Orlando

[MoValley John]

i dont think anyone is arguing to take away all guns. Just large magazines, assault rifles.

How many more Americans must die? One day it might be someone in your family, and that's a reality we have to face. I'm not willing to accept that and many more Americans aren't each and every day.

Again, I'm not naive about how banning Assault Rifles will get them all off the street, that is foolish. But the price on them would at least triple on the black market and we could start getting them out of circulations.

Iwouldn't disagree... Except, assault rifle is a made up term, therefore, when the AR is banned, the .270 is next. Also, what qualifies as a large mahazine? I have 25 round mahazines for my Ruger 10/22 that would suddenly be illegal. This is a freaking gun used for plinking tin cans!

Moving targets, that is what assault rifle and large magazines are. Once they ban the AR, the 30 06 is next. Once 20 round magazine rounds are banned, the cap will move to four round magazines, then two.

[jdshock]

You are missing the argument. The argument is that crazy people will do crazy things. If you take away one tool, another will replace it. If you follow your philosophy that, "bad tools cause bad things", then you will continually ban things until people have no freedom. Alternatively, you could ban things to some arbitrary "I feel good about this" level. At that point it's not a philosophy it's just a law that does no good.

I don't believe I am missing the point, you are. The point is that the "replacement" tools are a lot less effective at killing people. Hypothetically, if we could effectively prevent all terrorist attacks that killed over five people, that would be beneficial. Even if people are still going to attack each other, we're not ever going to see fifty innocent people die at once. That would be a great thing for society, right?

So, feel free to argue that an assault rifle ban won't work because there are already too many on the street or argue you have a Second Amendment right to one. Don't tell me there are other ways to kill lots of people: 1. That's not a logical reason to try to prevent deaths from assault rifles. 2. Those other options tend to be far less effective. Orlando wouldn't have happened if the guy didn't have access to an assault rifle. People may have died, but not 49.

[ShockRef]

I don't believe I am missing the point, you are. The point is that the "replacement" tools are a lot less effective at killing people. Hypothetically, if we could effectively prevent all terrorist attacks that killed over five people, that would be beneficial. Even if people are still going to attack each other, we're not ever going to see fifty innocent people die at once. That would be a great thing for society, right?

So, feel free to argue that an assault rifle ban won't work because there are already too many on the street or argue you have a Second Amendment right to one. Don't tell me there are other ways to kill lots of people: 1. That's not a logical reason to try to prevent deaths from assault rifles. 2. Those other options tend to be far less effective. Orlando wouldn't have happened if the guy didn't have access to an assault rifle. People may have died, but not 49.

It seems the rationale to your point is banning assault guns will just reduce how many innocent people are killed and therefore our illustrious government needs to approve more gun laws.

So if the radical Islamic terrorist gets a hold of a dirty bomb and sets it off and kills the magic number, how do they legislate against that scenario?

Outlaws do not obey the law and will continue to get what they need to carry out their lunacy. Pipe bombs, pressure cookers, knives, hammers, axes and yes, even guns.

What do you think the Mexican cartel will add to their list and start selling once assault rifles are banned?
Prohibition is the best example of what happens when there is still demand for a product, but supply is limited by government.


The real problem with banning assault rifles is people actually think insane lunatics who want to inflict this type of atrocity will suddenly become law abiding citizens just because the government establishes even more laws.
THAT is lunacy.

That is all.

[MoValley John]

I don't believe I am missing the point, you are. The point is that the "replacement" tools are a lot less effective at killing people. Hypothetically, if we could effectively prevent all terrorist attacks that killed over five people, that would be beneficial. Even if people are still going to attack each other, we're not ever going to see fifty innocent people die at once. That would be a great thing for society, right?

Ummm. Fifty people is a LOT of deaths for a so called assault rifle. A lot! This was an anomoly, not the norm. Even in Paris,the attacks were aided with explosives. The terrorist attacks that kill lots are almost always with tools other than guns. 9/11, no guns. Boston, no gunsuntil the shootout at the end, the terrorists lost the shootout. Oklahoma City, no guns. Bali, no guns. WTC bombing, failure, but no guns. Beruit bombing, no guns.

Once again, guns are the jv team in the terrorist's toolbox.

[wufan]

i dont think anyone is arguing to take away all guns. Just large magazines, assault rifles.

I believe that is where the argument is headed.

How many more Americans must die? One day it might be someone in your family, and that's a reality we have to face. I'm not willing to accept that and many more Americans aren't each and every day.

As has been mentioned numerous times, many more people are killed in Chicago by handguns than by rifles nation wide.

Again, I'm not naive about how banning Assault Rifles will get them all off the street, that is foolish. But the price on them would at least triple on the black market and we could start getting them out of circulations.

You think someone that is willing to shoot up a group of people is going to back off if it costs $5000?

[wufan]

How many times does an American defend their life or property each year by using an semi-automatic rifle? I would guess very, very few (if any). Pistols and revolvers are much more common and should fit the need in most every situation.

Not really relevant. You either have the right or you don't.

[wufan]

I don't believe I am missing the point, you are. The point is that the "replacement" tools are a lot less effective at killing people. Hypothetically, if we could effectively prevent all terrorist attacks that killed over five people, that would be beneficial. Even if people are still going to attack each other, we're not ever going to see fifty innocent people die at once. That would be a great thing for society, right?

So, feel free to argue that an assault rifle ban won't work because there are already too many on the street or argue you have a Second Amendment right to one. Don't tell me there are other ways to kill lots of people: 1. That's not a logical reason to try to prevent deaths from assault rifles. 2. Those other options tend to be far less effective. Orlando wouldn't have happened if the guy didn't have access to an assault rifle. People may have died, but not 49.

