Opinion Should they ban assault weapons?

[Lord of Lies]

No it isn't. The majority of murders committed in the US are by blacks. Look at the percentage of murders committed by whites (non-hispanic), it's very low.

Well its safer than shithole countries like Guatemala and you can make it big but please don't brag about white America's murder rate when its still higher than that of Israel and Greece.

 

[all caps]

There's a reason for that. It's because Russian troll accounts troll conservatives into thinking any debate with Democrats about gun control is the beginning of the end of the 2nd amendment. Russians have trolled the rubes into demonizing fellow American's and now there's no discussion to be had, as far as they are concerned liberals are just the enemy and there's no room for compromise with the enemy.

Just look on your facebook feed and see how many of your more dim witted friends fall for these "Liberals want to repeal the 2nd amendment" arguments and argue against that boogeyman rather than dealing with the reality of the situation like adults.

It goes the same for both sides of the isle.

I mean, look at your post for example. You are writing off all conservative opinions based on, what, exactly?

 

[Fawlty]

I don't see any recommendations from any conservatives regarding sensible gun control.

It's not about stopping mass shootings, it's about decreasing the amounts of mass shootings, and also decreasing the amount of carnage done in them.

So what do the conservatives recommend in this forum recommend?

They literally recommend more guns in schools.

A few are open to the idea of registration and licensing, and making it easier to take guns from crazy people. But most just want escalation.

 

[HereticBD]

There's a reason for that.

The reason is, this thread is terrible.

"Guy Buys Gun Legally! How Does This Happen?"

LOL


You could always go to the much larger, and not shitty thread, to find all sorts of suggestions by conservatives, instead of using this shitty thread to judge.

 

[Islam Imamate]

No it isn't. The majority of murders committed in the US are by blacks. Look at the percentage of murders committed by whites (non-hispanic), it's very low.

Yes I know, that's what we're talking about. Its still higher than those two countries I mentioned in addition to Croatia, Portugal, and Saudi Arabia according to the source posted by @spamking

 

[FacePunch]

I don't think Trump personally cares about guns.
But the NRA will be the last one he would betray ( he still would because its Trump).

The NRA was standing behind Trump no matter what. Even when other Republicans started never Trump or Ryan told Republicans to at least make sure to vote for republicans down the ballot.
Or the Pussy tape. The NRA didn't care about any of that. And Trump know is as long as he doesn't talk about guns they will never leave him no matter what.

That's the beauty a few sentence written over 200 years ago can do with delusional people. They trough all reason out the window.

And ironically, without a Democrat in the White House the main driver of gun sales is the panic buying that follows these mass shootings.

 

[jlagman]

I don't see any recommendations from any conservatives regarding sensible gun control.

It's not about stopping mass shootings, it's about decreasing the amounts of mass shootings, and also decreasing the amount of carnage done in them.

So what do the conservatives recommend in this forum recommend?

What's "sensible" to you?

More importantly, why should responsible gun owners feel any guilt or responsibility for their illegal use? Are responsible driver now responsible for reckless or drunk drivers?

 

[japman40]

What's "sensible" to you?

More importantly, why should responsible gun owners feel any guilt or responsibility for their illegal use? Are responsible driver now responsible for reckless or drunk drivers?

I'm asking you the question. Haven't seen any conservatives actually propose anything besides, "oh well it happens nothing we cam do about it"

And who's talking about feeling guilty or anything else? This is not in regards to responsible gun owners.

This is about people with history of psych problems, on watch list, extremist, etc ... being able to buy what they want without being vetted. What do you propose to do about this?

 

[RerouteToRemain]

September 13, 2004, specifically. I don't remember why before September 13, 2004 I didn't need these assault weapons

The awb was for 10 years, not everything before 2004. Millions of people owned them pre 2004. The ar15 has been for sale since the early 1960's

As far as posting what I would be open to as far as gun control, I've posted it in like 4 of these threads in the past week (and numerous other times before that) and I've only gotten 1 response in the last week and rarely get responses in the previous ones. So I'm not sure if I should even bother.

 

[japman40]

They literally recommend more guns in schools.

A few are open to the idea of registration and licensing, and making it easier to take guns from crazy people. But most just want escalation.

They literally recommend more guns in schools.

A few are open to the idea of registration and licensing, and making it easier to take guns from crazy people. But most just want escalation.

That's probably going to lead to accidental shootings and what not. Doesnt rally seem to tactle the issue really.

Gun licensing, waiting list so law enforcement/fbi/ psych can vet red flag cases, etc... i haven't seen any conservative comment on this

 

[RerouteToRemain]

And ironically, without a Democrat in the White House the main driver of gun sales is the panic buying that follows these mass shootings.

The only panic buying I saw was bump stock and binary triggers. Gun/ammo prices and availability will usually tell if there was any panic buy. Didn't notice any change but who knows.

