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.
No one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar types of rifles. Those like you are never satisfied with the thousands of guns already produced. All of you live your lives in fear; the 2nd Amendment hasn't a thing to do with it. The 2nd Amendment does not prohibit the government from banning certain weapons. You may not like it but it is true. Try doing some research. I live in Las Vegas and you haven't a clue what that shooting did to this city. In fact, one of the band members who was performing at the concert said he now supports gun control.
The only thing the NRA wants from its members is $$$$. Pathetic.
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?)
First of all, I would ban the .22 semi-auto in the picture you supplied. All it does is encourage more nuts to step up to a more powerful weapon like the .223 or the .556
To me, 'assault weapons' are those that are copies of the rifles used on the battlefield by the military. They serve NO purpose in society. As a thought experiment, it would be absolutely Constitutional to limit everyone to two guns: say, one rifle and one handgun. You'll find nothing in the 2nd Amendment to prohibit that. You would still be armed which is the purpose of the 2nd. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about the type of guns that should or shouldn't be legal, therefore certain guns CAN be banned. You'll find nothing in the 2nd Amendment that states gun lovers can possess any amount or type of weapon they want. To state otherwise is simply wrong.
I own a Canik TP9v2 (SA/DA) which comes with two 18-round mags but it wouldn't break my heart to give it up because I don't live my life in fear. Never have, never will.
"All it does is encourage more nuts to step up to a more powerful weapon like the .223 or the .556"
And teach children how to use a gun safely. And provide lots of cheap target practice. And rid the area of varmints. All while failing to encourage "gun nuts" to buy something more powerful.
"To me, 'assault weapons' are those that are copies of the rifles used on the battlefield by the military."
And yet, these "copies of the rifles used on the battlefield" aren't copies at all, but merely a pale shadow of what is used by the military. They are a completely different class of weapons and claiming they are copies of military weapons just isn't true.
"They serve NO purpose in society."
To you. To others they serve a definite purpose or they wouldn't be putting out the money to buy them. They are, after all, the most popular gun in the country - there has to be a reason they are purchased.
"I own a Canik TP9v2 (SA/DA) which comes with two 18-round mags but it wouldn't break my heart to give it up because I don't live my life in fear. "
It wouldn't break your heart, and therefore no one else that has one cares if they keep it or not. Somehow I don't think the conclusion follows from the premise.
Wilderness and all the other pro gun people out there: The bill proposed by Senator Fienstien, does not want you to give up your guns. The bill only states any further sales of assault style weapons, bump stocks, and high capacity magazines. Here is the link to the actual bill. Ahorseback: This is not cherry picking out of context. It is the actual bill.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public … l-text.pdf
Of course it doesn't. She could never get it passed that way. But Feinstein is on record as wanting all guns gone from the citizens of the US: this is but one more step towards the final goal. Next may be to "discover" that it isn't fair to those that aren't grandfathered in, so just take them all from everyone.
I do have to question why millions of people could own a military weapon but I can't. Grandfathering doesn't seem to make a tremendous amount of sense in such a law as it will save exactly zero lives. It won't even save people from being shot. It will however, take that one small step towards eventual confiscation...
I would as well ban the First amendment because the freedom of speech for one, has killed more people than all the different "styles" of guns combined ;
Take Hitler , His speeches killed at least eleven million Jews , perhaps responsible for twenty million , that's with an M , Russians , Poles , French , Americans , allies .
How much death and destruction has the news media cause with it's constitutional rights .
Ban Guns in America ? Be the first to start a civil war .
For your own safety and those around you , you should turn in your firearm , it's only obvious that your understanding of "gun copies " limits your firearm and it's safety knowledge altogether , you're probably a danger to society .
ahorsebck; Again more desperation.
Here is your own Brietbart News on what they said about Fienstien's bill. But not to worry. It will never pass because all you have to do is follow the money between the gun industry, NRA, congress, and all of their lobbyists. It forms a really neat triangle with the money going in all directions.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/201 … -laws-now/
Peoplepower , not ! His posting is that obvious . Here's the problem , now we are talking further into more shallow watered discussions about "copies " of your original Why does any civilian need "assault rifles " . I am always amazed at the ease that people would change or eliminate another persons liberties , from the left .
This goes right back to the little orange plug on the end of a toy gun . I'm sure that has saved multiple mass shootings from occurring ?
ahsorseback: Isn't it interesting, that the biggest argument in this forum has been how to defines those weapons. Now you see the definitions and you exaggerate it to ad nauseum. You people are never satisfied.
Look in the mirror ,Peoplepower , This entire posted thread theme is thus classified superficial ,when appearances , styles , colors and popular terminologies are the voice for change , that is the extent of the liberally driven , collective voice here .
ahorseback: What? I don't even know what you are saying. It is only classified superficial by your opinion. And right now your opinion is superficial. Do you mean that the right is the voice for change? I think not, that's why they are called conservatives. They want to conserve the status quo. You guys hate change. That's why they want to bring back coal and the steel workers, because they are not willing to adapt to change. And they stupidly think that Trump is going to bring back their jobs...not
Peoplepower ,You keep spinning the debate into itself , try solutions instead of games! Want a word game , buy a game book and grab a pencil , this is a serious debate .
Feinstein has had a record of that anti gun BS. since before they were called' mass killings " or even "assault rifles " she plainly and simply doesn't belong in office any longer.
In other words , she doesn't get the same things you don't get .She's part of the problem not the solution .
ahorseback: You wrote this really serious reply and didn't change the narrative....not
"I would as well ban the First amendment because the freedom of speech for one, has killed more people than all the different "styles" of guns combined ;
Take Hitler , His speeches killed at least eleven million Jews , perhaps responsible for twenty million , that's with an M , Russians , Poles , French , Americans , allies .
How much death and destruction has the news media cause with it's constitutional rights .
Ban Guns in America ? Be the first to start a civil war"
Hello Originalgeek, It reads like you would ban that .22 cal. rifle based on looks alone. I don't see that as a valid justification.
You are right that the 2nd Amendment is subject to legislative regulation, but I don't think regulating based on appearance will pass the Court's muster - even if you are willing to do so.
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.
We do need gun control, just not the type you are advocating.
If there had been people in that church who were armed, they would have been able to defend themselves and stop that tragedy before so many were killed.
There will always be people willing to harm innocent people for no good reason, they will build bombs (Oklahoma City, Boston Marathon), they will drive trucks (NYC, Bastille Day), and they will use guns, no matter how many laws that are passed, you will not be able to stop these individuals with those laws... only your ability to stop them, only our ability to be able to defend yourself, will stop them.
Sometimes you can't stop them. Having a gun wouldn't have stopped the Oklahoma City bombing, but when it comes to those who use guns to commit these acts of murder, the best deterrent is being armed and capable of stopping them yourself.
If you don't have that ability, you are just a victim in waiting.
Ken, I wouldn't based my argument on that meme. It's proven to be extremely misleading. Here some interesting info. https://www.snopes.com/kennesaw-gun-law/ and http://progressivevalues.blogspot.com/2 … ction.html
Also, nearly 30 years ago, there was mass shooting (or had the potential of being one) in which a deranged gunman entered the ball room at the local and started shooting. The ballroom was a local police convention with nearly 100 police officers from Torrance, Redondo Beach Palos Verdes, LA County Sherir and LAPD. Two officers were killed. And some, at the time, thought it was joke until he fired. Now, the other officer got and killed him...by beating him up...not shooting. The perp was mentally ill and the son of a judge...No one was charged because that judge mentioned simply stated: "case closed (but that's another story). The point is that even a room full of well-armed police officers were caught off guard by a shooter. By the way, one of officers killed was the father of a classmate of mine. He has a memorial plaque in PV.
