This whole thing is going to breed a huge amount of cynicism. A Muslim, who declares allegiance to ISIS, who was given a pass by the FBI, who was a registered Democrat, days after an Imam on an Obama-granted Visa preaches about it, makes an attack and the left wants to make this one all about gun control. Anyone who knows the facts and is on the right would have to become cynical after this.
Did you watch the video I posted for you? I'm going to assume you just ignored it because it would get in the way of your ideological falsehoods.
I've read all the gun nut arguments in my lifetime. Don't need to waste my time watching videos about them, too. You guys believe that gun laws would be useless against criminals because criminals don't respect the law. Ok, but by that same logic, we ought to do away with rape laws because, after all, rape still happens. We ought to do away with the death penalty because, to use gun nut logic, if the death penalty was effective, we would never have anybody murdering anybody. Do you see the stupidity that average, sane Americans are tired of dealing with from the gun nuts?
You aren't using logic. You are wanting to punish people BEFORE they've committed crimes with "laws" that are going to have NO effect on criminals, which has been demonstrated clearly by various bans in various counties/cities over the years where violent crime and homicide actually INCREASED. http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
Overkill? There is no such thing when your life is in danger. Ever have someone break into your home before?
Even if I didn't consider keeping and bearing arms to be a fundamental human right, I could never support an Assault Weapons Ban; it is an arbitrary and irrational law that could not possibly have any benefit to society.
They don't work in cities where guns are banned because those cities exist in a country where they're not banned. Compare the gun homicide rate per 100,000 in the US to that of the U.K. and Japan. (In the US, it's 3.4. In the UK and Japan, it's 0.0 and 0.1.) Gun bans aren't designed to target buyers. They're designed to target sellers. It's the same with kiddie porn. If you impose extremely harsh penalties for illegal firearms transactions, you'll diminish the black market. If a shooter does decide to shoot, his options will be severely limited; instead of killing 50, he may only have access to a pistol and kill three or four before he's stopped. The second part of gun reform would be to help more people obtain training in pistols for self-defense. If even a few of those people in that Orlando club had a pistol, the shooter could have been stopped sooner. Still, the main problem is not that people were unarmed in a dance club. It's that a guy could walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15.
No. Three unassailable reasons: - All arguments for reinstating the ban are fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance or dishonesty - A prior reinstatement of the ban would not have prevented the Orlando shooting - A future reinstatement of the ban will not stop the next Orlando shooting. Given this, the screams to ban assault weapons are nothing more than an opportunistic attack on the rights of the law abiding, using the blood of innocents to push a senseless agenda.
I see someone that does not understand the argument. Laws exist to punish people who commit an act, not prevent that act. This includes the laws against murder, rape, assault, robbery and criminals from buying and owning guns. It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking another law; these laws, based on a false premise, only restrict the rights of the law abiding. Opposing these laws because they will not stop criminals in no way logically leads to opposing laws that punish people who commit criminals acts. Glad I could clear that up for you; I know you won't make the same mistake again.
He also had a Glock with him. Considering that the VT shooter just had a Glock and a .22 and managed to kill 33 people, I'm sure the Orlando shooter could have taken down a lot with the Glock as well.
You have to register a sound suppressor with the federal government always, the state and local governments, sometimes.
These guys needed them: http://www.gunsandammo.com/rifles/ar-15/new-york-student-uses-ar-15-to-stop-home-invasion/
And yet, my 12 uncles served in ww2 and a few in the Korean war, and all of their friends would never own a gun designed for war. And neither would I. And given the fact, that as a hunter, I never saw anyone using a gun that resembles a war gun for hunting, except once, when a cheap army surplus was all the guy could afford, until he could afford a nice hunting rifle, until later on in life, after the Rambo movies and others of that sort came out. So yeah, Hollywood is responsible, and the lack of a draft is responsible, and the perceived sexiness and badass looks of these guns, is what made them so popular. Children made them popular, as the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. And of course those grown children who defend their choice of guns will never admit, a fictional character made them want to play the games of children. And wanting to look badass, look like the men they never had the balls to join. So yes, I would ban these high capacity guns of war. Sometimes you have to take things away from people with the minds of children, and who want guns used in war so they can just look badass to others. If you want to carry a gun that look like that, hell, enlist in the infantry. But if you want to hunt, get yourself a gun that you will not tear the meat to pieces by emptying the gun on the animal. And if you are not gonna tear the meat to pieces, you only need a couple shots, a limited magazine to accomplish that. People are funny critters. Hollywood can influence them to such a degree as to want guns that look like what is used to kill other humans. All they need then is the scarf around the head, camo paint on the face, shirtless, to show off the beer guts, and a kill em all attitude with a grimace. And I saw this transpire, right before my eyes, a very old gun owner, who was surrounded by gun owners, who would never have been influenced by Hollywood and fictional characters. We left that up to the children. And then the toy guns that looked like war guns were ok. But they would grow up and get a gun designed for hunting, which could also be used for self defense, just not a war. I think men who demand to own guns that look like war guns are just children, and most are such cowards as to never enlist in the military where they could use the real deal. And these children have helped the anti gun people make their cases against such guns. So ban them, and then confiscate them, cut them up like austrailia did. And then see how many will join the military to get the right to use guns designed for war. Perhaps then, when a mass murdered decides to kill people, he will only be able to kill a scant few, before the crowd beats him to death. Hard to get to the killer when he has large capacity clips that can be changed out in a heartbeat. So, if our choice of guns is meant to kill 50 people, we should not allow such guns to be sold, or owned. Perhaps we should limit rifles to single shots. I think that is a great idea. But the kids will not like it.