 

[mike sherry]

Up until 86 you could walk in a store and buy a full auto M-16 for $1,200.00 no license, no stamp. Yet people weren’t shooting up schools or concerts. Now you can’t walk in and buy a actual military weapon and we seem to have a shooting on the news every______, it’s the Indian not the arrow

you havent been able to buy a full auto since 1934.

you are both wrong. After the NFA you had to get the stamp to get a full auto pre 1986

 

[Stoic1]

I

American citizens weren't denied the right to own a gun, they were required to go through a more rigorous background check before being able to own a gun....see that would actually be due process but you're not smart enough to realize what the actual law was otherwise it would have been ruled unconstitutional the entire time.

Typical right-winger that resorts to strawmen of unrelated things once they're called out. The whole sky is falling approach have worked wonders in riling up an uneducated and stupid base over the years, I would commend you if you were one of those doing the riling on a job well done, but you seem to be one of those that have been riled up instead.

Pretty much common sense, if you're not mentally fit enough to control your own finances so you receive your check in your own name, you shouldn't be owning a gun.

Let me break this down for you. Since you just said, "Strawman" without understanding anything I just wrote.

1) You said that you should not own a gun if you cannot control your own finances. That is denying someone a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution. I have a problem with that. As should you.

2) We already have laws on the books that prevent sales of firearms to those ADJUDICATED as mentally defective. And, as I have stated many times in the past - I agree with that!

3) You are now saying that American citizens weren't denied the right to own a gun, they were required to go through a more rigorous background check. That is actually wrong. Obama enacted legislation that removed due process. Another Constitutional guarantee. How did they do that? The government needs to show that a person has engaged in behavior that makes weapon ownership dangerous to others. A position that was opposed not only by the NRA, but also the ACLU, and several mental health organizations.

4) Understand that, if you do support that position, you also support negating people's OTHER guaranteed rights. Such as voting, etc. as I pointed out. And if you are an American you should value your freedoms, your rights, and be very cautious when people begin to hedge them.

5) That "Rule" that we are debating was an Obama Executive order. And it was reversed by using the Congressional Review Act. So hooray for America, due process, and the Constitution.


“There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence.” - ACLU

 

[RerouteToRemain]

That's probably going to lead to accidental shootings and what not. Doesnt rally seem to tactle the issue really.

Gun licensing, waiting list so law enforcement/fbi/ psych can vet red flag cases, etc... i haven't seen any conservative comment on this

Sounds like you might like part of what I have proposed in 2 of the threads on the front page already.

I would be open to looking into legislation like this. It would need to be written by pro gun/2nd lawyers so they can't find some loophole to abuse rights.

License system.

Easy to obtain license at any store based ffl(not some random obscure place) or from any qualified/certified ffl holder. Also offered as an elective at high school along with hunting safety. In order to obtain includes background check, firearm safety, firearms function and firearm law class. Similar to many ccw classes already out there.

License holders privacy protected and cannot be discriminated against. Like in work, rent, insurance, etc. This system would be rolled out over a period of time as getting that many people set up would take a while. Extremely rural areas (residents of that place only) would have exemptions(think rural alaska).

I still wouldn't want universal checks but selling to non license holders should a federal crime. The way to achieve that imo would be make a live up to date database that people can look up online. Only checkable by a license number. No randomly looking up names or browsing. Have a printable paper that both parties sign and keep for their records. The only way this can be summoned(by a court) is if a gun you originally purchased was used in a crime. So there is technically a paper trail but it can't be abused.

No more background checks at stores, store looks at license, checks online and keeps the record that you purchased said gun.

Remove NFA tax stamps from sbr and suppressors.

The license would also work as nation wide cc permit.

Full auto and destructive devices would require more extensive license.

Another reason I would be open to a license is purely the safety and understanding guns part. I've seen many idiots at outdoor ranges not know they can lock the bcg back manually on an AR. I have also left shooting out in the desert early quite a few times because the people shooting down the way from us were being irresponsible jackasses. Sweeping each other and us with loaded guns and all kinds of other stupid shit.

I think it would reduce accidents, black market, criminal and negligent shootings, give people a better understanding of firearms and the laws. It would also weed out criminals faster than any other method without hurting law abiding citizens imo.

 

[Stoic1]

They literally recommend more guns in schools.
.

You know it worked in Israel, right?

 

[Last Samurai]

They literally recommend more guns in schools.

A few are open to the idea of registration and licensing, and making it easier to take guns from crazy people. But most just want escalation.

obviously you're gonna have problems when there aren't enough guns

doesn't take a genius to figure that out

 

[Teppodama]

I can see classifying semi-auto rifles differently than bolt action rifles and adjusting the waiting period for semi-autos accordingly. I can also see requiring mandatory firearm classes for handguns and semi-auto rifle purchases.

