Oso planning to go pro
It doesn't have to come down to this choice. We can still allow Americans the freedom to purchase guns while also banning weapons and accessories that serve no legitimate civilian purpose. I mean, we have laws against people owning bombs and hand grenades, and no one opposes that, but suggest it's maybe not such a good idea to make AR-10s with extended clips available to the public, and (some) people freak out.
If Sandy Hook didn't change anything in regards to gun control, nothing ever will.I'm sorry but there's no need for civilians to have access to these types of weapons.
Should we limit cars to 40 horsepower and a top speed of 55 MPH?How about a ban on tobacco and alcohol? (Yes we tried this 80 years ago and it failed but let's give it another shot).How about a total and absolute ban on porn? Sex under 18?Sugar and fatty foods?Mandatory annual physical exams?How about Body Mass Index (BMI) in the obese range?All of the above do more to damage society than mass shootings. Can we use the same logic here?
I thought automatic weapons cannot be sold and are already banned, but we do not know how he obtained these weapons or if he retrofitted these weapons.
In Connecticut, we passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country after Sandy Hook. I was at a supplier in Connecticut last week babysitting one of our customer's from backwoods Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania guy wanted to know how close Sturm Ruger was because he owned their product and wanted to visit their home office (or something like that). The Connecticut guy started bitching about the recent restrictive gun laws and proudly peddling his gun humping and blah, blah, blah, non-gun owners don't understand. I asked him if he can he still purchase a gun and after his "Yes" he had no answer for "so what's the problem?" I guess his only problem was that he can't purchase a semi-automatic AR-15 anymore. It just disgusts me.........I'm venting after today's tragedy.
Automatic weapons have been banned since 1933, 84 years ago. So this was put in place before many of your grandparents were born (it was a reaction the St. Valentine Day massacre in 1929).To be clear, you can still own one as a "collector" but this license is few, hard and expensive. It also subjects you to a yearly unannounced law enforcement inspection. Further, you still cannot buy any automatic weapon made after 1986.In the 84 years since they started issuing collector's licenses, not a single automatic weapon owned in this manner has been used in any sort of crime.
Nope.The fusillade emanating from the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas Sunday night sounded to many as if it came from one or more automatic rifles, which fire continuously so long as the trigger is held down. Such guns are legal, so long as they were made before May 1986 and are registered with the federal government.If an automatic weapon, also called a machine gun, was made or imported after 1986, it may be legally owned only by licensed dealers, police and the military.Congress began regulating such weapons under the National Firearms Act in 1934, in response to criminals having greater firepower than the police. Owners of automatic weapons were required to pay a $200 tax, a large amount at the time, as well as provide fingerprints and a photograph, undergo a background check and obtain approval from the chief law enforcement officer in the area. Except for the local police approval, those requirements remain in place today, and the $200 charge has not changed.Semi-automatic guns, which fire only once for each trigger pull, may not be legally modified to automatic. And anyone who wants to buy an automatic weapon must undergo the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms background check and registration process. But there are plenty of automatic weapons available for sale on the Internet. Guns made before 1986 may be owned by anyone who passes a background check and registers the gun. A letter from the ATF to the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association last year indicated that there were 490,664 automatic weapons in the ATF’s National Firearms Registration Transfer Record System.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/10/02/some-automatic-weapons-as-used-in-las-vegas-shooting-are-legal-but-heavily-regulated/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.b911e380cfbb
Though I'd love to hear how porn and teenage sex kill more people than mass shootings.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.
I believe I said "damage to society" but you moved the goal posts to "kill people."https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-porn-addiction/201408/how-porn-really-affects-relationshipshttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170926-is-porn-harmful-the-evidence-the-myths-and-the-unknownsBut don't worry, I support your daily addiction to pornhub.com
The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional. In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago. I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose. If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far). There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.
You're right ... making these weapons more difficult, if not impossible, to come by won't eliminate mass shootings. But how many more people survive last night's shooting unscathed had the killer been armed with a standard hunting rifle instead? I suspect dozens.
I loathe this line of thinking. You can absolutely diminish the magnitude of the carnage.
The vast vast majority of guns in the united states are semi-automatic. Virtually every pistol is semi-automatic and has been for generations. The semi-automatic gun was invented in the 19th century.The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US. Over 5 million are currently in circulation. It is also the most popular hunting rifle in the US (after shotguns).The AR-15 shoots a .223 bullet. The same bullet 22 squirrel guns shoot.
I didn't think my post was exactly a tldr. But if you're going to cherry pick an argument, you'll be much more effective if you don't quote it in its entirety.
Thanks for the advice. I read the entire post and agreed with some of your points. When you referred to "incidents of this nature" I was taking the amount of casualties/injuries into account. So I strongly disagree that anyone who thinks gun control will stop incidents of this natures from happening is ignorant or delusional. Maybe it's semantics or maybe I misunderstood that particular point.