Here's another interesting story about that county https://thinkprogress.org/shooter-injur … c0dfc091d/
Look on the bright side; he was stopped by a gun...except it was his own in an apparent suicide.
here's another interesting part of that article: "The National Rifle Association-sponsored “Safe Protection Act” allows gun owners to bring firearms into most public spaces, including schools, bars, churches, airports, and government buildings, even though researchers have generally found that more people die from gun homicides in areas with higher rates of gun ownership." Reality can be a b**ch.
You want to believe guns are the cause of the problems, that is fine then make sure you don't carry a gun or have one in your home, practice what you preach, you will be making the world a safer place I am sure.
Myself, I sleep better at night knowing that I have the ability to defend my family and I am dependent on no one else for that protection. And when I travel, or when we are suffering through a natural disaster like a hurricane, I don't have to worry about who might try to rob or attack me or my loved ones.... because I DO practice what I preach.
If you have a defense for the stuff I've posted, then start doing so. Don't give me grandiose statement that you could if you wanted to...that's a weak defense. Besides, all I'm doing is pointing out is that you're using flawed data and a meme (and memes are usually off-base) on gun statistics. If you have something concrete to show then do it. Stop pussyfooting around using tired old arguments that only affirms to one's belief rather than validate a claim. As it stands, this gun issue is dealing with mass shooters. And the biggest problem is their unpredictable nature and their access to heavy-duty artillery. Also in a shooting situation like we've seen, even the good guys with guns have been ineffective (in part because they haven't been trained to react to such matters and will suddenly find themselves in a situation where they can't fire and risk hurting others instead of the shooters). That's what happened in a mall shooting in Oregon and in a Colorado Walmart.
Personally, I know how to shoot target. And, I'm pretty good at it. But, there's no way I have any training or experience to take down a shooter. I'm realistic about that. And unfortunately, not a lot of gun owners are not trained to do so (and yes, there's a 20/20 broadcast that tested people in such a situation. Spoiler Alert: It didn't go too well).
You may not like that I'm destroying your confirmation bias, but it's time to take a real hard look at what's going on. I'm getting tired of it.
Who isn't "tired of it " but are California's strict gun laws , ....I take that back , --ridiculous gun laws --helping them stop the incidents of mass killing crime there ? It's time for the anti- gun delusional to get a grip mostly . The same tired old ineffective anti-gun stance must change .You know nothing of what you speak.
Mental issues rule the day , that is the leading ACTUAL cause of most kinds of violence . domestic , familial , schools , college name the violence and the first thing liberals do is go on a rampage about something you know NOTHING about.
Despite what happened today, crime and gun violence has fallen throughout the state. Also, horseback, when you tell someone they don't have any facts, I simply want to know one important question: What did the pot call the kettle?
" Trojan Horse " politics out of unknowing minds . That's the only way to look at the liberal ideology in the anti-gun debate . Did your bans work in NYC, Chicago , Baltimore , LA. , D.C. ? Have they worked in Californika ? No !? But what much debated issue does liberal America bring to the table = Canada .
They will site the violence in Canada as compared to the USA and call it "statistical proof ". Canada , a nation of roughly the same land mass as the US. and fully ONE TENTH of the population base. Or throw in the London Bobby as another outrageous "fact " ..........".The Bobby's don't carry guns "
Notice every city noted in the US have been liberally run for a century ?
How's that working out for ya ?
Horse, a sure fire way to lose an argument is to pull out the liberal card. From that moment you pull it out, I stop taking you seriously. All you prove is that you don't have anything vital to say. And All you prove is your ignorance on what ever issue is being debated. Don't you ever read your post and realize how ineffective they are? It's pathetic.
And keep throwing around the same facts and statistics that prove you have nothing , just as you always do . Don't like the way I define liberal ideologies , don't act them out .
When you're ready for solutions and I mean real ones , call me .
Horse, Who gives a rip how you define liberals. Your words don't carry any weight. You lost the argument. In fact, You have no argument or solution on a matter that seriously needs one. You're just here for name calling because it's probably the only thing that makes you feel good about yourself. At this moment, all you're doing is spinning your wheels on an ice road.
You are destroying nothing, perhaps in your mind you are, perhaps you think you posted something that validates your opinions.
I mean exactly what I typed. There's no need to restate it, or for me to further elaborate what I mean.
I will take what I said in another gun thread, and apply it here, and then I have nothing further to add, trust me when I say that my beliefs when it comes to this issue are unwavering, based on experience, not some misguided belief.
"Accepting the fact that there are many guns in our country, and that there are open borders that allow very violent drug runners and gangs to cross almost at will into our country, it should be obvious that making guns illegal isn't going to solve the problem.
Compare America with a similar country that has a large percentage of guns to population ratio, Switzerland.
One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in their society and passed from generation to generation.
The Swiss citizens take it as part of their civic responsibility to train themselves with guns and know how to use them.... our society does not. And hence a large part of our society are victims in waiting.
The real answer is for us become like Switzerland, and every citizen who is mentally stable, never convicted of a violent crime should become familiar with guns, own a gun, train with guns, and be allowed to carry a gun.
If we were able to protect our children's schools, our churches, and common areas, there would be almost no mass shootings, because the shooters would almost always be stopped.
I don't foresee a time where we will be free of the mentally insane, the emotionally disturbed, or the psychotically violent. Until they have found a way to remove all violently inclined threats from our society, the best way to protect ourselves and stop their violence IS to be able to protect ourselves and stop their violence."
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-sw … hat-works/
You know, this rabbit hole is getting deep. Yet, oddly enough, you bringing up the Switzerland gun culture in many respects supported my argument. Imagine that.! If you read my last posting, you'd realize that I mentioned my major concerns were that many gun owners have no clue about their own guns, many are using them in the false pretense that it's going to keep them safer, and that many blindly believe the false narrative that an armed citizen can stop a mass shooter -- despite not being trained to do so. Considering that you have a military background, I'd assume you'd realize what I was talking about.
Oddly enough you seemed to miss the fact that I never mentioned anything about banning guns. I've always been about responsibility, via licensing and regulations. Then again when you become an ideologist, I guess you see the world in black and white rather than the shades of gray this world is made of.
Now, I have one more little disappointment for you. The miracle of Switzerland gun ownership may not be what it seems to be. I've always known that men are issued guns (especially those in the military). And lessons in operating guns are required. It's part of a national defense initiative -- instead of being used for personal self-defense as is often the reason for ownership in this country.
Anyway, the country now has stricter gun laws, despite still ensuring people have the right to bear arms. Also, the low death rate by gun is a bit misleading. It turns out most are from domestic disputes and that 90% of these homicide used a gun.. Also, suicide by gun is huge. And, within the last two decades, there have been mass shootings. With the exception of the Zuig Massacre, most are small scale ones. But, in many cases, an assault rifle was used.
By the way, one reason that gun violence has decreased in Switzerland is that they began regulations of the storage of bullets. This appears to be just one of other policies pertaining to strict gun rules.
Here's the BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912
Read it or ignore it.
Your focus seems to be on the gun, the access to the gun. That is why I stated what I did.
The gun really is not the problem, the instability of the person, the psychotic, the deranged, the determined to get revenge. And the fact that there was no one there to oppose/stop them.
For every story we here of a mass shooting, there are many more that are stopped before they ever get to that stage, and there are many more people saved from being killed because someone was there to stop the attacker. But these occurrences rarely get any media coverage, don't know why, that is another matter all together.
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co … with-guns/
Should guns be harder to get?
In most places yes, but when the Air Force does not do its job, or the court system does not do its job, there are people who will still gain access, and even if they could not do so legally, it is possible they could do so illegally.
I brought up Sweden earlier, and I stated clearly in all my previous posts, the best way to mitigate these mass murders is to have more training, and become more like Switzerland, where it is an accepted part of the culture, a necessary responsibility in a world where there are people intent on doing others harm, for no good reason other than these murderers are vile or deranged human beings.