I don't currently own an AR-15, but I have been considering purchasing one and want sensible laws that can bridge the gap between those wanting to outright ban them and those that want them to be available for purchasing. My interest in owning one makes it worth it to me to be flexible in coming up with solutions that allay some of their fears and yet still allow me the right to own one that hasn't been so crippled by legislative monkeying that it effectively makes them no different than standard bolt actions.

One thing though that I think might go a long way to bridging the divide between the gun enthusiasts and those that want them gone or neutered would be if non-gun owners actually educated themselves on the firearms in question before they push for increased regulation or outright banning of a particular firearm. It makes it hard to take anything they say as other than emotional outbursts on a topic and tool they really have no understanding of. On the flip though, that means if they do take that time we as gun owners have to be willing to honestly listen to their concerns and work to allay those fears.

Conscientious pitbull owners go out of their way to not only make sure their canines are trained but also to advocate and educate others about the breed because they know the reputation pits have due to unscrupulous and careless owners and breeders. Pitbulls, or any large breed dog, are just as potentially dangerous as a firearm in the hands of careless owners or those with malicious intent. Worse, unlike firearms, canines are capable of independent action and yet we don't outright ban all large dog breeds nor have we enacted complete national bans on specific "troublesome" breeds.

One argument I keep coming across is that AR-15's have no logical functional use other than killing. This is usually stated followed by comments that their primary use isn't hunting or their impracticality as a home protection tool when compared to a handgun or shotgun. I would argue that most large dog breeds, historically bred for some form of working consideration, are by an large no longer utilized for those functions by the majority of owners and yet we still allow their proliferation, haven't legislated mandatory training, don't require extended waiting periods, don't required them nationally to be registered, don't place limits on how many can be owned at any given time and haven't outlined legal repercussions on owners that are specific to the class or breeds beyond what are in place for any canine attack on a national level.

A firearm requires the deliberate use of a human operator in order to function in a destructive capacity, large breed canines do not.

Between 2005 and 2016 there were 392 recorded deaths from canine attacks. 197 of those fatalities were children.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities.php

According to Time, between 2005 and 2016 there have been 389 deaths classified as a mass shooting. Events in which four or more people died not including the gunman themselves.
http://time.com/4368615/orlando-mass-shootings-chart/

According to https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm of events classified as a mass shooting, 2 or more people killed, between 1999 and 2013 only 4 included an AR15 style semi-automatic rifle.

Since 1984, according to this USA today article, only 24 AR15 style semi-automatic rifles have been used in mass shooting events. Now, the article doesn't show what statistics they used to declare an event a mass shooting which is a problem when determining statistics for such occurances. Some declare an event a mass shooting if two or more people are killed while others report a mass shooting event as four or more fatalities, not including the shooter themselves.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rifles-common-among-mass-shootings/838283001/

• Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.
• Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.
• June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
• Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.
• June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.
• March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.
• May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.
• Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.
• Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.
• June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.
• Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.
• Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill at least 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.

Regardless of the numbers what is pretty quickly obvious is that AR15's are not the main firearm utilized in mass shootings until recently. Some of this is obviously due to the ban on them starting in 1994 and that lasted till 2004. However, we are seeing an increasing trend of their use in such events starting around 2012. I suggest it might be prudent to look at why their usage has increased in the last 6 years compared to the 8 prior years in which they have been legal and available. General ease of acquisition and capacity are certainly factors to consider, with capacity being the greater factor of the two, but in that regard they are hardly more convenient or destructive than a semi-automatic pistol with a large capacity magazine such as a Glock with a 30rd mag.

I believe a significant element is the intimidation factor. They have a reputation, they often look "scary" to those not familiar with them and their capabilities. While considerations of destructive potential when discussing larger caliber rounds is valid, when taking into account these shootings are happening to un-armored civilians, potentialities for fatalities are actually greater with a 9mm round than the standard 5.56/223 used by AR15's according to numerous ballistics tests and studies easily found online. AR15s are better suited to armor or obstruction penetration and distance shooting compared to a handgun while a handgun in standard 9mm with an extended capacity magazine is not only better suited for shooting at the distances most of these mass shootings occur but also much more portable, concealable and fatal on a one bullet to one person ratio.

Most average shooters are effective with their handguns up to 50yrds/45.5m or 150ft. By effective I mean generally considered to be able to hit a man sized target center mass at least once.

That means the AR15's most effect element over a handgun in most mass shooting occurrances against civilians is simply...shock and awe

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 

[Rematch]

AR-15 is not an assault rifle. However, the fact that the journalist did not have to go through a 3-day waiting period which is typical with handguns is troubling.

 

[jlagman]

I'm asking you the question. Haven't seen any conservatives actually propose anything besides, "oh well it happens nothing we cam do about it"

And who's talking about feeling guilty or anything else? This is not in regards to responsible gun owners.

This is about people with history of psych problems, on watch list, extremist, etc ... being able to buy what they want without being vetted. What do you propose to do about this?

I don't propose anything, nor should I have to, shit happens.

 

[Fawlty]

You know it worked in Israel, right?

Oh well that changes everything