this up.
An assault rifle is a rifle that is used to assault people.
The original source of the term has nothing to do with these massacres and certainly is not an example of media spreading Nazi propaganda.
By your own logic than, a rifle doesn't become an assault rifle until its used to assault someone?
That because there is no such thing as an assault rifle?
Sounds like propaganda to me.
No, because it's intended purpose is assault via a large magazine and the ability to fire rapidly.
Since when do you need a 30-round clip to shoot a deer?
In the hands of evil people we can say they are intended for that, so are pressure cookers. But, that doesn't hold water with law abiding citizens.
Added: Then, there is self defense.
Nowhere in your definition did you mention a 30+ round magazine. Anything else you'd like to add to that definition, or is it now complete?
That would include any and every long gun produced. A shotgun, for instance, or a kids .22 varmint gun. The .22's used in Olympic games. A sniper rifle with an ammo capacity of 1. A blunderbuss from the 1700's and a black powder muzzle loader from the civil war. The single shot 45-70 buffalo gun. The first, 1895, lever action Winchester 30-30. All fearsome "assault rifles" that should be banned forever.
Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ … afficking/
Pretty funny, huh! What a hypocrite.
Just goes to show that people don't know who they vote for. The voting errors continue. SF China Town has been a hot bed of corruption, through the decades. How anti-gun was he? I'm spectacle that he voted for the common good on any issue. His moves are self-serving like any person with money as the deciding element.
Edited: I think the media is bias. (That everyone knows that.)
And, I hope not for too much longer.
Let's take GA's semiautomatic weapon and put a bump stock on it and high capacity magazines, like the ones that were used by the shooter. This is what you end up with. You tell me what you have here.
You get a half a$$ed machine gun that works some of the time.
Interestingly, the first comment answers the question of "need" we keep hearing about: "This was a ton of fun!!!" The same "need" we have for amusement parks, mountain climbing and snow skiing.
And one further down answers another: "It comes with a letter from the ATF stating that it does not mechanically turn the rifle into automatic and its legal to install.", along with one that hasn't been asked here: "Don't know how long its going to take for the slave states to catch up with this so if your thinking about getting one do it while you can.". Congress should be moving fairly quickly, IMO - the only question is can they.
Bump-Stock Device Received ATF Green Light During Obama Administration
* https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/su … mome_share
No self-righteous leftist cries for Gun Control when a Sudanese immigrant uses one.
Why is that
* http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/24/mu … e-say.html
Liberal media doesn't hammer on stories like this and they should.
Hi peoplepower73, as I noted earlier, with the "bump-stock added to a "normal" semi-automatic rifle - you do effectively have an automatic rifle, even if it is technically still a semi-auto.
As also noted earlier, I do think these bump-stocks are skirting the spirit of the automatic rifle restrictions, even if they are technically legal. But from my perspective this still does not offer any validation for the banning of semi-automatic rifles.
Even so, my answer to your question is that what you have now is realistically an automatic-fire rifle.
I think current public sentiment will demand some action regarding these now-legal accessories - whether I agree with that sentiment is a different matter.
Already done, by Diane Feinstein (who else):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … ntrol-bill
But...a really ugly thought. These things seem to be just a chunk of plastic. Can't they be readily produced on a 3-D printer?
Hi Wilderness, I had heard of Feinstein's effort, and was probably as unsurprised as you were.
Given their material of composition - plastic, I would not be surprised to see 3-d printer code for them.
Then making them illegal is another wasted effort. Time and resources expended for no gain. Not what I wanted to hear - there have been just two murders from legally owned automatic weapons in the last 79 years. Something tells me we're about to see that go up.
Wilderness: Yep, that's right, they work some of the time. That's why the shooter was able to kill 59 people and injure 500 more because in less than 10 minutes his guns worked some of the time.
Colorfulone: The laws should apply to all people, black, green, and even people with purple and pink polka dots.
You asked. No need to get snarky when you got a true answer, just because it isn't the one you wanted.
Separate topic; have you heard how many were actually wounded by the shooter as opposed to killed? I'm interested in the accuracy of that device; seems like it would be horribly inaccurate, and even in a crowd I'd expect lots of non-fatal gunshot wounds. More than fatal ones, and by a pretty good margin.
Wilderness; He had scopes mounted on his guns and they were mounted on tripods. I don't think he was shooting particular individuals, but was probably spraying the crowd. So in my view, accuracy does not come into play.
But that's what I mean. The video I saw on "bump" stocks says the stock must be held firmly to the shoulder while the barrel is actively pulled away. The entire barrel assembly then bounces back and forth on the firmly held stock. That doesn't promote accuracy, and having a scope or tripod mounted on that vibrating barrel isn't going to change that.
I agree, he was likely just spraying the crowd indiscriminately, likely without aiming at all. Just point it in the general direction and start firing. But if 59 people were killed and 5 merely shot, that would seem to deny that concept. Even if there were 200 merely wounded I'd say it was a fantastic improbability that 1 out of 5 were killed rather than wounded.
Jack: The law doesn't exist because the right wing congress does not want it to exist. They are beholden to the NRA, and the gun industry for campaign funds for re-election. Just follow the money and you will see the real reason for guns. Tyranny is a boogey man that is manufactured by the NRA and the gun establishment. Fear is a wonderful motivator.
Peoplepower, no proof gun laws would have ever prevented a mass shooting. Criminals who want to kill people will get the guns. More gun laws will do nothing to change things. That has been proven all over the world. I believe you don't want a solution, because passing more laws is no solution. It would make you feel good and make you feel like you're doing something...even if it is just in your imagination. We need something more than good feelings to resolve this issue.
You are missing my point. No laws would help in the case a crazy person wants to do others harm. Can we agree on that? It doesn't have to involve guns. The Oklahoma bombing is only one example. The driving of trucks thru crowds another example...
The 2nd amendment was put there for a specific purpose. I wish more people would learn about it and not confuse the two... guns and mass violence.
Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't.
The founders debated the language over 200 years ago. It has not changed too much except for a handful of Amendments.
The same goes with suicides. Even though it is against the law, quite a few individuals comit suicides everyday. What can you do to stop them? Unfortunately, nothing.
Wilderness: You are right again. There is no proof, because they won't enact any gun laws to get a chance to see if it works. The mentality is it won't work, so why even try? It's already a foregone conclusion that it won't work.
Peoplepower, what gun laws would work? We have hundreds of gun laws on the books. In your estimation, what gun laws would work? I'm open to hearing this as there are strict gun laws in Europe and criminals still find guns. So, what legislation is necessary?
No other first world country has the gun fetish Americans do, this country has been built on violence and will always be violent because our lawmakers are in love with the NRA and their 2nd amendment.
Pro-gun activists always say gun laws will do nothing, so I guess then we should do nothing right? Who cares if more people get shot up everyday right? Then they point to places like Chicago and how their laws don't work, so obviously if it doesn't work in one city then it won't work in the country right? It's not like they can drive to Indiana or surrounding states and obtain thousands of guns.
Then they bring up self-defense because I'm sure if those concert-goers were packing it would have made a huge difference.
The rest of the world is very confused with how pro-gun activists think and they should be. As an American I'm terrified every time I go to see a movie or enter a mall, go to a concert, or even walk down the street because I know at any point there's a strong possibility that I could get shot down. I've never felt that way when I visited other countries, only in America.
So what is it then, should we take a closer look at mental health as the GOP often does even though they're ready to eliminate healthcare for 20-25 million Americans. They could care less about those beneath them, the only ones that matter are those in power or the wealthy and if you believe otherwise then you're naive.
I can only imagine what the discussion would be if the shooter was Muslim, you know Trump would be hitting that Border wall and Travel Ban at full throttle, which is funny to me because an American is far more likely to be killed be a fellow American than a foreigner.
But I know this is a losing argument, you win NRA and gun activists. I only ask for one thing...
Please spare me your "Thoughts and Prayers" crap and just shut up...like when you tell us to not talk about gun control during a mass shooting which has happened everyday in 2017.
The victims and families do not care about your useless words because they have and will always mean nothing.
"Pro-gun activists always say gun laws will do nothing, so I guess then we should do nothing right?"
Why? Because you prefer taking guns to reducing the homicide rate?
"Who cares if more people get shot up everyday right?"
Obviously not you, if all you want is to collect guns. It's well established that there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates.
"The victims and families do not care about your useless words because they have and will always mean nothing."
At least it means nothing to those who will do nothing but whine to repeat the same failed actions that we've taken for the last few decades. "Insanity; repeating the same action over and over while expecting a different result".
You're terrified to go to a movie, mall, or concert--lest a highly statistically unlikely mass-shooting event occur--but you are not afraid that someone will break into your home? The latter is a statistically highly likely event. I don't think I know anyone whose home has not been broken into at some time in their lives--often more than once.