Now with that comes higher training standards, licensing, a required background check, etc. this is exactly what I have to go thru to get a CCW license, proof of training, proof of experience, a background check, and I would be fine with them requiring me to go to a range and qualify, and having to take a course every couple years to review the state laws, where and when and whys, I believe all that would be prudent as well.
The opposite of this approach, is to become a society of victims unable to protect ourselves or our families, we can already see this to be true, if we want to open our eyes and see it... the attacks these deranged individuals make are always on the defenseless, in schools, in churches, in 'gun free' areas.
We live in a country that seems to be having increasing problems with Drug Cartels, Human Trafficking, violence against police, violence in general. In the town where I live, a police officer made a regular traffic violation stop, and was attacked, and would have been killed, if not for an armed citizen stopping as the attack progressed, saving the police officer by shooting his assailant.
Everyone has their own beliefs, some are well grounded in experience and facts, others less so. But when it comes to the issue of guns, I have to side with maintaining people's rights to access and availability, rather than excessive restrictions or outright illegalization.
Quite honestly, I have no faith in our government (local or federal) to provide us protection against those who would do harm and violence. And from what I see occurring in other parts of the world these days, in what not so long ago were considered the most civilized places on the planet, I don't see things becoming any safer, anytime soon.
You want hard facts? Australia confiscated all those terrible "assault weapons" from it's citizenry in 1996, in response to a mass shooting. It cost them billions of dollars to disarm their people.
And the result, in terms of mass murders? There have been more people killed in mass murders in the 21 years since the confiscation than there were in the 21 years prior. It seems that when the killers couldn't get their preferred weapon they turned to matches (along with a few other methods). Matches are cheap, take no training, are readily available and arson can be a quite deadly tool.
In terms of overall homicide rate, well, Australia saw their homicide rate continue the exact same, slow slide that it had seen for some years before disarming the people. Results of taking guns was nothing at all.
Want to repeat the process here or can we learn from the mistakes of others?
(If you want an analysis of correlation/causal effect of the number of guns in a country vs the homicide rate, it is on my carousel. Warning: real life data collected by the UN does not show what you think it will.)
Supply your Australian gun data. Most I've seen says otherwise.
First, let's start with I didn't mention gun data - I said mass murders. The dead don't care what killed them - why should we? Besides, that's the point - take the guns away and the killers just switch tools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … _Australia
Add them up. Pre-1996 and post 1996. 69 killed in mass murders from '75 to 95, 337 from '97 to '17. You'll have to correct for the incorrect information on the black saturday in 2009 - it used to say 173 died but now says 10. Sheriff reports indicate 170+, and so does an article on the fire itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sat … land_fires
But even if you don't correct for the error, the figures still say the same thing - more were killed in mass murders after the gun buyback than before. Fewer died by gunshot, yes, but they are just as dead either way.
Name the articles Wikipedia used, considering that Wikipedia has a tendency to be edited by almost anyone.
If you don't like Wiki, find your own stats. Or look at the bottom of the Wiki article to find references. Or go to the Aussie govt., where you can find that the rate of decline of the murder rate did not change after the buyback. Or just claim it is all a lie because you don't want to believe it.
Second graph down. Or you can look up Joyce Lee Malcom, professor of Law at George Mason University, who has looked at both the UK and Australian experience with very similar conclusions. If you can get into the Wall Street Journal, they talk of her paper:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 … 0446855466
Thing is, Dean, if you are careful and search for data about homicide rates instead of gun homicide rates, these things aren't difficult to find. But they aren't talked about because they give the lie to the concept of saving lives via gun controls. Gun control advocates will never speak of homicide rates, only gun homicide rates as a result.
He, WILDERNESS, knows what he is talking about here. No need to dispute it.
Wait a sec....I've read other posting on these threads. You've been arguing the same point with three other people who have thoroughly knocked down your argument. Randy and Promisem already supplied the talking points. Why try bringing this up again? It's done.
Oh heck, while we're at it, The argument that the Murder/gun rate in Australia had been debunked several years. Here's an example:
Some quotes from you snopes link:
"researchers Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that in the decade following the NFA, firearm homicides (both suicides and intentional killings) in Australia had dropped significantly:
"in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres."
"The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings,"
"Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths."
"While there is no doubt that firearms deaths in Australia have decreased substantially in the years since the implementation of the NFA"
Now. From my post above: "Thing is, Dean, if you are careful and search for data about homicide rates instead of gun homicide rates, these things aren't difficult to find." Whereupon you produce a list of comments about gun homicide rates. Debunked? I don't think so - not when you (apparently) intentionally search for irrelevant information about something other than what I spoke of. You're doing the same thing Randy and Promisem did - ignore the fact that homicide rates didn't change while touting that gun homicide rates fell, as if the dead care what killed them and therefore we need to make sure that it won't be a gun so they'll feel better while lying in the grave.
Yeah, I figured you'd do some mental gymnastics to fight that argument so here are a few more links. The last one is pretty interesting about the gimmicks used to discredit the actual stats (By the way, I was once involved with NRA and am familiar with some of their tactics --hey, I was young, I didn't know any better).
https://www.truthorfiction.com/australi … ime-rates/
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-co … a-updated/
http://theconversation.com/faking-waves … tats-11678
First link: as I haven't mentioned general crime rates, it has nothing to do with anything I DID say - maybe they fell, maybe not, but I did not address the question at all.
Second link: Good choice as it says what I did. That homicides have fallen since 1996 (buyback year). What it fails to mention is that homicides have fallen since considerably before that, and at the same rate. Complete story, then? You can't begin to believe that it is.
Third link: "While the impact of the Australian gun laws is still debated, there have been large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia." Back to the same thing, here - a discussion of firearm homicides when the topic is all homicides. Comically, the article goes on to say: "The selective use of data, or cherry picking, is a commonly used method of extracting the “right” answer. This is true even when all the data tells a completely different story."...as they cherry pick only gun homicides to write about. Again, as if dead people care what tool killed them or if you weren't shot you weren't killed some other way.
Dean, what is so terribly, terribly difficult about talking about whether that buyback saved lives? I keep asking to discuss homicide rates, you keep producing partial information or information about something entirely different! Do you just not wish to discuss it?
Oh and one other thing: I'm well aware of the use of Cherry-picking data. So pull apart the article all you want. You'll just affirm your own beliefs rather than validating the argument.
So? Cherry pick your own data then - show me data that proves Australia had a change in the rate of change of the homicide decline then. Not, mind you, gun homicides, but all homicides. Let's talk about people dying from violence, not just a subset of that. Let's see if killers will still kill if you take their guns away.
I haven't seen anything indicating that non-firearm murders went up. In most cases they appear to show them staying static. Also, there appears to have been a decline in crime overall (then again every source I've checked indicate the data is inconclusive). It seems there was a rise in other crimes such as sexual assault.
The one thing that seems certain about this is that it came from a bogus e-mail that circulated around the Internet back in 2001. My BS meter went into overdrive in I discovered this. And, as usual, the only "news" sites that took this e-mail seriously ....and flogged it to death ....are those right wing, pro-gun or faux sites.
Well, if the murder rate is static, but gun murders are down, what does that say about non-gun murders? It's a pretty obvious conclusion, not even debatable, that they go up.
But some of the things snope DID debunk you're right on - they were ridiculous on the face of it. Others were carefully worded to give a false impression...just as talking about saving lives and then popping off with "...and it's a known fact that gun homicide rates fell" does. The insinuation is that if people aren't shot they aren't murdered, but if that assumption is actually investigated it simply isn't true. It takes a little effort because that little word "gun" isn't always obvious and not many data sets will give actual total homicide rates - not if the topic is gun control, anyway.
When I wrote the hub I used different sources for homicide rates and gun ownership rates - I didn't want data contaminated by an agenda either way and using a single study that contains both is almost guaranteed to skew results to show what is desired.
Excellent question. To save time let me refer you to a short video.
