After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

I think if you read this thread and the one "On Reaching a Consensus..." I think you'll find a pretty broad coverage of alternative solutions. If there are any you think we've missed, why don't you add some from your wide range of news services? Most solutions, however, will be opinions instead of strictly facts, but hopefully informed opinions involving the faculty called judgment.

My Trump-loving friends pride themselves in not watching the news, but some watch Fox. Fox admits it's entertainment, not news. I think there are lots more entertaining things to watch than fake news.

 

You should get your news from multiple sources but Fox shouldn't be one of them unless you want some asshole yelling his opinion of the "news" at you

 

Cars aren't designed with the intent to kill people. Guns are designed with the sole purpose to injure or hurt animals and/or people. You can injure someone in a car wreck, even deliberately kill people with a car, but it's not really the same thing.

 

Well, I think there's something like 60,000,000 cars in the U.S., and something like 300,000,000 guns. Car crashes account for about 40,000 deaths per year. Guns account for about 35,000 deaths per year. What that means is that virtually all gun owners are misusing their guns.

 

The idea of an unrestricted Second Amendment will be better defined at some point. It already was interpreted to limit some things. But It's not going to be a quick process. By the time some sort of true "ban" on any gun or buy back happens it will be years after Trump. The NRA members are the most likely to commit what would essentially be domestic terrorism. A lot of smaller groups probably would. The goverment actuly supports guns even with Obama or another evil president to gun owners. The NRA lobbies the goverment. It's gun owners as a whole that seem to never be satisfied and always paranoid. Gun owners fall into many categories but besides the NRA I don't know of any groups who support gun laws in the US goverment. The money is at the edges and the middle does not care. What the NRA says is what the goverment does on gun laws and what the world sees. They are guns in America. Many gun owners not in the NRA would probably agree with them on many issues.

 

Check out the second amendment foundation. Particularly what part of their membership has exploded since the parkland tragedy.

 

Yes I do.

NeverEnuffAmmo

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

What you mean is what is allowed by the surprem court, not necessarily what the constitution states. By your logic, Jim Crow laws didn't violated constitutional rights of blacks for the time they were allowed.

I read the first article and the first claim is already false on it's face. Gun crime in Australia has been on a steady decline since even before the ban.

Which is again irrelevant.

What are you talking about? There are dozens of safety regulations gun manufacturers have to abide by to make there products safe.

So you can't take every "assault weapon" people with a wil will find a way.

And?

Why? Also my point is the barrel shroud on the TEC is useless for the purpose you say it's used for as in order to hold it in the first place, you hold it by the magwell.

Why does it matter when it functions the same?

Yet most bolt action hunting rifles were based off of what the common soldier was issued from WWI to the end of WWII and I wager that bolt actions killed more people than the civilian AR15.

As the saying goes, you're intitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

Actually they aren't either, the Constitution is the arbitrator.

Hardly any of those mention are what are commonly sold in stores like the Glock 17 with 17 round magazines.

 

The US constitution was already amended to exclude cannons. You cannot buy a cruise missile in the US and point it at congress no matter how much you dislike them, or even if the damned thing has no payload! The constitution only allows private weapons as a concession for personal defense and militia, but the idea it does not regulate how powerful they are and how and where they are used, like in a courthouse, is absurd. It was almost immediately amended to say you cannot own a cannon, but we still have fewer gun laws than most third world countries.

Perhaps that's part of the explanation for why the US has started to resemble a banana republic.

 

This is dead on.

 

Well then, I guess its unconstitutional like so many other things these days. Illustrating just how useless it is to have a well armed militia to protect your constitutional rights. That piece of toilet paper is too expensive for my taste, and a waste of time debating. Money and the gun have been doing all the talking worth listening to all along. If your gun doesn't talk much, but you do, I know its just money talking.

 

We need an outright ban on fast food.

 

And we need more restrictions on ladders.

Ladders kill way more people than die in mass shootings.

 

Where?

Actually you can own a cruise missle if you go through the legal procedures with the ATF.

The Danger Of The Low-Cost Cruise Missile

Is it? You do realize at the time they allowed private armed boats, right? That would be the equivalent of owning an aircraft carrier in modern times.

Again, where? You can legally own a cannon in modern times. They're just highly regulated.

Why?

 

It proves that there's no benifit to banning AR15s.

Crime didn't went down either.

Why?

Here you go.

http://www.saami.org/

So if you want to ban the AR to make less of them available on the market then you accomplished nothing as people can make them at home and there are at least 40 million of such rifles in the private sector.

Because I'm not using it to kill a snake or a rat. I'm using it to defend myself against multiple attackers or an attacker that won't go down.

No. That's not how it works in a free society. If you want to ban something then it's onus on you to show the reason why. By your logic we can ban Lamborghinis because nobody needs them.

That doesn't answer my original question as to why ban them in the first place.

It has a fast enough rate to arm thousand of troops and the difference your talking about is only a manner of seconds.

So? Semi automatic fire has been around for about the same time.

Why?

Your last sentence doesn't make any sense.

 

Mac, I think the AR makes dangerous elements readily available to the less knowledgeable general public. By taking it away you accomplish a number of things. Two of them are: 1) Now you know that the person who wanted the AR's capabilities researched it to get whatever gun does the same thing as an AR. Your potential shooter, per se, is now a thinking individual, who had to do his homework to get a capable weapon. So what I'm saying is: instead of just reaching for an AR, he had to do a bit of footwork. 2) I forget what two was going to be now. But you understand 1, right?

that's not the only assault weapon we're talking about banning though, but I don't know enough about any of the proposed bans or the weapons themselves to have an intelligent conversation about it. I know where to find the list though. It's likely on here somewhere, just so we're abundantly clear on which weapons I mean when I refer to a ban on assault weapons. https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...D1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

 

I say we dont move forward with the assault weapon ban till we ban fast food.

 

Actually I don't. I don't see how choosing an AR for a shooting requires less thought than any other weapon. 60% of mass shootings are done with handguns and the largest school shooting used pistols and ten roind magazines and the Parkland shooter just used ten round magazines. But let's go with that it takes less thought to use an AR. Wouldn't that mean that if you're successful in banning them, the future shooters would be smarter and therefore harder to take down? To use an extreme example, before when ARs were readily available, any Jo Shmo can commit an attack. But now that ARs are banned, only the smart ex military types are committing the acts. Is that really something you want?

Just look to California and see how people are circumventing the ban against such weapons by legal means. The ban is pretty much useless. In fact California has more mass shootings than any other state.