Every one of our world's current nation-states was built on violence. That's what nation-states ARE. Everywhere in the world, the people in power are in power because they are the best-armed and best-organized. Governments consolidate their power over their populace by becoming progressively better armed and better organized--and seeking to disarm their people.
People who want to outlaw guns never speak of disarming the police or the government--that is, the group that commits the most violence in the world, by many orders of magnitude--and, historically, among disarmed populations, against their own people. Stalin is claimed to have murdered 60 million of his own countrymen.
What you are really saying is that you want private individuals to be defenseless against a very well-armed government--and also against very well-armed criminals.
About 8,000 people are murdered each year using a gun. I'm not "terrified".
About 25,000 people die from falls each year. I'm not "terrified" of falling.
About 40,000 people die from poisoning. I'm not "terrified" of being poisoned.
About 42,000 people die in car accidents. I'm not "terrified" of driving.
Cautious, yes. I read pill bottle directions, drive defensively and walk carefully on ice. I also stay aware of the people around me in a mall or theater. Perhaps there is a bit of exaggeration?
I grabbed this quote yesterday when I read it.
"If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So its not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous...) should be allowed to have guns. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions." ~ Stefan Molynerux
Well said. What government is, is an immensely powerful gang of criminal thugs, and their power comes almost entirely from their being the best armed and most violent organization of criminal thugs within our borders. We know what they are: They're a gang of drug and gun-running, money-laundering, financial predators (and worse) whose sole objective is to feed off of the people of the US and the world--and who will stop at nothing to do so.
My observation is that liberals are invariably Statists of a very deep dye. They want government to have limitless power and the people to have none. The explanation for this is simple: Liberals are almost invariably government employees, government retirees, or people who get their living from companies that enjoy vast government subsidies/monopolies. They are basically people who like the Mob because they're part of it--on the payroll--and would like to maximize its power, to their own advantage. They are very much in favor of any policy that strips US citizens of their rights and otherwise oppresses them to the fullest extent possible, as a mere matter of personal advantage. In a truly free country, liberals would have to learn a real skill and get a real job, instead of leeching off of their fellow citizens.
The well trained liberal will present his or her views as earnest and thoughtful, caring, and concerned. For the clever ones, that's their shtick. Never do they mention the big pile of money involved--as particularly in the areas of education, health care, and the financial industry--and least of all their expected cut. And this too applies to gun control: A disarmed population makes government power limitless. And limitless government power means the people will be reduced to the condition of a Mexican peasant.
Gun control, as Molynerux said, is not about ending violence. It's about maximizing the potential for government violence.
You are right about your reply about liberals. You stated these are your observations. That's very true, they are your observations and opinions, not based on any facts. Speaking of facts take a look at this link that shows gun deaths in the U.S. compared to other advanced countries.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upsh … world.html
I really get a giggle out of links like this. "Gun homicides are a common cause of death in the United States, killing about as many people as car crashes..."
There were 32,675 vehicle deaths in 2014 (wikipedia) and the article says there were 8124 gun homicides the same year. Those are obviously nowhere even approaching equal, so the article goes on to say "(not counting van, truck, motorcycle or bus accidents)"
Can you say "spin for all we're worth and we can convince people of anything we want to"? Or perhaps "Statistics never lie...unless I'm the one giving them!"?
It was interesting, though, that they used the same source of data (Small Arms Survey) that I did for my hub examining the effectiveness of gun controls. Too bad they didn't go on and finish the study, but then they weren't looking for that, were they? Just some scary figures on guns they could throw out and see who makes what conclusions from half the story.
I'm confuses on this post. Is that the left or right wing of the same bird who scavenges and preys upon the earth with limitless power
Widerness: Talk about spin. You missed the entire point of the article. It's about comparing gun deaths in the U.S. compared to other developed countries. Not about cherry picking vehicle deaths in this country.
Yes, I know. But to what end? What's the point? Just an insinuation that guns are the cause of the chaos? If you can't offer a solution, why write it at all? And above all, why only half the whole story?
So yeah, I got the drift. But when that "drift" is preceded by an outright lie and then an obvious effort to manipulate facts into a false belief, I have to question not only motives but facts as well. Don't you?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
With that thought in mind, who is the "they" that won't enact gun laws? Certainly not the people of the US; we have oodles of them. And they have produced the highest violence rate in the civilized world.
Similarly, what is it that won't work, so don't try? Certainly not gun laws, for we've got oodles of them. And no, they don't work - haven't worked anywhere in the world - so we should try it again? See the first sentence.
Sheriff: Traffic stop turns up assault rifles, 900 rounds
That includes submachine guns.
* https://www.yahoo.com/news/sheriff-mach … 03956.html
Why draw a line against any type of weapon? This is America!!! Nukes for everyone! Just where would you and GA draw the line, Dan? Do either of you guys even own an assault weapon?
I would never suspect GA or Dan of owning an assault weapon, because they do not exist until they have been used to assault someone.
Anything else is Nazi propaganda.
Are you calling me a Nazi? Because if you are you are way out of line. My dad fought on Omaha Beach on D-Day and in the Battle of the Bulge. He also went into Germany with Patton's 3rd Army and freed the prisoners from the Holocaust Camps. What did your dad do?
No, just calling out Nazi propaganda.
Battle of Iwo Jima. Navy.
What did I say that could be construed as Nazi propaganda? I didn't realize there was a Navy guy in the famous photo.
That is an easy one for me Randy, If I had to draw a line, it would be at nukes. ;-)
Any other line is just pablum for the public. Consider Wilderness' recent point. Just the mention of civilians owning automatic weapons draws incredulous "Of course not!" gasps from the public - yet they have been used in only two deaths in 79 years. (if we can trust his numbers)
Why nukes, GA. They're considered arms aren't they? The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own them, doesn't it? Or is there something I'm missing here?
Is Dan's statistics before or after machine guns were made illegal to own by a common person?
Why is the query "Nazi propaganda"? If your Dad fought at Iwo Jima you'd know which photo I was referring to.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/143 … ost2914627
I know which photo-op you refer to, it is predictable..
This is how much the NRA spent and donated to politicians in this last election cycle. Be sure to scroll down to the last entry to see how much was outside spending to support candidates. It was over 32 million against democrats; 17 million for support of republicans, and 265 dollars to support democrats.
Like I said before, just follow the money and you will see why nothing gets done for gun regulations and why there are so many loop holes in the laws. They don't care how many people are killed or wounded or about the safety of civilians. It's all about big moneyed interest and getting re-elected. In my view, it is criminal.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summar … d000000082
Everyone identifies the problem but can provide no solution. What laws, that are not currently in place, would prevent mass shootings? I've not seen anyone answer that question. How many NRA members have committed a mass shooting? The number is ZERO. Think about it.
It's not about the NRA members. It's about the NRA funding the GOP who won't do anything about gun laws. Therefore making it easy for the bad guys to get guns to do bad things to good people. Remember this. Some times to do nothing is to do everything. Doing nothing is also an action and a calculated decision.
Excellent point in your last two sentences. Many of us aren't demanding that the U.S. take away all guns. We simply want some attempts at reducing the massacres.
If Congress doesn't outlaw the sale and OWNERSHIP of bump stocks after this, we'll know the NRA corruption has gone too far.
You're right - doing nothing is a calculated decision. Got a clue who is doing the calculating that results in doing nothing to stem the sea of blood? Who is buying off the Dem's so that they won't address the roots of violence in order that the blood keeps flowing? Who is buying them to continually chip away at constitutional rights (although I understand the modern political process is "one step at a time" and that to reach the ultimate goal may take decades)?
You've identified the bogeyman that wants rights and freedoms preserved (because they want money and don't care about lives, according to you); who is it that wants them taken away (still without a care for lives lost)? Who is so unfeeling that they refuse to address violence, choosing instead to manipulate Democrats into taking guns away from people?
Wilderness: After this latest shooting, Mitch McConnell was asked about gun legislation. His answer was "It's too early to talk about that. They haven't even finished their investigation." I ask you, what does the investigation have to do with changing the laws? This is typical of the GOP after every mass shooting, they say the same thing. "Oh it's not appropriate now, it's too early to talk about that." So when is a good time to talk about it?...NEVER. The reason is, they don't want to jeopardize their funding from the NRA and the gun industry.
"You've identified the bogeyman that wants rights and freedoms preserved (because they want money and don't care about lives, according to you); who is it that wants them taken away (still without a care for lives lost)? Who is so unfeeling that they refuse to address violence, choosing instead to manipulate Democrats into taking guns away from people?"
You are implying that by wanting laws to protect people, that more lives will be lost. It makes no sense to me. All of the bill of rights are there whether they are exercised are not. People seem to think they have to have open carry and display and use their weapons in order to maintain the rights of the 2nd amendment.