This is true, and during those times it was considered a means of survival, and EXPECTED that American 'Land Owners' would have in their possession a rifle, for protection (they didn't have police or a standing army back then) and for survival (many hunted for their food back then).
In fact, it was so common place that a land owner would possess at least one gun, that George Washington’s first annual address to members of the Senate and House of Representatives in 1790, began with the sentence "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined,"
It was part of their fabric of daily life back then, there was no debate that people should be armed, they understood all to well that their liberty, freedom, survival, and protection depended on it. What was in debate back then, what was being argued back then, was the need for a standing militia... the people who created America, and defended and ran America, didn't trust their hard fought freedoms to a military.
Today America is totally the opposite of what they would have wanted, in terms of military might and our being present all over the world, destabilizing nations, destroying nations, and creating chaos everywhere... the sad truth is, the 'founding fathers' to a man, would likely want to stand against America's D.C. government and want to overthrow it as they wanted to overthrow England's rule.
As I noted in the many posts in this thread, I believe this is the wrong answer. The correct answer is more restrictions on who can own a weapon, more training, proper licensing and testing.
But I think we all know the real reason behind legislation is the effort to remove all guns from the people, and the way to begin is to go after 'assault weapons' which the majority of guns these days can be converted to.
The 2017 Assault Weapons Ban (see link below) is poorly written. Specific attention should given to the definition of a semiautomatic assault weapon which now includes any semiautomatic variant of an automatic pistol.
IE - a Glock 17 would be illegal because there exists the Glock 18 which is the automatic version of the 17.
I personally would never carry a Glock because I don't feel confident in the safety features inherent in its design, I prefer what I describe as a dual safety feature (a safety switch and the charging of the hammer) making it nearly impossible for a well trained handler to have an accidental discharge, or for it to easily be used by a person unfamiliar with the use of it.
However I know many police officers and 'private' security people who do not share my belief, they feel that extra half second is the difference between life and death (and I think some may fear their own inabilities to 'remember' what to do in a high stress situation) once more this is an example of how the law abiding will be punished, while the criminals who could care less about laws, will not be impacted.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public … l-text.pdf
It is poorly written according to you and to others who share your point of view. Are you an expert in this area or just sharing your opinion? To me, 'assault weapons' are those that are copies of the rifles used on the battlefield by the military. They serve NO purpose in society. And if you want to bring the 2nd Amendment into the discussion (the common path by your side) it would be absolutely Constitutional to limit everyone to two guns: say, one rifle and one handgun. You'll find nothing in the 2nd Amendment to prohibit that. You would still be armed which is the purpose of the 2nd. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about the type of guns that should or shouldn't be legal, therefore certain guns CAN be banned. You'll find nothing in the 2nd Amendment that states gun lovers can possess any amount or type of weapon they want. To state otherwise is simply wrong.
I own a Canik TP9v2 (SA/DA) which comes with two 18-round mags. It wouldn't break my heart to give it up because I don't live my life in fear. Never have.
Just my opinion.
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.
That which is far more dangerous Big are mouth's that speak to freely , We need first amendment controls , It is after all ultra-free speech that kills more people than guns.
Consider Hitlers speeches 11 million Jews , maybe 20 million Russians , countless hundreds of thousands of western and eastern Europeans .
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.
Have it painted a different color, Dan.
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.
The obvious naivete of the O.P. declines to explain how at each one of the thousands of proposed , legislated , passed and provided federal , state and local gun laws in America ; How at each point of inception someone with a false cause and a beef said,
" This new legislation will stop gun deaths all across America "
Peoplepower ,Put the shovel down , you're in a hole , time to stop digging .
Which is worse , an insane person with gun or the insanity of just another law ?
Logically, if it is appropriate to deprive people of guns, on the grounds that no one "needs" them and that people from time to time suffer either death or bodily injury from them, then it is likewise appropriate to deprive people of any and all other means by which they might cause death or bodily injury to others--by outlawing the behavior and depriving individuals of the right to possess the means or equipment for this. As long as neither the behavior and equipment is not something they "need."
This is what gun-control advocates are saying: Government SHOULD outlaw behaviors that may be shown to have at any time caused harm. Government SHOULD outlaw the private possession of equipment that may be shown to have at any time caused harm. Government SHOULD take these actions whenever private individuals do not NEED to engage in said behaviors and do not NEED to possess said equipment.
Since these are the assumptions involved, then, if true, they should be applied broadly to all other areas of human behavior.
So obviously we should outlaw risky sexual behaviors. No one needs to engage in risky sexual behaviors that lead to death and disease. In fact, no one needs to engage in any kind of sexual behaviors. Sex is no longer needed for reproduction--or, to the small extent that it is, it would be better conducted under government control in a hygienic scientifically sound environment, where only the best genetic material will be reproduced, and the whole procedure is done by trained people who know what they're doing.
Sexual activity of any kind by private persons should obviously be illegal. All it does is spread death and disease, as can be demonstrated by epidemic levels of STDs. It allows the continual replication of inferior genetic material, leading to physical and mental illness, disability, and death.
Further, it should be obvious that no private individual should be allowed to possess the equipment needed for sexual activity of any kind. It has been pretty clearly demonstrated that, whenever people are in possession of reproductive organs they are almost sure to use them--with suboptimal, if not tragic, results.
No one NEEDS to engage in sex; no one NEEDS their reproductive organs. Statistically, engaging in sex results in more death and body harm than guns. Therefore we should outlaw it and deprive people of their reproductive organs.
That's your logic, guys.
Blueheron: That's your logic, just eliminate anything that causes human behavior in order to have safe gun laws. You have just projected gun control to ad nauseam. It's very simple. There are cities that don't allow fireworks because they are too dangerous. By your logic, we should eliminate all human behavior as a result of fireworks...give me a break.
If guns caused half the damage fireworks do you might have a better case for banning them.
Wilderness: Let's assume you are right. People don't bitch and complain about the ban of fireworks, they just abide by the law. On the other hand, if just the phrase gun control is mentioned, it sets off a whole tirade of lets ban cars, knife and forks, all the way to we should ban sexual intercourse and human behavior. Damage is one thing, mass shootings are another.
To defend ourselves against the very government that would seek to disarm us.
There is that.
However as I stated above, and as stats from reputable sources show, cities and towns with the least restrictive, most gun friendly laws have far fewer violent crimes and gun related crimes, than those cities and towns which have put laws in place to ban guns.
This is overly simple to understand, if criminals know you have the ability to defend yourself, they are going to look for easier victims to prey upon.
This is seen throughout nature as well, the lion preys on the weak, not the strong. Wolves cull the weak from the heard, not the strong. Attacking something capable of attacking back means they could end up dead, at worst, and most likely fail to succeed in their hunt at best.
Even the mentally unstable (insane) choose to attack targets where they don't expect their victims to have any ability to protect themselves or fight back, so they continue to choose churches, elementary schools, theatres, places where guns are prohibited and there is no armed protection.
There is no arguing this, unless you are trying to deny reality.
ahorseback: Happened today. Maybe five people being killed is not much to you and people like you, because you people have no empathy. You are not capable of putting yourself in the place of others. It'a all about you and your guns. "Just remember our thoughts and prayers are with you, but don't take away my guns."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/5-dea … li=BBnb7Kz
Peoplepower , There is nothing worse than misplaced empathy and that is your problem , it has been responsible for far more deaths than true resolve about any issue . How many unregistered step ladders are you hiding in your garage , More people die of falls than most other accidents. AS long as you use your misplaced empathy to initiate more gun -control - you DON"T have to look at any serious solutions to ALL serious reasons for death in America.
-Aborted fetus' epidemnic
Auto accidents , the most unchecked cause of death in America , ie. cell phone use , yet you give every teen a cell phone and a learners permit , might as well hand them an Uzi.
Those with totally false empathy's like yourself should be ashamed of your general apathy towards the seriousness and reasons of most deaths in America instead of jumping all through the hoops of your political correctness . The shame is yours !