It's either okay to kill people or it's not. If someone is going to kill indescriminently, than they are going to do so. Stop the individual.

[jdshock]

You think someone that is willing to shoot up a group of people is going to back off if it costs $5000?

Yes. Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. don't happen unless the gun is readily available.

Not really relevant. You either have the right or you don't.

You were the one who brought up the right to self-defense as the delineating factor for nuclear weapons. His argument is that semi-automatic weapons are not used for defense. There's a reason they're called ASSAULT rifles. Nuclear weapons are used for defense as frequently as semi-automatic weapons are.

Moreover, the Second Amendment's language is about a militia. The Supreme Court read the self-defense right into the Second Amendment. A nuclear arsenal might be more important than puny assault rifles to our well-regulated militia!

It's either okay to kill people or it's not. If someone is going to kill indescriminently, than they are going to do so. Stop the individual.

Killing = bad; mass killing = worse. That's all there is to it.

[jdshock]

People keep mentioning knives. I am dumbfounded by this. Truly dumbfounded.

If you mentioned a knife, are you just trolling? Or do you actually believe it's possible to kill a large group of people with a knife?

[ShockRef]

People keep mentioning knives. I am dumbfounded by this. Truly dumbfounded.

If you mentioned a knife, are you just trolling? Or do you actually believe it's possible to kill a large group of people with a knife?

Because its the person, not the instrument that causes the action. If they are mentally unstable to the point they want to kill innocent people, they will find a way to get whatever they need to inflict damage.

We just had a nut in a Ohio who ran onto a school playground and stab an 8 year old girl in the back. Then turn and ran like a jack rabbit.
What type of person does this kind of thing?
Someone who is so unstable they will commit crimes against humanity that defy description. The same people who will do whatever it takes and get whatever they need to commit such crimes.

No bureaucrat in Washington can stop or even limit what some maniac is determined to try and commit. It's the world we live in folks.

That is all.

[wufan]

Yes. Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. don't happen unless the gun is readily available.


You were the one who brought up the right to self-defense as the delineating factor for nuclear weapons. His argument is that semi-automatic weapons are not used for defense. There's a reason they're called ASSAULT rifles. Nuclear weapons are used for defense as frequently as semi-automatic weapons are.

Moreover, the Second Amendment's language is about a militia. The Supreme Court read the self-defense right into the Second Amendment. A nuclear arsenal might be more important than puny assault rifles to our well-regulated militia!


Killing = bad; mass killing = worse. That's all there is to it.

Please clarify: I stated semi-automatic rifles. You stated semi-automatic weapons. Which are you in favor of banning.

Also, assault rifle was a term used to describe rifles in an attempt to ban them. The reason they are refered to as such is to make people believe that assault is their primary usage. Forgive me if I don't back off of my argument due to semantics.

[jdshock]

Please clarify: I stated semi-automatic rifles. You stated semi-automatic weapons. Which are you in favor of banning.

Also, assault rifle was a term used to describe rifles in an attempt to ban them. The reason they are refered to as such is to make people believe that assault is their primary usage. Forgive me if I don't back off of my argument due to semantics.

Semi-automatic rifle. That's my fault. Someone claimed semi-automatic rifles are not used for defense. You said that was irrelevant, but it is relevant under your own logic.

[jdshock]

Because its the person, not the instrument that causes the action. If they are mentally unstable to the point they want to kill innocent people, they will find a way to get whatever they need to inflict damage.

We just had a nut in a Ohio who ran onto a school playground and stab an 8 year old girl in the back. Then turn and ran like a jack rabbit.
What type of person does this kind of thing?
Someone who is so unstable they will commit crimes against humanity that defy description. The same people who will do whatever it takes and get whatever they need to commit such crimes.

No bureaucrat in Washington can stop or even limit what some maniac is determined to try and commit. It's the world we live in folks.

That is all.

That's a very sad story. There's nothing you can do to console a family in that situation. There's no silver-lining that can make it up to them. As a society, though, we should acknowledge that it was one family mourning and not 50. No one has told me how you can possibly kill 50 people with a knife.

[MoValley John]

Lets compare terrorist attacks, bombing vs. shooting, and fatalities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London

Almost all terror attacks are of the bomb variety, not gun. The largest body count is a result of the bomb variety, not gun. Guns are banned in London, hasn't slowed down terror attacks.

I know this is an emotional issue, but guns are not the tool of choice of terrorists. Banning AR 15's isn't going to slow terror attacks. Pan Am flight 103 wasn't brought down with an AR or AK, but a bomb. Flight 103 had far more deaths than Orlando. If you think banning AR's is fixing the problem, you've bought fool's gold.

[jdshock]

Lets compare terrorist attacks, bombing vs. shooting, and fatalities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London

Almost all terror attacks are of the bomb variety, not gun. The largest body count is a result of the bomb variety, not gun. Guns are banned in London, hasn't slowed down terror attacks.

I know this is an emotional issue, but guns are not the tool of choice of terrorists. Banning AR 15's isn't going to slow terror attacks. Pan Am flight 103 wasn't brought down with an AR or AK, but a bomb. Flight 103 had far more deaths than Orlando. If you think banning AR's is fixing the problem, you've bought fool's gold.

Since no one has addressed the point yet, I will ask you directly.

Why is that an argument to not ban assault rifles? Why is one bad thing a reason to keep one other thing legal?

An assault rifle ban would have made it harder for lunatics like killers in Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, Orlando, Columbine, etc. to get a weapon. Why does the use of a bomb 25 years ago on a plane have anything to do with mass shootings in the United States?