In the mean time, we have mass shooting like Vegas and all the other mass killings. The boogey man for gun people and the NRA is tyranny by the government. Tell me how is this supposed to take place, step-by-step, just like it did in NAZI Germany. Do gun owners actually believe the constitution will not prevent tyranny from happening? Oh I know they take away your guns. Then a dictator comes in like Hitler and we are now all under martial law...give me a break.
Peoplepower, again I ask you, what laws to you propose would end mass shootings? Someone say what laws that are not already in place. What laws do you want to see? Passing legislation that does nothing is the same as doing nothing, only you feel better about it.
Readmikenow: For starters a law that makes bump stocks and slide stocks illegal. Right now, they are completely legal. If the Vegas shooter did not have those mounted on his guns, he would not have been able to spray the crowd so effectively. Possibly even make semi-automatic weapons illegal. Make military grade weapons illegal for gun owners like the 50 cal rifle. That is intended for snipers. Make all military machine guns illegal. I have seen gun shows were people are demonstrating how to use 50 cal machine guns to obliterate cars.
Have the federal government control all laws for all the states. This way the laws are standardized and will reduce gun trafficking. There are currently over 200 gun laws on the books for states and they are basically different depending on which state you are in. Make it a federal offense to buy guns over the internet. This will be a hard one to enforce, but it should reduce the traffic.
"Make all military machine guns illegal."
There have been two murders using legally owned machine guns in the last 79 years. There are thousands and thousands of these guns legally in the hands of the people. Are you sure that's where you want to put our efforts and resources - confiscating thousands of collector weapons to save 2 lives per century? That's the best we can do?
I didn't check, but I very highly doubt there has been a single murder by a .50 cal sniper rifle in the history of the US, legally owned or not. Again, thats where you want to put resources?
*edit* But I will agree that taking all the most common guns from at least legal owners in the country - semi-automatic guns - is a good step...towards getting them all. Of course thats not the goal at all!
PeoplePower, Again, the problems with these laws is that only the law abiding follow them. Lawbreakers will have every weapon you mentioned making illegal. Law abiding citizens will be at a disadvantage.
So, should we ban machetes? There are a number of machete attacks that take place each year.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/2016 … e-attacks/
Should we ban all household items that can be used in making a bomb? They can kill many people.
https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Smoke-Bo … -Materials
Is it possible that no laws will prevent a person dedicated to killing people on a massive scale? It may make you feel good, but it won't change anything.
Readmikenow: This is the same old rhetoric that has been used over and over again and yet innocent people are killed everyday. How do you know the laws don't work when they have never been enacted or tried? I'm talking about federal laws not state laws. State laws are mishmash of compromises and loopholes.
The reason the bump stocks are currently legal is because they were intended for handicapped people who could not pull the trigger. Now they can fire the gun automatically with just one pull of the trigger. The rest is done with the bump stock and the recoil of the gun. That is the most inane thing I have ever heard of, accommodating the handicap with fully automatic weapons... Talk about a loop hole...God help us. Can you just picture a handicap person firing a fully automatic weapon?
The other thing that I left out is high capacity magazines should be illegal. Anything over 10 rounds should be deemed illegal. Why do civilians need 600 round canisters? I'm sure it''s a great thrill to fire all 600 rounds at one time, especially if you are a killer.
Wilderness: The Vegas shooter was a gun collector as well...until he decided to use his collection to rain terror onto thousands of people. Do you truly believe that gun collectors are the only ones that have 50 cal machine guns and 50 cal rifles? Here is a thought. Those who are against gun laws are liberal when it comes to guns. Those who want gun laws are conservative when it comes to guns...think about that for a moment.
Limited gun controls will be more effective than outright confiscation? I doubt that, but confiscation is nothing new worldwide - it's been tried over and over with zero effect.
Or do you think it just Americans that will show better results with limitations than with bans?
"Why do civilians need 600 round canisters?"
Always with a demand that gun owners have a "need", as defined by you, for exercising their rights. What does it take to understand it isn't a "need"; it is a right guaranteed to American citizens by the constitution?
"Do you truly believe that gun collectors are the only ones that have 50 cal machine guns and 50 cal rifles?"
Yeah. Considering the cost, difficulty and that they can't be used for anything but play and display, I think only collectors have (legal) machine guns. And collectors for old 50 cal rifles like the buffalo guns. Doubt there is more than a half dozen privately owned military sniper rifles in the country, all owned by ex-snipers.
You obviously disagree with that thought; does that mean you find it reasonable to confiscate thousands of machine guns, guns that have only been used to murder with twice in 80 years? Is it reasonable to spend limited resources to (hopefully but probably not) prevent that kind of terrible carnage?
Laws do prevent people killing on a massive scale - in other countries.
Please go and take a look at the number of people killed by guns in massacres in Australia and the UK since they banned semi-automatic weapons.
I'll tell you - the answer is none. Whereas in the US, the number is in the thousands, including far too many children.
Gun control won't stop people murdering each other - they will just go and find some other weapon. But it DOES stop massacres. The evidence is incontrovertible. If you don't agree, then what other explanation is there?
If you're going to tell me it's because America is a bigger country - then why isn't the difference in the number of massacres proportional? If you're going to tell me it's because Americans are different - if that's the case, then it suggests something horrible about the American psyche, and I don't think you really mean that.
"Please go and take a look at the number of people killed by guns in massacres in Australia and the UK since they banned semi-automatic weapons. "
And yet...Australia has lost 243 people in mass murders, in 10 separate incidents, in the 21 years since 1996 (including 8 people gun shot in 2 incidents). Versus 71 people in 12 incidents in the 21 years prior to 1996. Biggest difference is that there is considerably more arson in the later years and that over three times the people were killed - gun controls reduced gun massacre's but it didn't do a thing to reduce the death toll in mass murders. The evidence is incontrovertible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … _Australia
I'm surprised you trust Wikipedia, Wilderness, when you should know how untrustworthy many of its statistics are.
The page you link to counts both MASSACRES and MASS MURDERS. I'm talking about massacres only - i.e. an INDISCRIMINATE slaughter of several people. That means I'm not including someone killing his whole family, because that is deliberate targeting of particular individuals. Most of the mass murders (except the arson) are in that category, so you can't use them to compare with US statistics for massacres (i.e. indiscriminate killings).
As for the arson - most of those arson attacks were by people who are "firebugs", i.e. they had an obsession with fire. Unfortunately it's a major problem in Australia. Even if guns had been readily available, they would not use them - they just want to see things burn. So it's not a case of people finding another way to mass-murder. They don't.
You're also assuming the data before 1996 is complete (or that the data after 1996 is complete). Neither is true. The Wikipedia information has been compiled by volunteers and seems to have been added to randomly over the years. I'm not aware of any government statistics that they could have drawn on, so they've probably gathered the info by reading the news and Google searching - which of course means that earlier data is likely to be scarce. In fact, you'll notice the header of the page says it's incomplete!
Oh by the way, Americans seem terrified to ban any guns because of the "slippery slope' argument - i.e. "if we let them take our semi-automatics, next they'll take our handguns". Not true. There has been no sign of a slippery slope in Australia - in fact there has been a slight relaxation of gun and shooting laws since 1996, if anything.
It is all about money and at the bottom line, that Is Politics. A point The NRA wants us to here is "don't talk political after the tragedy". Our president has said the NRA has a friend in the White House.
So many individuals are making big money from gun violence because of our archaic 2nd Amendment culture. One political party's culture is all about making sure the biggest earners continue to get their rewards in the form of money. The new tax plan from that party attests to that. This is an endless argument and it is quite sickening.
I am not going to respect their moments of silence till I see them, look at the gun situation and do real problem solving, through laws. So many people are terrified of too many laws, but that is what your balanced culture is based on, code of laws.
I'm a good responsible guy who has background checks which say so--just like the LV shooter--so why can't I have a nuke to defend myself against our tyrannical government?
Personally I feel sorry for those who are so afraid of a government takeover they need to purchase more deadly weapons to protect the less deadly weapons they already have. Don't they realize the govt will always have bigger and better weapons? Besides, most of those people would be so scared during the confrontation they'd crap their pants and give up without a shot. Believe me, I've met a few of 'em!
You are missing the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.
The brilliance of our fonders is the fact that having gun ownership by the masses act as a deterrent for a tyranical government.
It has nothing to do about the sophistication of the weapons. Obviously, our government will have more guns, tanks and missiles...
Can you image the optics of a government trying to supress a mass populace with guns? Will they go house to house to root out the insurgents?
So it was never about hunting or anything else the left try to spin this.
The 2nd Amendment is our insurace policy that a tyrant like a Hitler or a Stalin ever come to power in America and decided to take over the country by force.
I hope all of you get that...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it...