I could go on and on and on.........
Shootings today in California , Probably the most -heavily regulated anti-gun State in the union and yet - Is more law working well , is an extensive anti-gun legislation working ? Did any of that law work today .Peoplepower ?
Oh I have empathy , what I don't have is your rose colored glasses.
ahorseback: There is no such thing as misplaced empathy. Either you have it or you don't. Nice play on words though! The law didn't work today, because they are not the right kind of laws. Bump stocks need to be banned along with high capacity magazines. All guns need to be registered with the federal government. We need federal laws from the federal government, not a mishmash of laws from the states. Therefore, there would be consistency among all the states. We need to stop the illegal purchase of guns from the back of pickup trucks at a gun shows.
Still don't know what you're talking about !
ahorseback: Let me see you have empathy for the following, but no empathy for the victims of mass shootings. And you tell me my empathy is miss placed.
-Aborted fetus' epidemnic
Auto accidents , the most unchecked cause of death in America , ie. cell phone use ,
Definition of empathy to alt- liberal :
Empathy ; Any hightened feeling of emotional political correctness played upon the group mind- set due to media hype , not however related in any way to reality , lost to any reasonable element of importance , true statistics or numerical fact .
Example, more people are killed due to minority abortions in America that gun deaths. Do liberals march in the streets over abortions ? Answer ; Only if they feel abortions threatened.
ahorseback: How conservatives use the "What about pivot." The topic is about "Why does any civilian need an assault rifle." So a conservative will pivot the topic to what about cars, knifes, forks, cell phones, sex, and free speech, and everything else that can kill a person. They all kill more people than guns.
Therefore let's cure those ills before we even focus on gun control. Again, "it's too early to talk about gun control, but our thoughts and prayers are with all you dead people. We stand alongside you and will never forget you." But let's talk about everything else that kills people. That''s more important than mass shootings and killings"...And you know what none of it gets fixed and the beat goes on.
Hey peoplepower, believe it or not that "What about pivot" actually has a name: "whataboutism." Apparently, when it comes to topics such as this, a lot of people try to deflect to debate to something else. I had to stop a few debates because the other person (or people) pulled this ploy... I guess the long you deflect you don't have to talk about it, but the result is a deep rabbit hole with tons of twists and turns until ones not sure what's being debated.
We had a rental truck loon who mowed killed 8 people and wounded many more. I heard no riots, no speeches, no rantings, no looting, no blow hards on cable news....not a single whimper about drivers license control, truck rental control, or stopping these people from getting here. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Because truck rental control is not as a good sound bite like gun control is. Yet, vehicles kill thousands more each year than guns. Just once I would like to hear a politician rant about easy it is to get behind the wheel and kill somebody... because it happens DOZENS of times a day...and nobody ever gives a flyin' leap.
This says it all anti-gun liberals ;
Joe Biden , when asked about anti -gun BS from the left and the Texas church shooter ."Well, the man who shot the church shooter had a gun he wasn't supposed to have "
Now there Is an political idiot worthy of voting into the highest office in the country !
Peoplepower Talk about a convenient pivot , First , When was the last time you shot a weapon ? Why don't you use your extensive knowledge of weaponry and truly explain to us all EXACTLY what an" assault weapon" is , when that term "assault weapon " was originated and why a firearm is called an "assault weapon"?
Now here is your black crayon ; so begin please. And use all of the diagrams you wish .
ahorseback: Come on you can do better than that old ploy of defining what an assault weapons is. The only people who care about that definition are the owners of those weapons. Why don't you ask the people who are shot by rapid fire, high capacity magazine weapons. Oh that's right, you can't talk to dead people. I carried a grease gun in the Air Force. Do you know what that is and I was on a 50 cal gun emplacement in Japan protecting your ass during the cold war. You know what you can do with your crayons!
Here is everything you wanted to know about assault rifles but were afraid to ask. (Notice I used the word rifle, but it still fits in the class of a weapon.)
Admit it Peoplepower , While I appreciate all veterans ,you've never even locked and loaded facing from your air force 'cold war ' base, No one that I've even known who WAS military is as anti-gun as you are . If a majority or even a minority, of people I've known who served were as anti-" assault weapons " and firearms as you are , I'd seriously listen .
Ban guns ; What will you then blame all of the killing on , face reality Peoplepower , this is a human /mental health based epidemic , not an inanimate object one.
Simply put ,What has one murderer ever done legally ?
And you think" law "will cure this . Last night a Baltimore detective was shot in the head by a cold blooded killer , time to go propose another law Peoplepower .
ahorseback: You really don't know me. And I really don't know you as well. So let's stop the B.S. I forgot to tell you, my dad I were hunters. I started out on single shot 410. We hunted duck, geese, pheasant chuckar partridge, quail, dove, and deer. I still have a Winchester Model 270 rifle with a Weaver K.25 scope and two Winchester Model 12s, 12 gauge, full choke shot guns. I gave up killing animals after I left the Air Force and used a movie camera instead. If you don't believe me, here is the link to my very first hub page...enjoy
*gasp* You own not one but two shotguns?!? Are you unaware that shotguns are used in more murders in this country than even assault weapons? Better get rid of them, and right now!
Wilderness: If the government ruled to buy back guns. I would gladly turn them all in order to save more lives. It's very simple, more guns, more chance for more mass killings...and now we have a president that just passed a law that says mentally ill people don't need background checks to buy weapons. Note: I use the term president very loosely.
You will give up the most vicious, most preferred (as a tool for murder) long gun of all...if the government will give you money for it. I'd have to say your commitment to reducing lives lost is a little weak.
You and I both know there is no correlation between the number of guns in a society and the number of homicides in that society. Yet you will gladly not only turn in your own guns but require, at gunpoint, that others do the same thing with saving lives as an excuse to control others. You even comment that more guns means more chance for more mass killings...while knowing that there is no connection between the two. You then add a dig at the president (that I don't believe for a moment) claiming he passed a law whereby if you are mentally ill you will not need a background check to purchase a weapon.
I'm sorry, PP - we're so far apart on this issue as to be speaking a different language. An absolute refusal to accept facts in favor of policies that we know won't work, that we know will do nothing for the body count, that will only have the effect of removing our rights, just isn't in my reality. I can accept that most people are ignorant of the truth about guns vs murders, but you aren't one of them yet continue to pretend that the lies being promoted are what counts.
I'll add that when you attack the dreaded "assault weapon" as you did in the OP, then define an assault weapon as a fully automatic weapon (your wiki link), well, you've just joined the wrong side. Once more, you and I both know that true assault weapons are very highly regulated and that none has been used for any murder at all, let alone a mass murder, in something link 80 years. You are one of those people using the terminology as a tool to scare people into taking an action against a completely different product, using a common lie because it's convenient and effective. It does nothing (positive) for your argument.
Wilderness: For your dining and dancing pleasure. In addition to that, he also rolled back another Obama law that says you can't kill elephants and bring them home as trophies.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr … al-n727221
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/worl … rophy.html
See, Trump is in revenge mode with Obama, because at a Foreign Press dinner that Trump attended, Obama was roasting everybody and embarrassed Trump for not producing Obama's Kenya birth certificate. He is on the path to roll back all of Obama's accomplishments, because Trump is a revengeful sick puppy.
I was right to disbelieve the claim, wasn't I? Nowhere in these links does indicate that Trump passed a law saying " mentally ill people don't need background checks to buy weapons." (your words). Nor even indicate that there is, or ever was such a law. The mentally ill require, just as they always have, the same background checks as everyone else.
It's really tough to make such things up (and get reasonably astute people to believe them). Google is always there, the 'net is always there - checking statements is just too easy. In this case, of course, not even that was necessary; common sense says such a thing never happened.
Wilderness: What part of this didn't you understand?
President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.
The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.
Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.
President Barack Obama recommended the now-nullified regulation in a 2013 memo following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 first graders and six others dead. The measure sought to block some people with severe mental health problems from buying guns.