The UK had considerably lower homicide rates than the US before it outlawed guns. The violent crime rate in the United States has been dropping steadily for decades, even as we've liberalized our gun laws.
yes, a sound suppressor is an NFA item, meaning you have to have approval from the federal government to buy it. Part of that process is getting local law enforcement to sign off on it.
So then, they could buy almost no guns? Almost all guns are derivatives of guns designed for war. All bolt action rifles are derivatives of the German Mausers, which are among the most common war weapons used from WWI to WWII, for example. The nickname for pump shotguns is trench sweeper, as they were used in trench warfare during WWI. Revolvers were invented for war, as were semi-automatic pistols. Other than break open shotguns and rifles, I can't think of a gun that was not used in war or a derivative of a gun used in war. Neither will the people who think the primary purpose of guns is self defense. Hunting is nice, but it's not the reason the Constitution authorizes us to own guns. We have the right to own guns for defense--of selves, families, communities, state and nation. Any other use of guns is just for fun. I'm not personally an AR fan. I don't have a need for one. I do think, though, that if I lived on a ranch, it would be the ideal home defense weapon. I personally think that the ideal home defense weapon for most of us is the modern semi-automatic handgun. The thing is, that is also the gun most often used in crime. Any characteristic that makes a gun suitable for defense, also makes it suitable for offense. - - - Updated - - - Yup, in 2014 (last year complete data is available), our gun murder rates were lower than they have been any time since we started systematically recording murder rates in 1960. I'm afraid it's gone up due to the Ferguson effect, though.
Howso? Elaborate for those that do not share your reasoning process. And the AR-15 is neither of those. It is not even remotely related to either one of those implements you have mentioned. As opposed to any number of hunting rifles that are fully capable of utilizing rounds that have two, three, or even four times the ballistic superiority of the .223 round? Unless they are in possession of body armor, which renders all handguns a moot point.
Undoubtedly the people in Uptown and the Garden District of New Orleans thought so in the aftermath of Katrina. Or the storeowners during the LA riots.
So what? The fact that you and people you know would never own an AR15 is utterly meaningless - never mind the fact that the AR15 is no t a weapon or war. You WOULD own a bolt action M1903A3, Lee-Enfield SMLE, or a Mauser Kar98, however, which ARE weapons of war.
Or a bulldozer. But the difference is that, unlike a bulldozer or a pressure cooker, an AR-15 is a machine designed to kill.
These stupid games annoy me. A weapon that can maul 50 human beings is overkill. Only in America is this even debatable.
But gun homicide rate in America is far, far higher than that of nations with strict gun laws. What is so evil about criminalizing powerful firearms and then cracking down on people who sell them? I'm all for people carrying pistols for self-defense, but that doesn't minimize public shootings. If we outlaw the AR-15 and similar firearms, then impose harsh penalties on people who are caught selling them, the crazies would be limited in their choice of firearm. There will still be shootings, but they won't be as terrible as the Orlando shooting was.
Yes. But they also act as a deterrent. If you choose ten people in dire straits financially at random, I bet nine of them wouldn't even consider robbing a bank because they don't want to risk the punishment. In similar fashion, if you pass legislation that gives the death penalty to anyone who sells an illegal firearm that ends up being used for murder, it would diminish the number of people who would think to sell illegal firearms. It wouldn't completely wipe out the black market, but it will help a lot. Do you know which country has a sensible law like this? China, believe it or not. To quote Wikipedia, "Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China is heavily regulated by law. Generally, private citizens are not allowed to possess guns and penalties for arms trafficking include death." If you get caught selling an illegal gun, they kill you. Pretty straightforward. And guess what? Between 2000-2014, the number of Chinese killed in public shootings is 80. The number of Americans killed in public shootings during this same time window is 992. What's even more shocking is that the population of China is about four times large than the US population. In other words, if China's population size was similar to ours, their number would be a measly 20. And if our population size was closer to China's, our number would be 3,968. Harsh penalties act as a deterrent. It's like when you tell your child not to be bad or they'll get a time-out. Maybe they'll be still be bad, but there's an increased chance they won't. I have a hunch you're more of a talker than a thinker.