The reason Hitler was able to rule over the German people was the fact that they confiscated all the guns in the late 1930s, prior to his appointment to be Furor...
Please go study your history if you think this cannot happen again in the 21 century.
What I do get is our military is composed of sons, daughters, cousins, uncles, aunts, fathers and mothers. Do you really believe thy are a threat to their relatives just because they're in the military? That they would go house to house disarming their family and friends? Do you have any relatives in the military you are afraid of, Jack? Do you have any assault rifles ready in case they show up for your weapons?
Surely you are familiar with the family divisions of the Civil War Randy? Do you think a squad of soldiers, in a house-by-house search would just skip one because one member said it was his brother's house?
I would have to go with Jackclee on this one.
Guns are the most effective killing weapon both domestic and abroad. The Public has 10 times the guns. I don't care if the US military has bigger gun and trained troops. History shows predominately numbers of people and most efficiency weapon in the world to date. Would have to go to the highest numbers of kills- the gun, wins.
Besides the political landscape would turn to true democracy. Then bullies lies would be exposed and the Troops would die of shame for turning their guns on their own families.
More Americans have died in firearm-related incidents since 1968 than in all wars in US history.
More than 1.5 million US citizens have died as a result of guns in the last 49 years, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Around 1.2 million Americans have been killed in conflicts in US history, NBC reported, citing data from the Department of Veterans Affairs and a database on
There is no such thing as an assault rifle. It's a nonsense term that people seem to just repeat. Not saying limits are not reasonable, but we seem to not want to put limits on any other constitutional right. Since cars kill much more people than guns, why not put a limit on their speed? No car should go over 75MPH. Doesn't that sound reasonable? Cars kill. The same argument as guns. It's never the people behind the wheel or the gun. Somehow they are innocent. Just before that 2 women were stabbed to death in France. Where is the outcry for knife control? London had numerous people killed by....a vehicle. Why is gun this sacred cow that people keep complaining about? If you actually wanted to save lives, and make it count...you would be working against a killer that claims hundreds of thousands of people MORE than guns each year in this country: Heart disease. So let's ban every bit of fatty food, and FORCE people to eat and live healthy. Nobody ever talks about the hundreds killed in chicago.....with the strictest gun laws. Yup, they work alright. The same people talking about guns....are now talking about making illegal drugs legal. Why? Because somehow you can't make people stop using them. Hmmm. Drugs and alcohol cause more deaths, injuries, family break ups, job losses, than guns ever will. Nobody cars for car or alcohol control when a drunk driver wipes out an innocent family of 5. NOBODY! Shame on all of you. You don't really care about saving lives. You care about making a political statement.
Where would you draw the line, Stephen? 100 round clips? RPGs? Hand grenades? Nukes? Do you completely trust your fellow man not to purchase weapons that can kill masses of people? Or are you one of those that fear the govt confiscation of all firearms?
There were 17 states guns death
Surpassed motor vehicle crash deaths. You don't need a gun at all to live by, yet most likely your lifestyle would be crap without a car.
By far the greatest killers are corperation like tobacco, toxic food, drink produce and worst poverity. Since US is not a country because a President is of a corperation. The Corperations run so called America rather a US corp of America. Locked them up for life not the natural green holly herbs cannabis that can surpass any plant on earth for productivity.
and where in the heck did Jack get off to? Oh that's right, he seldom answers questions.....
Does that mean they shouldn't have one either - your opinion is that they don't need one so shouldn't have it? (That seems to be the gist of this thread).
Let's see if I have this straight. There are those that live in constant fear, that a tyrannical entity is going to take away their guns that are used to protect them from the tyrants.
There are those who live in fear, that law enforcement is not going to be able to help them in case of a crime, therefore, they need guns to supplement the deficiency of law enforcement.
There are those who have a need to just plain ass protect their domain with guns.
There are those who have a need to be gun collectors, so they need to collect all the classic guns including military weapons that are available.
There are those who just like to shoot high powered, high capacity weapons because it gives them a thrill.
There are those who like to open carry because they think they are ready to deal with an assailant at a moments notice. And feel they are exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
There are those that use fire arms with criminal intent.
And then there are the licensed hunters, who are regulated by the Federal Department of Wildlife Management and the Department of Fish and Game.
Out of all these different needs for guns, the only ones I find reasonable are the hunters. All the rest of them are born out of fear and selfish needs and cause too many guns to be accessible to terrorists, mentally ill, and people with criminal intent.
Who cares? That's the whole point; "who cares"?
Somehow the gun haters have decided that the 1st amendment says that those that need to bear arms may do so. Unfortunately for that almost insane concept, it hasn't a bit of truth in it.
The rights and freedoms of the United States are based on desire, not need. If you want something, want to do something, you may. You don't have to have a need, just a desire to do/own it.
Want to got to college at 80 years old? You may!
Want to marry interracially? You may!
Want a drink of alcohol? You may!
Want to own a gun? You may!
And you don't get to remove those freedoms from others because you don't think they have a "need" for them. Not for interracial/gay marriage, not for drinking booze, and not for owning a gun.
Not because your god says it's bad, not because you're offended and not because you're have an irrational fear of the action/item.
Wilderness and Jack: Exactly, Who cares? That's the difference.
And a liberal says: "the constitution says 'NO", but who cares?" Or maybe "Who cares if we take freedoms or rights, it's just another gun nut!" Or perhaps "It's not MY rights being taken, so who cares?"
That's OK - it matches the idiocy of saying that conservatives don't care if people get hurt as long as it isn't them. Figure if someone posts offensive and stupid comments that must be what they want others to do as well.
Dan, do you really believe the Founding Fathers took in consideration the weapons we now have when they penned the 2nd Amendment? It took the average person at least 30 seconds to reload the most modern rifle of the day. The most destructive weapon they possessed was smooth bore cannons which also took time and addition personnel to reload for a single shot.
The Founders had no idea there would be a weapon one man could yield which would fire more times than hundreds of their contemporary soldiers. They also had no clue of the power of splitting the atom, or even what an atom was. As their prescience was not far reaching enough into the future, so is the 2nd Amendment. Or perhaps you give the Founders more credit than I as to what they foresaw.
Wrong question. Do I really believe that the founders realized that weapons technology would one day advance far beyond what it was then? Yes I do; they were aware that man went from clubs to spears to arrows to guns to cannon with buckshot and chainshot by their lifetime. Nevertheless they made no restrictions on any weapons, giving the right to purchase the most advanced weapons possible to all people.
Question: would a few rounds of cannon chainshot into that crowd likely have caused more or fewer deaths? Or pull up on the street with a tractor trailer and 22 loaded cannons (didn't he have 22 guns?) loaded with chain or buckshot.
Nevertheless, I fully support the ban on bump stocks (though would prefer they be licensed like machine guns) even recognizing it is very unlikely to have any affect at all on death tolls. I completely support the ban on military explosives - rockets, bombs, grenades, etc. And, given the almost pristine record of legally owned machine guns, I am forced to accept that only stiff licensing/fees are appropriate there. I might prefer a ban, but to remove constitutional freedoms requires much more benefit than can be seen.
How about you? Would you confiscate tens of thousands of machine guns, destroying that freedom as you do so, to (possibly) save an estimated 2 lives per century? Or is freedom for all people worthy of more? What is the price of freedom, measured in blood, to you?
You obviously give the Founders more credit than I do, Dan. The technology was crude and slowly dissembled in those days with mass production of even muzzle loading rifles problematic. Why would they even consider such modern weapons? They considered slavery the norm and proper to enrich their lives. They were ignorant of the future technology and never imagined nuclear weapons.
And by the way, if they put no limits on weapon ownership then nukes are okay to own. There is no limits according to the Amendment saying nukes are prohibited. You cannot have it both ways. After all, it's in plain writing, isn't it?
The price of freedom to me doesn't mean I need to have weapons to destroy massive amounts of people, just to defend my home.
I don't believe I mentioned that they conceived of modern weapons. Only that the technology would advance over time.
Yes, it's in plain writing. I don't know how the courts rationalize that, but I accept it as is.
Nice weasel. Of course no one has mentioned you have weapons, no one has mentioned weapons capable of destroying "massive amounts of people", and no one yet has mentioned a need for defense. Or for anything but defense, for that matter. Which is reasonable - the writers did not mention need, either, so why would we?
That's the rub, Dan. According to the gun nuts the 2nd amendment gives them certain rights, but there's no limit stated in said amendment which disqualifies nuclear weapons. They absolutely were ignorant of the awesome destruction future weapons could cause to mankind.
The 2nd Amendment is antiquated and should be revisited as the Founding Fathers were ignorant of the power of future weapons.
And just because someone WANTS something doesn't mean they can have it.
Poems I screw up
I like to have my cake and eat it too.
If the cake is harmful, you just can't have both
If you love something, and you set it free, and then it comes back you.