Related: Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
The original rule was hotly contested by gun rights advocates who said it infringed on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Gun control advocates, however, praised the rule for curbing the availability of firearms to those who may not use them with the right intentions.
Feb. 12: Gun Sales Booming Across California as State Expands Gun Control Laws Play Facebook Twitter Embed
Feb. 12: Gun Sales Booming Across California as State Expands Gun Control Laws 2:00
Both the House and Senate last week passed the new bill, H.J. Res 40, revoking the Obama-era regulation.
Trump signed the bill into law without a photo op or fanfare. The president welcomed cameras into the oval office Tuesday for the signing of other executive orders and bills. News that the president signed the bill was tucked at the bottom of a White House email alerting press to other legislation signed by the president.
The National Rifle Association “applauded” Trump’s action. Chris Cox, NRA-ILA executive director, said the move “marks a new era for law-abiding gun owners, as we now have a president who respects and supports our arms.”
Everytown For Gun Safety President John Feinblatt said he expected more gun control rollbacks from the Trump administration. In a statement to NBC News, he called the action "just the first item on the gun lobby’s wish list" and accused the National Rifle Association of "pushing more guns, for more people, in more places."
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, called out Republicans over the move.
"Republicans always say we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. But the bill signed into law today undermines enforcement of existing laws that Congress passed to make sure the background check system had complete information," he said in an emailed statement.
That was, from all I can see, a bad decision, bad choice.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … /98484106/
What was the reasoning behind that rollback, and who supported it?
Personally, I don't like it. But I can also see two sides here - in order to get disability these people must sign away their constitutional right to bear arms. If Trump cannot withhold charity from sanctuary cities (that refuse to accept federal law) then how can we deny charity from those people that exercise constitutional rights? And I most certainly have a problem when the SS or any other arm of the govt. begins to circulate medical (particularly mental) care records throughout the country for anyone to see..
Will the next step be to require a clean bill of (mental) health to get food stamps or housing or lose your II amendment rights? A passport? A drivers license? Professional licenses? The feds have a truly massive weapon to enforce telling them your mental health status - do we want our vaunted "leaders" to have that weapon and, more importantly, to hand that information to anyone interested?
I'm not sure how what is going on with Sanctuary cities relates to those recognized as mentally unstable (severe enough mental disability to get SSI) having access to guns.
This really isn't defensible, they cannot be depended upon to act rationally at all times, they are on SSI for basically being proven to some extent mentally incompetent, and they don't belong near guns.
And yes these people have other restrictions as well, depending on the circumstance they can't drive, can't have many career licenses, and this is pretty much the same thing, we don't want them having access to guns so that we help keep another CT elementary school tragedy from happening.
If you murder people you go to jail, if you sell drugs you go to jail, if you collect SSI because of mental disability you can't own a gun, sometimes people's freedoms and rights get infringed upon for good reason.
Only in that if you don't follow the edicts of the feds you will lose your charity from them. The courts have said that Trump may not with hold charity from those cities that flout the laws of the nation, yet we were ready to take constitutional rights from people because they accepted charity (disability).
I guess I understand the rest of that. I think I'd feel a little...no, more like a LOT...better if I knew just what mental illness was going to be used to deny rights. Alzheimers, where short term memory is lost? Dementia, where the same thing happens?
My brother in law is brain damaged from an accident and cannot remember where he's going after he's driven a mile - he has no problem driving but gets lost in nothing flat. He gets a small disability check because he can't possibly work, but does his inability to keep focused for more than a few minutes mean he is dangerous? No, just the opposite - he'll forget what he was fighting about or that he was going to fight at all! Yet, apparently, we'll deny gun rights to him.
I have a great fear we're going to simply run roughshod over the mentally ill, and without regard to whether it's justified. They have the same rights we do and it SHOULD be only with great trepidation that we remove those rights. To force someone to give up constitutional rights in order to receive the charity they require to live...well, that's pushing it much further than I'm willing to go without lots of really solid information on just who we're talking about. We're going to use our fear and distrust of the mentally ill to deny rights, just as we do with those terrible, black "assault weapons".
I think a clear definition would certainly be prudent. Categorizing the severity.
Those who are on antipsychotic drugs and are collecting SSI because it is deemed they are incapable of functioning in normal society without outbursts of violence, or uncontrolled emotional outbursts, or even those who are severely bipolar should not be in the possession of guns.
But if it came down to an all or none scenario, I would defer to an all rather than none.
I feel sympathy for your brother, but from what you described I wouldn't want him driving even less than I would want him in possession of a gun. I can only imagine he is putting himself and others at risk if he can't remember a few minutes after he starts driving somewhere what his destination was. Same for possession of a gun, imagine he has his gun out and then forgets about it, leaving it somewhere unsecure.
Which gets back to my points made a while back, about how I feel there should be licensing required and background checks, and training, and that all these precautions be reviewed and repeated every few years.
If a person can't pass a background check, if they can't qualify with the weapon, if they can't pass a test showing they understand the laws they shouldn't be allowed access to or ownership of a weapon... just like they aren't allowed to drive a car, or hold a variety of licenses that allow them to work in certain fields.
Make guns illegal no... make it so that only those who have proven themselves to be of sound mind, and proven their capability/responsibility yes, absolutely.
"President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun."
"<President Trump> passed a law that says mentally ill people don't need background checks to buy weapons."
What part of 'these two statements are not the same' do you not understand? Rolling back a bill that made it harder for some mentally ill (a small percentage) to purchase weapons is NOT the same as "mentally ill people don't need background checks to buy weapons." The two aren't even close, for Pete's sake - they address completely different things!
And it gets better: laws banning "assault weapons" (anything similar to an AR-15) were shot down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional (as I recall it was unreasonable to 1 ban lookalikes and 2 ban the most popular gun in the country). And yet here you are claiming that the constitution affords no protection to these same weapons. That's almost (almost!) as bad as the tale that Trump passed a law (which he cannot do - only congress can pass a law) saying the mentally ill don't need a background check to arm themselves.
Wilderness: Yeah O.K. you want to argue semantics. This is from Time Magazine:
"The rule would only “impact a person if he or she has been determined to be so severely impaired by a mental condition that he or she is unable to manage his or her own benefits, in which case, he or she is already prohibited from purchasing or possessing guns,” Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in congressional testimony in February. “The new rule will simply prevent this person from passing a gun purchaser background check only until after an evaluation of their specific capacity to take on the responsibilities of gun ownership.”
Read the last sentence. You say it only impacts a few people. All it takes is one mentally ill person with a high capacity rapid fire weapon to perform mass killings.
Peoplepower would have us all believe that if one takes Prozac for a couple of weeks one is a mental case , but then to him , all gun owners are to be instantly convicted of such illness as well .
You can't win with the anti gunners people .
Do you think just a couple weeks of Prozac will get one a SSI Mental Disability check? I wouldn't have thought so, but since I don't know, maybe you are right.
Listen people , Liberals as anti-gunners will think of any reason or rhyme to disparage ANY gun ownership. Don't look to apply reason to unreasonable people in the name of issue , gun style , mental condition or legal standing ..........To these people who hate , it's all or nothing .
You know I'm right.
You are right on one point ahorseback; "Don't look to apply reason to unreasonable people ... "
As another member also noted, I have some qualms about using general categorization, such as 'all' SSI Mental disability recipients, as a selection process for adding someone to a "national" database that can impact their Rights, but, without knowing the criteria for that "mental" designation, such a restriction doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Yet, it sounds like it is a big problem for you, merely because it is a "gun" issue. I seem to recall that it was also an issue with you that the Air Force didn't send that Texas shooter's mental and criminal information to a gun-check database.
Reasonable, or, unreasonable? Is this one of those times that fit your 'Don't try..." axiom?
