Orlando

[ShockRef]

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?

Make it a bit harder to get an assault rifle?
Maybe.

Make it impossible?
No way.

Its supply and demand and in our world, someone will always supply an item to those who want it bad enough.

Look I get it. After a tragedy of this proportion, Americans want something done and want it now.
The first knee jerk reaction is to look to our illustrious government to provide the cure-all to the problem.

However, expecting some fat, flabby and flatulent bureaucrat to solve this type of problem with the swipe of a pen is fantasyland.

They don't care about truly solving problems. They are self serving individuals focused on one thing is their lives - saying whatever it takes to remain in office and continue their source of income and power.

Don't look to the government for solutions. Or as one once said, "If you are waiting on the government for a blood transfusion, you had better make your funeral director the next call."

That is all.

[Dan]

Attacks on civilians happen in a variety of ways. In the US it's typically with guns (far and away more than the rest of the world), in the rest of the world its with bombs. Not sure why, maybe it's the makeup of our culture, maybe its access to guns versus bomb making materials/bomb expertise. There will always be crazy people out there trying to take lives. I'm not an activist on either side, but it seems a lot of people think taking away a certain gun will change things. I'm not sure that's the answer, we gotta do better identifying the bad guys, which is probably a naearly impossible task.

[pinstripers]

The difference between the Cincinnati Zoo gorilla incident and the Disneyworld alligator incident?....................a good guy with a gun.

[ShockRef]

Government?

Thinking the government can and will solve this issue is a fallacy.

I live within 2 hours of 3 major Midwestern metropolitan cities. I can drive to any and buy whatever I could possibly want. In fact, an assault rifle would be a minor item capable of causing sever harm and damage.

Why can I do this?

#1) Because America is the land of economic opportunity. Those who can make serious money from selling merchandise will do whatever to make it available to those who desire to purchase.
#2) Because I've got that kind of cash.

It is what it is.

That is all.

[shocka khan]

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?

Maybe its because Troll Valley John, deep down inside, is an ammosexual. I heard that one time he didn't clean the KY off the barrel after he had sex with his rifle and it rusted it. I also have it on good authority that he prefers screwing dead people and guns over screwing his wife.

I'm thinking he should have used a condom.

[ShockdaWorld]

The insults are epic failures. This is as bad as congress. Which one of you sonsabitches is gonna walk out during the moment of silence?

[wufan]

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?

Assault rifles were banned during some of those events. That is proof that banning assault rifles doesn't solve the issue. If you aren't solving the issue then you shouldn't choose subjective and arbitrary limits like length of barrel/stock or magazine capacity.

[jdshock]

Assault rifles were banned during some of those events. That is proof that banning assault rifles doesn't solve the issue.

Are you talking about the federal law? I think it would've only been active during Columbine. Either way, the mid-90's ban on assault weapons had some huge loopholes. Manufacturers just had to change a couple of things to make the weapons legal. I think also (correct me if I'm wrong) weapons produced before the law were completely lawful to buy and sell. I'm fairly certain, it didn't even apply to the types of weapons the shooters were using. They were able to just purchase their weapons at a gun show. I don't know about legislation during the other events.

If you aren't solving the issue then you shouldn't choose subjective and arbitrary limits like length of barrel/stock or magazine capacity.

I'm not arguing on this point, but I am legitimately interested: why? What is the benefit to society that we have the weapons and what harm is done by subjecting society to "subjective and arbitrary" limits?

[MoValley John]

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?

Because you are using a terrorist attact as the justification for the ban. This terrorist attack just happened to be executed with guns, by far most are not. The largest death tolls have not been because of guns, but bombs. But we keep going back to guns without really assessing the bigger picture.

There are over 200,000,000 legal guns in America. Guns are not the problem. If they were, cities like Wichita and Omaha would have mass shootings regularly. And if banning guns is the solution, the Paris attacks would have never happened. Banning guns might make you feel good, but it won't make you any more safe.

[pinstripers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wielding-men-attack-train-station-China.html

33 dead, 143 injured

[MoValley John]

Also, an assault rifle ban and a large magazine ban would have done nothing to prevent the Columbine massacre. That was pulled off with 12-gauge shotguns, a 9mm handgun and a plinking rifle. In fact, I believe an assault rifle ban was in place at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbine_High_School_massacre&action=history

[rrshock]

Why do people just not understand that criminals / people that want to do harm to others will get guns (or whatever else they want to use) no matter what laws are in place?

I like ARs. They are fun to shoot. Do I shoot them at people? No. Would I if I felt the need to protect? Absolutely!!

People who are ****ed up in the head, or that have bad intentions, will do bad things.

While the Orlando shooting is horrendous, it wasn't the gun. It was the closet gay Muslim terrorist that was the bad thing.

[wufan]

I'm fairly certain, it didn't even apply to the types of weapons the shooters were using.

Then why bring it up? You say we should arbitrarily pick guns to ban, and then say it wouldn't have worked. Why are you advocating for a law that doesn't work based on your own standards? What are you advocating?

[wufan]

I'm not arguing on this point, but I am legitimately interested: why? What is the benefit to society that we have the weapons and what harm is done by subjecting society to "subjective and arbitrary" limits?

Because you are revoking the liberties of law abiding citizens for a measure that is ineffective. It is the starting grounds for tyranny.

[jdshock]

Because you are using a terrorist attact as the justification for the ban. This terrorist attack just happened to be executed with guns, by far most are not. The largest death tolls have not been because of guns, but bombs. But we keep going back to guns without really assessing the bigger picture.

There are over 200,000,000 legal guns in America. Guns are not the problem. If they were, cities like Wichita and Omaha would have mass shootings regularly. And if banning guns is the solution, the Paris attacks would have never happened. Banning guns might make you feel good, but it won't make you any more safe.

But you're still missing the logical component. Terrorist attacks via bombs don't mean that guns should be lawful. There is no logical connection between those two points.

Assume with me that a ban on assault rifles would be some level of effective. Some people who would kill with a lawful, easily procured weapon are deterred. Some killers would switch to bombs, some would utilize the black market, but some are effectively deterred because they don't have the time or resources or knowledge to procure another option. So on the one hand we have this benefit, some number of killers that are deterred. On the other side of the scale, we have the burden. Your freedom that is infringed by an assault rifle ban. The best argument I've heard in this thread comes from @rrshock: saying he thinks they're fun to shoot. That enjoyment would go away because, presumably, anyone who just shoots them for fun will be deterred by the fact that they are illegal.

And such a law would almost certainly be somewhere between 0% and 100% effective. There are alternate means to kill people, but they are harder. @pinstripers: post showed an extreme example of a knife attack. Fewer people were killed than in Orlando and it took 10 attackers. More easily procured weapons tend to be less effective at killing people. Weapons like bombs either take serious amounts of planning, knowledge, or an ability to sneak large amounts of explosives into the desired area. As ineffective as the TSA is sometimes, we haven't seen a bomb threat on a plane in the US in a long time. A full ban on assault rifles is likely to prevent at least one depressed teenager from shooting a dozen classmates sometime, right? I know everyone in this thread is trying to say it's 0% effective, but humor me for a moment.

My question: how many deaths (if we could hypothetically know that information) would need to be prevented for you to support a ban?