It is yours for ever more.
If not, hunt it down and kill it.
Naa, forget that last one.
You're right - there is no stated limit. And we impose limits anyway.
But, and it's purely opinion, there must be a limit to those limits. We have legislators that make no bones about want all guns, we have large populations of the country that have had all their guns banned. The bans we impose must be based on reason, must be rational, not an emotional, knee jerk response to fear, but that's exactly what we see happening all the time.
I've asked you several times as to the rationale of banning automatics, but you've ignored the nation's experience with them, preferring to simply ban them without ever producing a valid reason to do so. That's exactly what bothers me with most limitations; although the intent is good, the rationale behind them isn't. It's just fright, that and politicians placating part of the population by reducing the freedoms we're guaranteed. There is no expected benefit; just a supposed one based on nothing but desire to take guns away. Our rights and freedoms are infinitely precious; they are not to be given up on a whim.
Wilderness: Bill O Reilly said of the Las Vegas massacre, "This is the price we pay for freedom." Second amendment supporters are always afraid that if the 2nd amendment is taken away they are going lose their rights and freedoms.
What they don't realize is that every time there is a mass shooting or a terrorist attack, we all lose a little bit more of our rights and freedoms because the 2nd amendment gives easy access to guns to everybody in this country including the mentally ill, the criminals, the terrorists and the good guys.
I remember when you could board an airliner without having to take off half of your clothes and subject your luggage and your person to searches, and when family and friends could accompany you to the gate. I can remember when there wasn't air marshals on planes. I can remember when you could attend massive crowd events like concerts and sporting events without having to wait in long lines to go through metal detectors and have your belongings searched. I can remember as a kid walking streets at night and going to school without the fear of some gunmen attacking me. I remember walking to school and riding my bicycle to school without any fear of being attacked. Now I see parents driving their kids to and from school in order to protect them. When in the old days, they could walk or ride bicycles.
The second amendment has brought about unattended consequences because it no longer fits the culture, the technology, and the geopolitical world we live in today. So yes, there is a price we all pay for the 2nd amendment. It is the loss of our freedom. Because of this shooting and the 2nd amendment, now hotels are going to have to have an additional layer of security that causes us to lose even more of our freedoms. The freedom to buy bump stocks and to stock pile an arsenal allowed this massacre to take place because everybody in this country has the right to bear arms.
"...every time there is a mass shooting or a terrorist attack, we all lose a little bit more of our rights and freedoms... "
What freedom would that be? I don't recall any guarantee of a "right" to never be attacked, do you?
"...because the 2nd amendment gives easy access to guns to everybody in this country including the mentally ill, the criminals, the terrorists and the good guys."
You and I both know this isn't true - we both studied the correlation between guns and homicides and found that there is no significant correlation at all. How, then, can you say it is guns?
"Now I see parents driving their kids to and from school in order to protect them."
I do too. And I see kids walking to school (or if applicable, the bus stop). My own grandkids walk about 2 blocks to their bus, and without parental supervision. Is your point that parents are afraid or that kids will be murdered if they walk?
"The second amendment has brought about unattended consequences "
What consequence would that be? That citizens may be armed? I don't think so - that seems implicit in the amendment rather than unanticipated.
"The freedom to buy bump stocks and to stock pile an arsenal allowed this massacre to take place"
First you would have to show that the freedom to own a gun(s) allowed it; that if that freedom were not there that it would not have happened. As noted, we both know better. Then comes the matter that "allowed" does not mean "caused" by any stretch of the imagination; would we not be better off to find the actual cause and correct that instead, so a change of weaponry doesn't "allow" it to happen again? And again and again and again? Apparently not, because the only solution ever offered is to take away constitutional rights.
I rebmember those days clear.
I don't remember being checked at almost all big Goverment buildings, every air ports, and border. Checked sometimes in your car or anywhere. You think terrorist are lurking around every corner and on the news warnings us every day. When your 260 times more likely to be killed by lighting or 8 times greater to be killed by the police than by a terrorists. I will take my chances to be killed by a terrorist than to have another body search. Then feel like I am a potential terrorist.
When there is more guns than people, it feels like high noon in the States.
Automatic firearms serve no purpose except for using them on massed individuals. Revisions to the 2nd amendment are long overdue as it's an antiquated piece of work due to the primitiveness of the weapons of the day. Where would draw the line or why. Are you afraid our govt will take all guns? Really?
They serve about as much "purpose" as your own guns. What do you "need" those for, Randy? I assume you hunt, but there are grocery stores everywhere so no need to kill wild animals for food. There are police near you, so no need for protection. What is your "need" for guns?
Yep - one day the government will disarm all Americans. Just as has been done all over the world; we are among the last of the first world holdouts.
Apparently you didn't read my earlier comment about the overpopulation of deer in this part of the south, Dan. The bag limit is 12 around here but no one ever harvests that many. I care not for antlers but many hunters only shoot the bucks. Personally, I love the free meat in my freezer, and also love a good dove shoot for the same reason plus the difficulty of actually hitting a few of the feathered missiles.
If you've never eaten rabbit and squirrel, quail and dove, I can understand your point. None of these sports require a fully automatic rifle to get results.
They may disarm Americans in the future, but it will mainly be caused by folks such as yourself who want all or nothing.
LOL And of course you need a gun to control the deer population. That's why you have one.
And I have a bridge for sale, too!
No, Randy, you don't need a gun. Not to control deer population and not to obtain food. You just want one, for purposes you define. But what gives you the right to define what is an acceptable purpose for others? Must the conform to your reasons for wanting guns?
(You're confusing the use of your guns with a need for them, that's all.)
Back then, their time to load or reload, I would make to the trees and hide. Then if they could shoot me, with their muskets gun. Their straight shooting accuracy was poor. I could beat these guys with a knife.
But not today!, who would dare have a gun duel vs. a knife.
Hurting to eat makes deer one of the only animals that can repopulate to the rate of killing them. Unless you want to shoot pest out of your garbage. Bears are being killed off at the rate of Iraq, times 50. I know from guarding bear. Hand guns are design to kill people, ban them, yet also give police rubber bullet or something that dose not kill.
Use your guns now and attack the bankers, then long term problem solved.
The right to bear arms came from the laws in European nations prohibiting anyone from carrying a sword unless they were nobility or in the military. The common man was also banned from hunting because all of the land and forests belonged to the nobles. When the early European immigrants came to America they were excited to find they could hunt and feed their families with wild game and also protect themselves whether they were noble or not.
Guns made perfect sense back then and there was alot of wildlife that could kill you too. In the last 50 years, most of the wildlife on earth is dead. What next GunsR-US?
Correct, and hunting firearms help keep the deer population down as there's no longer any predators--wolves and panthers--to do the job. Even so, the deer population is exploding because most hunters are after the big bucks for their antlers and not the meat. It's gotten to the point where the bag limit here in Georgia is 12 per season including both bucks and does.
No one I know harvests the bag limit and with most shooting bucks, the population simply grows larger. When I was a young boy we didn't have any deer at all around here. A few local hunters arranged for a couple of railroad carloads of Wisconsin whitetail deer to be released in secret parts of the area.
Hunters keep the animals in check while keeping their species alive and thriving. And no one needs an assault rifle to do so.
Please read the Constitution and the fonder's own words that debated this issue over 200 years ago. It is still valid in many respects in 2017.
It is not based on fear or anything like that. It is based on our history and knowing the failings of humans that may lead to tyranny.
They were worried that the new government may be corrupted and that the federal government would be too powerful and impose its will on the people by force.
Our freedom and liberty was hard won by blood and tears...
We cannot give up without a fight. Having arms is one way to insure that as unlikely as you might think.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
- Ronald Reagan
There are people that think gun control should start in America. Forgetting the fact that We are the largest gun supplier in the world .and that we put guns into dangerous people's hands on a grand scale. Worldwide.
It's all crocodile tears. Daily more people are gunned down on the streets by criminals in cities like chicago. Nobody has EVER ranted, raved, rioted, looted, set fire to cars, cry on late night TV, made a speech in congress, or any other such rot. 7 people killed 50 injured by knives and a van in london. NOBODY had the nerve to call for van control or knife control. Why? The bottom line: POLITICAL GAIN. If it aint, there, forget it. Every friggin' day, REPEAT, every day 28 people die in alcohol related accidents. 28 people a day!!!!!!!!! I am waiting for late night comedians to talk about alcohol and car control. In fact, I'm sure alcohol companies sponsor them... Isn't heroin illegal? Yet we keep talking about a heroin epidemic. Yeah. making tough laws on heroin sure worked! You rock! Problem solved! Glad that worked!
I meant to say the suppressor would aid an attacker from being easily spotted by the law, such as happened in LV. Doh!