All of which still has nothing whatsoever to do with "mentally ill people don't need background checks to buy weapons." PP, there is no possibility of finding any connection, however remote, between your claim and the reality of what happened. Just as there is no possible connection between your usage in the term "assault weapon" and the reality you gave with a Wiki link. There is no reason and no use into trying to spin it into something it isn't.
You're right , we don't know each other . Not at all, Peoplepower , It is our system that is broken and not just part of it but a systematic breakdown in our entire legal / social / cultural /education ...........systems , This morning in the news I read about a mental patient released too early again in my home state , an ongoing legal issue . she then killed three family members and a gifted social worker with a hunting rifle , is now going through the system AGAIN and being determined mentally incompetent to stand trial ..................now , she WILL get out again. However , I say ban bump stocks and silencers too , that's reasonable but what does any of that cure in view of this story.
In the same newspaper ;
In a related story , Her daughter is accruing a lengthy record of mental breakdowns , numerous brushes with the law and generally following in her mothers footsteps ? Do you see anything wrong with this ? Does the system see anything going on here ? No apparently not .
Shall we ban HER hunting rifle too, mine , yours ?
Not one more gun law added to the thousands of them until you cure the above story .
ahorseback: When Reagan was president, he said, "bigger government is not the solution, it is the problem." So one of the things he did to make "government smaller" was to stop funding the mental institutions. Suddenly, there were mentally ill people on the streets. I used to be a jogger. I remember, right after he did that, I was chased by a mentally ill person and I had to hide in the bushes to get away from him. Unless we re-instate and re-fund mental health institutions, this problem is never going away.
The difference between you and me and people like you is our values and belief systems are different. When I see and hear about mass shootings and killings, the first thing I do is grieve for the victims and their families. The first thing gun lovers do is think about how they can protect themselves and their guns and rationalize how everything else can kill people and more people are killed by other means than guns.
Its very simple for me. I place the love of people above the love of guns and I place my trust in those who's job it is to protect us. I don't believe in the paranoia, that someday, we are going to be attacked by some tyrannical organization and we will have to fend for ourselves.
" The first thing gun lovers do is think about how they can protect themselves and their guns..."
Ahh...the perpetual cry of the gun haters - "You want people to diiieee!", usually screamed out before victims are in the ground. A sad and sorry tactic used because they have nothing else to support their agenda. When all else fails, raise emotions in the hope they will prevail over reason and insult others whenever possible in an effort to demonize them as much as possible. It's getting rather old - this perpetual lie that no one cares about others except those people wanting to control them. Makes one think of the right to life crowd that uses the same tactics and lies.
(Would it make you feel good to be told the first thing on your mind is "Great! Another chance to grab the guns!"? Sometimes followed by "But wait - I can't actually say that until I exhibited some real looking but fake grief for the victims. Would it make you want to have a quiet, rational discussion?)
Wilderness: Talk about insults. N,o the first thing on my mind is "what a friggin tragedy this is." The second thing on my mind is, "no one is going to do a thing about all these people being killed and families left as victims." The third thing that is on my mind is when is enough enough? The fourth thing that is on my mind is that the NRA is one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington and that our congress is beholden to them for re-election funding. Therefore, nothing will happen. They all say, "Our thoughts and prayers are with you." But, that's as far as it goes. That and a quarter will by you a nickle cigar.
Good. You recognize just how obnoxious your statement was. Was it because you also recognize how it would make you feel if someone made the same comment to you (you did catch that I did not make the accusation, but merely asked how you would feel if someone did)?
But I absolutely agree that nothing will be done. Lawmakers (following the emotional outcries of the people) will do nothing of any value - we have watched it happen for decades and there is no reason to think it will change any time soon. One day perhaps we will decide that enough is enough and actually focus on solving the violence in America rather than continuing to take "feel good" actions that we know will do nothing to halt the carnage, but personally I expect it to die as we naturally mature and evolve. Sadly, but that IS what I think.
"I place my trust in those who's job it is to protect us."
That is, you place your trust in government--also made up of people. You would like SOME people to have guns, while depriving everyone else of any effective means of defense.
Hence, you are not opposed to guns or opposed to violence. Rather, you believe firmly in State violence. Your "trust" is in the overwhelming power of the State to commit violence with impunity.
Government--"those who's job it is to protect us"--are merely thugs. What government IS, is merely an armed criminal organization. The purpose of this organization is extract the maximum possible wealth from the nation of people they control through violence or the threat of violence. They have no socially conferred "job" vis-a-vis society. Historically, they never have had such a role. On the contrary, the role of government has historically been purely anti-social: To live lavishly on wealth they have extracted from society through violence.
In effect, your wish is to see these elites and their minions armed, while everyone else is disarmed.
Leftists are invariably merely Statists of a very deep dye. They believe that all power should reside in the State, and none should reside in the people.
Blue Heron: Therefore, all law enforcement is not to be trusted. All forms of our military is not to be trusted. Fire departments are not to be trusted. Sounds like paranoia to me. I don't see how you sleep at night. Oh wait you must sleep with your arsenal of trusted weapons.
Dean , your problem is that your contribution to debate doesn't end the way you wish ! Always is .
Horseback, you're a legend in your own mind.
Yes , I may legend , I have survived the P.C. that so many of you are not only beholden to , but spread like the black plague and you can't argue that . When I become the last right of center hold out among forum dwellers on hubpages , I will have still have believed in my arguments . They cannot be broken.
There is only one truth after all .
Now there's a real naive......;-O sorry juvenile response.
Anything to add to the debate?
You're not debating on the topic. All you're doing is trying to take pot shots at me because that's all you can do at this point. The debate's over. Lick your wounds and go debate someone else.
Wrong ......again .I'll help you get going , So here's one for you , Let's ban "bump stocks " , how many mass murders recently have happened with bump stocks ?
Uh one ?
Good debate .
If this is some saving grace tactic of yours,it's not working. Man, even over the internet I can smell of yours desperation. You can't debate. End of story. And while you're at go tell the 58 folks that were tragically killed that you "won" the argument (I'll help you out: some of those people were friends of friends or relatives. One of them graduated from my high school and another came from a high school I used to teach at). I'm sure their relatives will applaud your heroic "victory".
Right , ............we see now ,you knew them all , so you won the debate ? "Desperation"? ..........No sorry , does anyone see what I mean when I say naive , shallow and uninformed ?
Like debating true history with a compulsive liar , you just don't get anywhere .
How about registering all black gun owners ? ..............anything ?
You don't get out much do you? I mean with all this "what about..." to keep this lost cause of a debate going...really?
Also my son is African American, so I'd be very careful where you going with that
See what conservatives mean about honesty Dean , When even a gun debate turns to racism in your eye's ? Shame on you !
You're fired !
Now your just not making sense. Go to your local junior college and take a course in inro. To logic . Maybe you'll learn to debate.
I've already beat you down , several times in fact ........goodbye!
Youre funny....shallow, poorly informed...but funny. You made my drive home on the 405 entertaining even had more turns in logic than the road I'm traveling.
There you go again deflecting. If you dont know anything about the state, then leave it out. Also if you dont have anything constructive --- except the usual word salad rant -- then go away. In the mean time just admit rhat you don't have much of an argument and move on. Life will be so much easier for you.
Good point's Ken......... And to any man I say , if a constitutional right can be so outdated , so misused , totally turned around in original meaning , as to be so openly critiqued as the second amendment , I say make the first amendment that choice for immediate change .
In other words , leave them all alone.
The most OBVIOUS issue in the entire gun ,anti- gun debate is the absolute refusal to admit the lack of knowledge in actual fact on the liberal side . I've no doubts that gun owners would go to certain lengths towards more restriction however , the absolute paranoia on the left foretells of a simple war of attrition to the other gun rights.
To date all that anti-gunners have contributed is an extremely well defined path of B.S in their entire mission, the fact of the matter is they have only jumped from one paranoid false act to another in the last forty years , revolving the same contributions on a yearly basis .
