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

Same with guns.

The fact that a rifle has a pistol grip and a flash suppressor doesn't make it bad to have around.

There is very much a reason why assault weapons need to be available to everyone: There is no justification for banning them, and rights can only be restricted if the restriction can be justified with a good reason.

People would just be murdered with knives instead of with guns.

The victims would still be dead.

Except people have the right to have them.

I can see how a larger magazine increases the potential danger. But how is an assault weapon any more dangerous than a non-assault weapon?

We would block such an amendment from passing in the first place.

We would get enough judges who care about the Constitution placed on the courts so that the ban is struck down as unconstitutional.

Sure he would have. There is nothing about his using an assault weapon that made the massacre any deadlier.

Maybe if the weapon of choice is much more dangerous.

But not if the weapon of choice is no more dangerous than any other gun.

You can only restrict a right is the restriction can be justified with a good reason.

A publicity stunt is not a good reason.

AR-15s are police guns too.

Rifle wounds are much more devastating than handgun wounds. Rifles also punch through Kevlar like it isn't even there. Rifles also have greater range and accuracy than handguns.

Being semi-auto isn't terribly significant. If you are trying to aim at a target, a pump or lever action will be almost as fast.

Do you think the police should have high capacity magazines for protection?

Carrying a gun for self defense does not make someone a rebel.

Since there is no justification for banning assault weapons, doing so is unconstitutional.

That said, I do encourage the gun control movement to exhaust themselves over a futile attempt to ban pistol grips. Doing so will help to prevent them from achieving any other gun control.

Why do we want tax dollars used to produce anti-freedom propaganda?

What facts do you believe we are lacking?

Can you explain what benefit would be achieved by banning pistol grips?

Are we talking pistol grips in general or only talking about forward pistol grips?

In either case, if someone goes hunting with a hunting rifle that has pistol grips, they are indeed using the gun for it's intended purpose.

 

Drive by knifings would become rampant!

 

Much better to just use a rifle and punch through the Kevlar.

Although if the bad guy has steel plates in his armor maybe then alternative targeting would become necessary.

 

That would be news to the 32 people who were murdered at Virginia Tech.

The Second Amendment also includes the right to have guns for self defense.

Civil rights will never be obsolete in America. And the American people will certainly never allow any part of the Bill of Rights to be repealed.

 

I don't think you're going to get an answer to that question. Everyone seems to understand that any argument against pistol grips can be shot down in no time.

 

I'm somewhat familiar with it.

What about it?

 

That's a good reason for having many more people carry guns for personal self defense.

 

Why is it different? Are people who are killed in car accidents any less dead?

 

How many people were killed during that incident? What is the rate of fire of the weapons they used?

 

Most people don't use cars as weapons, though. Some have, and they can become a weapon if someone is reckless or drunk behind the wheel. I'm not against responsible people carrying guns for personal protection, but I'm against irresponsible people obtaining them. Aren't you?

I'm actually against irresponsible drivers too, but that's another topic.

 

Damn I was hoping nobody would bring up ghost guns. A whole new segment to argue about now.

 

Gee, Toggle. Dead is dead, but I happen to think murderers pose a special threat to society that car accidents don't, that targeting school kids is a special kind of evil, and that we shouldn't make it so easy for them to do their killing so efficiently. Should we just call a moratorium on prosecuting homicide and concentrate our resources on preventing car accidents? Cars are pretty useful as means of transportation. We'd be a whole different civilization without them. Guns are mainly useful for killing: animals and people. And some can kill them faster and at a higher range than others. When we have usafe vehicles on the road we recall them, we regulate them, we require safety features. Why not do the same for the guns?

 

Ol' toggle just seems to be recycling all the bad arguments we've been refuting since the thread began. Maybe Toggle should go back to the beginning and catch up on what's already been said. Or is this a strategy of attrition? Wear them down by making the same dumb remarks over and over and over and over again? Will the evils of ladders be the next topic for discussion?

 

Going in and confronting the bad guys was their actual job. It is literally what we were paying them to do.

 

You should take a look at the number of people who are killed in car accidents.

That is a reasonable goal so long as you don't make self defense impossible.

Guns are also useful for incapacitating an attacker and preventing them from harming you.

If the regulation does not impede self defense, and if the regulation can be justified with a good reason, fine.

I've read the entire thread from the beginning. If someone has provided evidence that a car accident death is somehow worse than murder by a gun, I must have missed it.

 

I still don't see why that matters. The victim is just as dead whether it is a car accident or a deliberate shooting.

Yes, if there is sufficient due process to protect innocent people from unfair charges.

 

I don't think the talk of new regulations will cause responsible people to lose their licenses to carry. It sounds to be more stipulations put on letting guns fall into the wrong hands. But, I don't think that the Parkland shooting is solely about guns, because the FBI dropped the ball in protecting the general public from this guy. Likewise, the police failed as well to arrest the guy when they had paid him multiple visits to his house. If we can't rely on the FBI or the police, what are they there for?

 

I must have missed that amendment. Which number is it again?

 

I'd call it insanity.

 

There are about 40,000 deaths per year from car accidents. There are about 35,000 deaths per year from firearms. There are five times as many guns as there are cars.

 

There's no point in bringing that up. The FBI itself can admit that they should have treated Cruz as a potential threat to life (in fact, they did), and people will still claim that there was nothing they could have done.

 

Same goes for bathtub slips. But the non-lethal utility of cars is a price most of us are willing to pay for the utilitarian benefits of transportation. What are the utilitarian benefits of guns besides killing? Wall ornaments?