Try having a deer go through your windshield at 60 miles and hour and you may rethink your comment, Dan. Do you need an AC or furnace to regulate the temps in your home?
I'd be pleased to surrender my few semiautomatic weapons if everyone did the same. As for my hunting rifles, the only rifle I use is over 100 years old with no scope. I assume you do not care for free food.
There is another reason to kill deer. About 1.2 million people get killed by deer or related each year worldwide. Finally you have a justifiable enemy.
Almost everyone I know has hit a deer or almost done so, Castle. I don't know about Dan's area, but deer cause both traffic accidents and do extreme damage to the local crops. So do Canada geese which tend to land in groups of 500 or so and eat the upturned and drying peanuts like a buffet. Imagine them doing this everyday till there are huge empty places in the field. We didn't have deer or geese when I was young but now we have to at least try to keep the population down. And I've never liked the taste of wild goose...
As I've stated before, hunting firearms are not a threat to masses of people as are automatic weapons. I'm also not afraid of having my hunting arms confiscated by the govt as many conspiracies from the right claim.
I tried to grow hemp for the construction of my natural self substainable eco village in BC. What a hassle getting a lience from the food and drug administration to get it. Then had a shotgun run in with marijanna growers telling me to move out of town for I am harming their crops. Then the cops got word of this and wanted me to rat on them or they would give me a criminal record.
I ask why would you do that, and what what harm are they doing ? Cops told me deer eat the marijanna then run out and kill people in car crashes.
You mean, their are killer bambi and moose on the loose in these woods.
I asked, have you done any drugs tests on the deer.
I ended up abandoning the town.
Some cops are ignorant of why something is considered a crime, Castle. If marijuana isn't subjected to extreme heat it doesn't release any intoxicating effects. Never trust a cop to know the law in detail as most aren't interested in the details. More's the pity....
Oh, I think most cops are pretty knowledgeable about the laws. Not to the point of being a lawyer, but knowledgeable. What they are NOT is knowledgeable about the "whys" of the law, which is fine. That is not their task, and we do not ask them to decide if laws should be enforced or not. Unlike Obama, who decided he would not enforce immigration laws, they understand that that is the task of the legislator.
Yep - I've hit a deer. Knock on wood, only one in my lifetime in spite of living in deer territory my whole life. But geese - geese have been a thorn in our (neighborhood or community) side for 30 years. Can't shoot them - people go crazy over killing the wildlife - yet demand they be removed so they don't ruin lakes and beaches.
You misunderstand - you don't need a rifle to keep the population down. The few you kill aren't a drop in the bucket. Let the county/state do the job with mass hunts and give the meat to the poor. Or maybe issue a rifle to anyone wishing to participate in a community hunt and then take it back when it's over.
I haven't hunted for years and years - when I moved to Va. and watched people go "hunting" with 10 "hunters", armed only with shotguns and 50 dogs, to kill an overgrown dog, I quit. But I grew up on wild meat - our family always had 2 deer and 1 elk, plus some beef and pork. Doesn't mean you need it, though - I'd hazard that there are very few people that would go hungry without game animals.
Randy, I really do understand hunting. Dad used to take a week off to go elk hunting, camping with a half dozen friends. I enjoyed the hunt when younger. But that doesn't mean it was needed - Dad spent more on that week hunting that he could possibly recoup with one elk. Deer was another story - we'd go out early and have it hanging in the garage in time for him to go to work at 8:00. That was long ago, and it isn't possible (at the old home area) anymore.
Dan, you apparently are not in a area with overpopulations of several species of animals. I don't know about the crops grown in your area but I suspect they're not as numerous as down here. As for masses of hunters driving game and harvesting the deer for the poor, good luck with that through the swamps in the area.
Yes, I could live without wild game on my table, but then I would not the animals to admire because hunters enabled them to be here in the first place. They replaced the population of some species which were wiped out during the European colonization of the New World.
And I once only hunted with a recurve bow until my eyes deteriorated. On Jekyll Island, Ga. there has long been a problem with the deer population. They've become pests by eating resident's shrubbery and blocking traffic. Some oppose thinning them out by the use of crossbows at night, but others are weary of their habits.
In other places the deer are starving to death and are subjected to night hunting to thin them out. Such deer aren't worth butchering because of their bad nutrition. Yes, hunters are an essential part of having a balanced ecosystem. But then, you may not think that's important either..
Hunters are essential? Or just getting rid of deer or other excess wildlife?
Sterilize bucks. Poison them. Hunt with automatics from helicopters. Use the National Guard. Let Fish and Game hire a few thousand people, supplying guns. No, I don't see hunters are "essential". Not, anyway, the homeowner hunter - the herds absolutely require thinning as we have upset the ecological balance, but that doesn't mean that (private) hunters are the only solution.
But I noticed above you would happily give up your "assault" guns. Are you aware that out of 8,855 gun homicides in 2012, just 625 were from all long guns combined? And that of that 625, 303 were by shotgun? Did you know that there were 1589 murders by knife, compared to 322 by rifles? That more people were bludgeoned to death (518) or even killed with hands, feet, etc. (678) than were killed with a rifle?
And we need to attack "assault" rifles under the theory that spending millions of dollars and giving up our freedoms will save lots and lots of lives...lives that will then be lost to knives, arson, etc.? I don't think so.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … 8-2012.xls
Yes hunters are essential. Unless of course you don't agree with preserving the wildlife we still have. Personally, I like living with wild animals in the area as I believe they too have their place in our world. Can you guarantee the next mass shooting will be with a hunting rifle and not a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon, Dan? Of course you cannot!
And you never answered my query as to where the line should be drawn as far as weapon ownership is concerned according to the 2nd Amendment. You stated the FF's were far-sighted enough to judge how powerful future weapons would become. If you don't believe this is so, then you have to agree on some limits of weapon ownership for the common citizen.
Why do the hunters have to be homeowners, hunting as, when and where they will? Why not a govt. agency? That's the point - that the current method of thinning herds is private hunters does NOT mean it must stay that way.
I'm sure I have answered; perhaps you didn't see it. I'm happy with it where it stands: no military explosives and machine guns difficult and expensive to get.
"You stated the FF's were far-sighted enough to judge how powerful future weapons would become."
Quotation, with a permalink, please. For you're beginning to make things up, things far removed from truth. Been pretty good so far - do try and remain honest.
But you never answered about putting our scarce resources, millions of dollars, into getting rid of "assault" rifles that, along with all other rifles, are used in less than 3% or murders. Would it be better to attack gangs, or poverty (I think both are a part of the violence problem), or even train our kids to better control themselves and their emotions?
I thought you were against Govt. taking charge of our problems, Dan? The National Wildlife agencies puts out the laws concerning hunting bag limits and the weapons used to fill them. And why would it cost millions of dollars to stop the sale of what many consider assault rifles with high capacity clips?
So how did you come to the conclusion the 2nd Amendment only meant certain weapons and not others?
I am, in general. I just suggest that there are other quite viable methods of controlling animal herds without "needing" guns in the hands of the citizenry. Methods quite in line with more governmental control as is found in taking guns away from the people.
"And why would it cost millions of dollars to stop the sale of what many consider assault rifles with high capacity clips?"
I haven't seen anything about banning sales, just banning assault rifles. With estimates ranging up to 8 million in the country, to buy back 6 million guns, at $1,000 each, will cost $6,000,000,000, not counting administering the program, enforcing it and disposal of the guns and ammo. I ask again; could that $6B be better spent somewhere with a higher probability of saving far more lives than in grabbing guns that kill under 300 people per year? Like, say, cleaning up even one inner city like Chicago (there are more murders in Chicago each year than killed with rifles all over the US). You ignored the question before; want a shot at it this time?
"So how did you come to the conclusion the 2nd Amendment only meant certain weapons and not others?"
I answered that before. I didn't - the SCOTUS did, and I'm OK with it.
I don't see any need for the rifles to be confiscated as long the multiple clips are outlawed, along with the bump stocks making them fully automatic. The laws seem to have prevented and machine guns and sawed off shotguns from being used so far and the same could work for other weapons. When's the last time you've seen either used in a crime or mass shooting?
So if the SCOTUS allowed nukes to be privately owned you'd be okay with that as well?
Then we're on the same page. Except for your earlier post:
"I'd be pleased to surrender my few semiautomatic weapons if everyone did the same."
That doesn't seem to agree very well with leaving semi-automatics alone, or at least as much as they are now.
Guess I'd have to be OK with it. Disagree, of course, but have to be OK.
Sure I'd rather keep all of my firearms--most are antiques anyway--but I'd be willing to give up the semi-automatic weapons if everyone else did the same.
One is a semi auto .22 LR which only holds ten rounds I've had for almost 50 years. The others are Chinese SKS which holds 10 rounds as well, but can hold up to 40 rounds with a modified clip used. Needless to say I don't have such clips because I have no need for them. And yes, I've used them to harvest deer at close range and never needed more than one shot to do the job. I bought the SKS as an investment for $100 apiece when the Chinese switched over to more up to date weapons.