I get the NRA letters monthly asking constantly for donations to the "cause ", one the other hand is the pie wheel of supposed "statistics ' to crime , deaths , accidents , mass killings and domestic assaults from the left . Both sides bombarding the actual gun owners like myself.
I ,as many , remain immovable in my defense of gun owners AND my accusations towards the left .....always . If gun owners are to be accused as paranoid then the anti- gun crowds are to fully considered totally rabid .
God , This" debate "is still going on ? Peoplepower wouldn't obviously know an assault --weapon from a domestic-- assault AND he is supposedly military trained .
In my mind and in the mindset of all statistical proof an "assault weapon " is what one uses in these assaults. Peoplepower ; What is the weapon most used in the majority of assaults and even firearm related assaults ? Shotgun ? Handgun ? Knife ? Yet here we go again on the boogy -man mentality ; assault weapon.
One day you'll have to face reality using facts and not sensationalism .
Wilderness: You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
Peoplepower , Should we now ban the Air Force too? It seems they really dropped the ball on this one ?
ahorseback: I don't care what you call your assault rifles or guns or where they came from. They are high capacity, rapid fire machines. The guy who shot Gabby Gifford and 18 others used a 9×19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. Your argument and Wilderness' is getting tired. It all has to do with defining what is an assault rifle. I don't care if you called it a fire stick. It's how the damn thing functions is what is important. I don't care if was made from tinker toys. Rapid fire and high capacity that is the favorite functioning device for mass shooters. And in my view no civilian needs them. I don't care whether they are scary looking or not. Yes, they can use other means, but the guy in Vegas would not have been able to take out all those people with other means and injure so many others. Yes, he could have used bombs and even missiles, but he didn't for the simple fact that all the weapons he had were readily available.
Sure go ahead and ban the Air Force. Then you will really need your guns. Here is the story behind why he was not in the database.
http://wapo.st/2haIjNa?tid=ss_tw&ut … a4edef0bbb
Reality - Something as huge as the pentagon is but one MORE gigantic stumbling block in the overall systematic inability to recognize , police , instill existing law , prosecute , judicate and punish existing violent tendencies as in this case .
To say nothing about potential mental issues.
NOW we KNOW , the pentagon failed miserably , the civilian system failed miserably , The FBI background check failed miserably , his friends , family , fellow soldiers , wife[s] , individual aquaintances , EVERYBODY and every element of systematic protection by existing law totally failed !
------But just one more law would have fixed this ------
Think about that ?
One - I don't know how many 10-20-30- round magazines there are just for just an AR 15 in the system , bought , sold , owned ,stored , being manufactured , imported , exported , but I'll bet millions .
Two -.223 ammo , there are billions [BILLIONS}of individual rounds [bullets] in stores , shelves , homes , gun safes , warehouses firing ranges , etc......
Three - altering a semi-auto weapon to full auto isn't a difficult task , I understand , bump stock technology for instance , can be done in any tool shed .
Four - of the millions of guns in the US presently owned ?
What law will stop all of this ?
What change will stop all of this ?
What additional legislation will change any of this ?
BUT a total and complete cooperative ban and buyback ?
See why gun owners are so firm and solid in fighting ANY of this , even one law?
Sounds like you've gone away from the wiki definition to once more use that of the anti-gun crowds; ie. any gun they don't like. Because when you use words like "rapid" and "high" you leave it so open as to be meaningless - anything you choose to add in the future fits the bill of an "assault weapon". You could even include a black powder muzzle loader by claiming an experienced shooter could fire "rapidly". Or the popular kids beginning gun with a .22 bullet and a tube magazine. My old High Standard semi-automatic .22 pistol with an 11 round clip. All fit into the dreaded "assault weapon" definition as it is broad enough to include anything you wish.
It is truly time for Americans , ALL of you and especially anti-gun crowds to fully realize this . The peaceful and legal use , ownership and proliferation of firearms IS NOT going anywhere soon . The second amendment has been dissected by the greatest legal minds in America time after time after time , the US. constitutional rights and amendments are immovable . All of that is a fact. Firearms are as American as apple pie and yes political dissension itself . They are here to stay .
wilderness: I don't care about your definitions. You could go on ad nauseum and it wouldn't matter. I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of rapid fire and high capacity. Then we are going to get into how many rounds can be fired per second and how many rounds does a high capacity magazine hold. You know as well as I do what they are and what they do. You are using a tired gun advocates ploy.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-d … per-minute
I know you don't like wikipedia, but though. You do your own research.
Of course you won't "argue" it. That would mean being tied to a specific definition, making it very difficult to suddenly change to include yet another product.
By their nature, a definition is explicit. It is not vague, it is not open to "interpretation" to become something else. It doesn't include relative terms such as "rapid" or "large". You gave a definition earlier, through wiki, and it was one that satisfied these requirements - if I might be so bold as to ask, what is wrong with it that makes the wiki definition of an "assault rifle" (or weapon) unsuitable? That definition is not only a good one, but gives examples and perhaps even more important, fits with the connotative value of the term - what most people think of when the words are used.
Wilderness: This article pretty much sums up the whole enchilada. Let's stop playing games about definitions.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-a- … 69112.html
peoplepower , Huffington Post ? You seriously want the world to believe the Huff as a serious contender for honest media ..................Nope , Sorry .
By the way ,I can do the same rate of fire as a "bump stock " with rapid finger pulls , no accuracy in either form of shooting !
What now? Are you setting up to declare than any semi-automatic gun is an "assault weapon"? Including the kids' 22 rifle and my old 22 pistol? Yes, I get it - that's the point of leaving the definition so vague and useless. So that it can later be claimed that any and all guns are "assault weapons" as in military grade guns. I get that. I get that the idea of military arms in civilian hands is scary. I get that black guns are scary. I get that if you can convince someone a specific gun is an "assault weapon" you've won half the battle by scaring them.
I just won't debate rules or laws about "assault weapons" until I'm provided a firm, unambiguous definition. I trust, after this waffling (but failed) attempt at obfuscation, that you understand just why.
As far as I'm concerned the bottom line, end point of this discussion is "Can the Government keep assault style weapons out of the hands of criminals?" The answer is now, always has been and always will be "NO." Criminals like gun legislation because it keeps guns from people who would harm during a criminal act. It makes innocent people less able to defend themselves. Devin Patrick Kelley, who shot 26 people in a Texas church, should not have been permitted to have a gun, it the government had done its job. The government failed and we see the results. How was he stopped? An NRA instructor got his assault style weapon and engaged the psycho in a gun battle and shot him. A law abiding citizen was able to defend himself, family and community because he could match the fire power of the psycho who had been given access to weapons by a government who can write laws but doesn't seem to be able to enforce them. Laws become just words when an innocent person has to defend themselves against a psycho killer with a gun. People need to be able to defend themselves, against someone like Devin Patrick Kelley, who is a prime example of government's failure to make good on laws designed to protect people. THAT is the one reason why civilians need access to assault style weapons.
by Don Bobbitt 2 years 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 steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
by Scott S Bateman 12 months 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 Schwartz 8 months ago
I've been reading and listening to the debate on gun control over the past day. I keep hearing a repeating theme from those who feel guns need to be banned - its for the safety of children. Yet, those same voices are totally against a border wall that would reduce illegal drug...
by Ralph Schwartz 12 months 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 rushing to put a political slant on the man and the event. ISIS has even...
by flacoinohio 4 years ago
Has the threat of a weapons ban prompted you to purchase an assault rifle, magazine, and ammunition?While there is a threat of a new or reinstated Federal assault weapons ban and a new ban in effect in New York, there has yet to be a definitive answer to the question as to whether or not a ban will...
by flacoinohio 5 years ago
If owning an assault rifle is not important to most Americans, why is there now a retail shortage?With the impending possibility of a ban on assault rifles and high capacity magazines, assault rifle sales have gone through the roof in the past few weeks. If there are so many people out there...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|