This weapons update allowed millions of these fine short rifles to be sold here in the US. I do believe they're $800 apiece now.
As for the SCOTUS rulings, I agree, we have to be satisfied whether we like it or not.
"I'd be willing to give up the semi-automatic weapons if everyone else did the same."
Next question is "why"? Given what you know about the use of those weapons in murders, why would you be willing to give them up? I understand we all face choices; it could become either give them up willingly or fight off the national guard to keep them, but I assume that isn't what you mean.
This, I think is crucial: when there is no rational reason for loss of freedom it is imperative that we fight hard to keep what we have. It's why I debate, for I have no guns to give up; we have for years and years seen a slow chipping away at our freedoms and it's past time to stop the process. Some went to organized religion (that we are slowly recouping for the most part), some went to popular opinion and some (notably guns) go to calm the irrationally fearful that can't be bothered to actually think about what they're demanding of others.
I can agree with you on some points Dan, especially if it were a perfect world, but we both realize it isn't. I've never considered my .22 anything more than a squirrel or rabbit gun and it would be a pretty useless attack weapon even if it could be converted to fully automatic because it has no clip to extend the magazine.
And I've never considered getting an extended clip for my SKS. As the LV shooter proved with his deadly attack, everyone is not living in a perfect world. That doesn't keep us from trying to make it better. I think we can at least agree on that.
We certainly agree on that! We ALL need to try and make it better.
My problem was, is and shall remain, those that "try" without ever understanding what they're talking about. Without ever examining the problem coldly and rationally, but only from an emotional base of fear or anger. Without ever considering the effect of what they propose on those that don't agree with them. Those that refuse to accept reality, preferring to live in a make believe world where they get to pretend that whatever they want is true.
We need to be more careful than ever about all the wildlife. Last 50 years 90% of the big fish in the sea gone. If anyone wants to hunt jellyfish, knock yourself. They have been around for 600 millions years and Japon alone has 30 billion of them. I have a place in Belize still the most beautiful sealife in the world and Australia. You guy love hunting, I love exploring the sea hunting.
Man hunting man is a strange story. How do we thin out mankind without war?
Wilderness: Exactly! That's the same problem I have with people like you. I couldn't have said it better. This forum and any chance for gun legislation has become an exercise in futility. Nothing will ever get accomplished. See you at the next massacre.
No laws will stop what happened in Las Vegas or else where for that matter.
Jack: How do you know, if they never tried? It worked in Japan, Britain, Australia, and many more advanced nations. I don't want to hear that Hitler took away the guns. He did not take away guns, he armed the civilians, and NAZI Germany became a military state. The only people he took the guns away from were the Jews, because he hated them.
How do you apply that to this country? The checks and balances of the constitution will not allow this country to be ruled by a dictator. Hitler was successful, because Germany was decimated in WWI and he said he would make Germany great again in the eyes of the people of the Aryan race. Make America Great Again, doesn't that sound familiar? The only problem is we are not a decimated country, we have always been great, except now Trump is dividing us. A divided country is a weak country.
It did NOT work in Australia. Where does this lie come from? Australians took all the semi-automatics from people...and the number of people killed in mass murders went up. Not down, mind you, up!
You're right - it is an exercise in futility when people ignore simple facts and numbers, preferring to spout lies in an effort to convince others of a falsehood.
If someone tells me guns do more good than harm. I say, good if you eat what you kill, otherwise, killing is mental illness. So what are guns good for' .....
Widerness: I don't know where you get your information from? Here are some FACTS. What is your source, Fox News and the NRA?
http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-a … rol-2013-1
Can't see it - I use an ad-blocker. But what I could see talked about Australia and gun homicides...a clear spin to take guns without affecting the death toll. That's what you have to offer showing the great Australian gun theft stopped mass murders? Or, considering that the number of incidents of arson post 1996 is way up from pre 1996, that killers won't find another weapon?
The disarming of Australians occurred in 1996. In the 21 years subsequent to that date there have been 76 people die in mass murders. In the 21 years prior to 1996 there were 71 deaths in mass murders. And those numbers don't account for reported variances in the Black Saturday fire; the link lists 10, and that's the number used, but police say the number should be 173, raising the post 1996 total to 239 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-03-30/b … ed/1635324)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … _Australia
Want to tell me again that taking guns stopped mass murders in Australia? Or, given that post 1996 incidents of arson are way up from pre 1996, that killers won't find another weapon? Will you argue that it's OK that people die as long as they weren't shot by a gun?
What is the difference in the population of Australia from 21 years ago until now, Dan? Did you factor this in at all, or do you know?
Not a whole lot. They've continued, as we all have, in trying to reduce violence. And, just like the rest of us, they've seen some results: the slow slide in homicide rate accelerated a small amount some 10 years after the gun steal, and after other efforts. In terms of total reduction of the homicide rate, we've probably been more successful than they have...and it didn't take disarming the people to do it. Of course, they started at a much lower rate than we have, so I'd expect it to be that much harder there.
Wilderness: Oh I get it. You changed the narrative from gun deaths to reducing all deaths. Well I got news for you kid. I posted this forum on reducing gun deaths, not all deaths. How can anyone reduce all deaths? We are not God and further God can't even do that. You have created one huge distraction. I thought all this time you were following the thread, but you went off on your own tangent, they way most opponents of gun legislation do.
Then explain, please, just why we should care. What possible difference does it make to either the dead OR the survivors whether they are killed with a gun or a match, knife or baseball bat? Why put any effort or resources into simply forcing killers to use other tools; other tools that produce just as many deaths? What is the purpose of gun legislation?
But allow me to quote from the OP: "But they are going to have to learn to sacrifice to save the lives of others." That isn't about changing weapons from guns to something else; it's about saving lives. Promoted as a result of removing guns, which is known to be false, but saving lives. Which is what I'm all about, and what the post is about.
We may not be God, but apparently the rest of the first world is, for they have a far, far lower homicide rate than we do. And we can join them if we but quit wasting our time, spinning our wheels, on desperately trying to magically end violence by taking away one of the preferred tools.
There is a darn good reason for being an opponent of gun legislation: it...doesn't...accomplish...saving...a...single...life. Only placating irrational fears about a chunk of iron.
Does the US have any laws about how many people can own bombs?
How is that different?
Get a nuclear bomb kit for the kids at Christmass.
Go further then porking your eye out with a bee bee gun. Add a little bang into your spirits by NRA GunsR-US. A free book of Grims fairytale of Hansel and Gretal.
Could be wrong, but don't think bombs, or bomb making materials, is legal anywhere. A firecracker is the limit, and most places ban that (though for other reasons than fear of death). Didn't stop the OK city bomber, though. Laws never do.
Not sure of your question, though - different than what?
Want a real correlation, Randy? Go back in history and look at our homicide rates before, during and after...wait for it...prohibition. Huge spike during the period of prohibition, immediately falling rapidly when it ended. Causal? I thinks so!
Then look at the homicide rate as we accelerated our "war on drugs". Not so clear cut because the war didn't occur in a 24 hour period, but the same rise in homicides. Falling as we cut back on enforcing marijuana laws and even legalizing it. Again, causal? I think so. Take away what people want and demand and they turn to violence. Think about that as we discuss taking away their guns.
Oh I see, Dan! Some people need a gun "fix" rather than having a drink or smoking a joint. Makes perfect sense to me!
Apparently. Can't say I need any of them, but some apparently do.
Once knew an old guy, living miles into the hills - the "caretaker" for the town's water reservoir. Stayed in his cabin all winter, couldn't get out to any roads. But had the darndest gun collection I've ever seen outside a museum. Anything and everything, from a blunderbuss to ultramodern. Ugly death dealing machines to beautiful works of metal and wood artwork.
Or maybe it's just about keeping the freedom to live as we wish, while watching them dwindle every day. Got hit today: found I now owe $75 more than anyone else to register my car...because it's green, doesn't add to the nasty air quality problems we have here and is a plug in hybrid.
Red. I like red. Which is what it is. When we bought it, I took my 94 year old mother for a ride - she was enthralled, saying she had always wanted a "little red car". Funny.
My wife has a little red Miata as a second car. Neither of us can get in or out of it very easily anymore.
Sorta roll out onto the ground these days.
LOL We have a Saturn SC2 - the little 3 door - we use as a Towed behind the motorhome. My wife complains about the same thing every time she gets into it. I'm tougher: I just grit my teeth, fold, staple and mutilate as I clear the door jamb. Ah, the days of youth when we could get into a car that wasn't 2' off the ground!
Wilderness: It's very convenient that you can't turn off your ad blocker for one article. I can turn mine off and do so all the time.
According to the watchdog group Gun Violence Archive.the violent, high-profile tragedies have understandably captured the nation’s attention. But they contribute to 154 mass shootings, 6,880 gun-related deaths, and 13,504 firearm injuries in 2017 alone. And the year is not even over.
Are you telling me that if they take away all the guns, as they did in Australia, that number is going up instead of down? Don't get jiggy on me. We aren't taking away everybody's guns. We just want some decent, reasonable, logical legislation. Like make bump stocks illegal for starters.
That's why I didn't bother to read it; it's all about gun deaths. Not interested in helping to reduce gun deaths; only in reducing deaths.
Well, that's what happened in Australia. And it's what we see all over the world; taking guns doesn't reduce the death toll at all. Are you trying to tell me that worldwide experience showing that means that if we take guns we'll be different, and save lots of lives? What's that definition of insanity...something about doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results?
Unfortunately, your definition of "decent, reasonable, logical legislation is to reduce gun ownership. That's "logical" only if reducing deaths by gun is more important than reducing the death toll.
I've agreed elsewhere to ban bump stocks. It won't do anything for the death toll, but it's a cheap price to buy some votes and to placate the citizenry...until the next massacre. What will we do then? Pick another useless, irrelevant and illogical place to put resources...until the next time, repeating the process ad nauseum?
Did you bother to look at the numbers I provided on murders before and after the Great Gun Confiscation in Australia? Yes, but don't want to talk about it? No, because you already know it but but don't want to discuss it because it ruins reasons for gun controls?
Peoplepower here's the flaw in your argument. The United States is NOT Australia. They have a population of 22 million, we have a population of 316 million. Australia is an island, we are attached to Mexico, who is attached to central America who is attached to South America. Australia doesn't have to worry about huge numbers of illegal immigrants and criminals flowing into their country from countries south of their boarder. We have to deal with such a situation. We have AMERICAN criminals, not Australian criminals and there is a big difference. Owning a gun has happened in my family since we came to this country. I will own what gun I want, as many as I want and as long as I'm not breaking any laws, I don't want to hear about it. Any attempt to confiscate my weapon or the weapons of my friends or family will not go well. Me, my brother, father, uncles, cousins have served in every branch of the military since World War II. We've had family members die, lose limbs and suffer serious PTSD. We have served our country and have a right to own our guns as long as we don't break any laws. When people like you talk I usually ignore you. Your position is based on ignorance not knowledge. I do believe when liberals try to provide an intelligent argument it turns out to be comedy. Remember Peoplepower, if Australia is so great, you're free to move there. It's a beautiful place and I'm sure you and all the liberals in this country would do well there.
Readmikenow: You are calling me and all liberals ignorant. When you not only didn't reply to my comment, you went off on a rant. What part of me saying we don't want your guns didn't you understand? I said make bump stocks illegal.
I too served in the military during the cold war. I was saving your ass from Soviet bombers dropping nukes in the country that you so love so much. I understand you don't care about people getting killed in mass shootings, just as long as they don't take away your guns. To me that is just a downright selfish and ignorant mentality.
Criminals are criminals I don't care in what country they come from. It has nothing to do with population. Tell that to the other end of the barrel when 600 rounds hit a crowd of people, including 26 school children.
I served my country as well. I own two shotguns and a rifle. I don't live in fear that the government is coming to take my guns or that they are some how going to become tyranntical dictators that I have to protect myself from. I have more fear of the conservative mentality of "as long as it doesn't affect me, I could care less about others."
You must think you and your family are unique because they go back all they way to WWII. Well there is another side to patriotism. It has to do with saving lives during peace time, not killing during wars. I thank you and your family for their services.
Yeah, I think ignorance is not realizing that places in the country with the most gun control laws have the highest incidents of gun violence. ie Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, Passing laws won't work. It won't prevent mass shootings. It never has and it never will. The only thing gun legislation would do harm law abiding citizens and give liberals their feel good moment. Mass shooting will continue. Go ahead and ban bump stocks. Guess what? You can get plans for them on the internet and make them with a 3-D printer. How are you going to stop such a thing? Make them illegal, it will give you your feel good moment but again, will do nothing. Mass shootings will continue. I think liberals don't care about solving problems. They only want to live in their fantasy world and do things to make themselves feel good, while the problems only gets worse. I live in fear of liberals in power in pursuit of their fantasies and feel good moments who could try something as crazy as gun confiscation. To them, it would make sense.
Ask the families of the 28 people killed daily by alcohol related traffic accidents if we need alcohol or car control. People would think controls on those would be, "silly." And yet, as of this reply, there have been 5 times the people killed in these accidents since the shooting in vegas. Nobody REALLY gives a rat's behind about saving lives. It's about being political. The 28 people killed daily by alcohol and cars, don't have a friend who kneels. Alcohol and car control would save, theoretically, thousands of more lives than gun control...that is, IF controls ever worked. I mean seriously. We have draconian laws against heroin.....and because of these laws, well, nobody is hooked on heroin. Um. Yeah. Sure. The same number killed by heroin overdoses is astonishingly THE SAME as guns. I say we need even TOUGHER laws on heroin. I mean if laws work on keeping people safe, it stands to reason, right? How idiotic America is becoming. Even though drugs kill thousands more than guns, we are taking the opposite approach, or at least liberals are. They want more of them legalized,and people kept out of jail! You can't make this stuff up!
There is an important difference between murders and car accidents.
We need cars for transportation. Although someone can die in a car accident, we can't use a car to murder 59 people and injure hundreds more in a single night.
Unlike cars, we don't need assault rifles. We can use one or just a few to kill and wound hundreds in a single night.
Laws to protect society can't guarantee perfect safety. But they do offer deterrents to reduce the overal number of deaths.
Do you then support a gun buyback for all semi-automatic rifles as Australia did? Or just the black, scary looking ones?
I don't see the need for a mocking, sarcastic reply to a sincere answer.
Wasn't mocking anyone. Merely asking for your opinion on if a good gun control plan would include a buyback plan (I assume you aren't in favor of simply stealing them) for semi-automatic weapons. Along with, I agree, a rather snarky comment on what an "assault rifle" is. I hate that that term has come to pretty much mean "any gun I don't like" without regard to capabilities or military use.
Could have questioned the "need" for a car for anyone outside a metropolitan area, though - between mass transit, buses, trains, planes, taxis and rental automobiles for the rare instance there doesn't seem to be any "need" for a car for at least half the population.
Thanks for modifying your comment. I am not in favor of buying back any "black, scary looking" weapons. I maintain a definition of an assault rifle based on magazine size and firing speed. That means:
1. A limit on magazine size to hunting and simple self defense needs.
2. Any device that increases firing speed beyond single shots with the human hand is illegal, such as bump stocks.
If a buyback increases cooperation, then so be it.
Wait. Replacing a magazine turns a gun into an assault weapon? And a bump stock is an assault rifle? Sure you don't mean that certain accessories should be banned, not that they are assault rifles?
But that's good to hear, that if you use less than (unspecified) magazine size, and no bump stock or other device to increase firing speed then assault rifles are fine to own. You might want to re-consider that bit about the human hand, though; as I understand the bump stock it is purely human muscle that is firing that shot. No springs, no mechanical device that has that effect. Which is almost surely why it was approved in the first place: it does not violate existing laws on increasing firing speed.
Yes to all three questions. It goes to the core definition of an "assault" rifle. Its purpose is human assault based on magazine size and firing speed.
If you have a small magazine and no device to increase firing speed, it's not an assault rifle.
An AK 47 with a 30-round clip is an assault rifle. With a 5-round clip, for example, it is not an assault rifle.
https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/las-veg … t-america/
Good thing we have a Bill of Rights instead of a Bill of What Ignorant People Think We Need.
I encourage people to read my Hub, "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?" where I discuss this issue in detail.
by Scott Bateman3 days ago
They seem to be getting very popular in this country, both for sport and for committing mass murders. Why should I buy one?
by Ralph Schwartz5 days ago
Another horrific shooting in America occurred last night at at Country Western concert in Las Vegas. The motives of the shooter are not yet known, the investigation is just getting started but already people are...
by Don Bobbitt21 months ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby...
by My Esoteric16 months ago
Even though the system, as currently configured, worked in the case of the Orlando Terrorist, if one of the more popular gun regulations had not been stopped by the NRA & friends, how many people, now dead, would...
by Michele Travis4 years ago
Some people already have a lot of guns. So if gun laws are passed, how will the government actually get guns away from people. Some guns are registered and some are not, how could the government find out,...
by JaxsonRaine4 years ago
This isn't meant to be a pro-gun or anti-gun thread. This is meant to be an educational thread... if anybody cares.There is a lot of misconception about guns(I blame the media and Congress), so I'll explain anything or...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.