Orlando

[wu_shizzle]

How do you expect to protect yourself against the government with fully automatic guns with 30+ shot magazines when the government has drones, F22's, and nuclear weapons?

I doubt that many believe they will need to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

But the reason you might want a tactical style weapon is the same reason you put locks on your doors. It's a deterrent and it increases your ability to defend yourself.

One person cannot take on the Federal Government, but 100 million Americans with basic arms would be very hard to control. This was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

[ShockRef]

It's kind of stupid to assume that I don't know anything about guns and that I'm a gun-phobe. To assist in your reading comprehension skills, I would like to point out that I support gun ownership and I think concealed carry is a good thing. I can also tell that you can't comprehend what you read because my correct name is Shocka Khan, not Shaka. I'm not related to Shaka Smart or Shaka Khan.

I can't believe that you as a ref (who also uses the tag 'above all make the right call') would be jumping to so many conclusions.

What I can believe is that if you ref the way you post on these blogs, your skills would be better suited to being a referee in a biddy (grade school level) league. Somehow, I think you are capable of a higher calling and I would think you would have enough professional pride in yourself (and the impression you leave on others) to not to make such broad generalizations and make sure you have all facts in hand, so you can indeed 'make the right call'. So that people respect for the decisions you make and not the conclusions you jump to. So that you can leave people with the impression that you are accomplished in both your professional and personal life and not some dumb cluck who just fell off the turnip truck.

That is all.

A little jumpy there, Sparky.

Stay clam, maintain composure and just breath. You'll be alright.

That is all.

[atlwsu]

The only gun I own is an 1840s cap and ball muzzle loaders 50 caliber. I know almost nothing about guns, and have found this thread interesting and amusing. I am fiscally conservative but less so on some social issues. I believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be interpreted as the framers intended, as much as the original intent can be determined. Some of the quotes given above are helpful, but they are only the quotes that support an armed citizenry to protect against a tyrannical government. That made perfect 18th century sense. The way to change it is through amendment not legislation. My question is: If the founding fathers were to draft a 2nd Amendment in the 21st century what would it look like? I don't think an armed citizenry would be able to prevail against a determined 21st century US Military. If that is what the intent of the 2nd amendment means, & I lean that way, it is an academic hypothetical technically correct (principled) argument, of little practical value.

[jdshock]

Looks like we should be banning handguns... and knives...

I feel like a broken record...

Let's say there are 100 million handguns in the United States. Let's say 90% of them are used for protection purposes, 9.999% are used for recreational purposes, and .001 are used for illicit purposes. That would be something like 100,000 handguns for illicit purposes. Let's say there are 5 million assault rifles in the United States. Let's also assume 80% are used for recreational purposes, 19.99% are used for protection, and .01% are used for illicit purposes. That's something like 50,000 assault rifles for illicit purposes. In this (completely made up) hypothetical, there are twice as many handguns being used for illicit purposes as there are assault rifles. That said, it is more justifiable to ban the assault rifles because a greater percentage of them are used for illicit purposes and there is a relatively low burden on society since they are used for recreational purposes as opposed to protection purposes.

Raw numbers don't tell me anything. It is not a good argument to say other weapons kill more people than assault rifles. I need to know the burden imposed on society by banning assault rifles. Further, all of the stats that are getting mentioned are about the homicide rate in general. Mass shootings are different from one on one homicides. An individual will always have the ability to kill another person. We can work to prevent individuals from having the power to kill 20 people in one sitting.

[jdshock]

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is maybe where the debate should be.......

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-...izen-rebellion

It doesn't really matter what they intended now, though. Even if it came out that this is objectively what the framer's intended, we can't just undue huge Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court has told us what rights are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. It would be wildly inappropriate for 9 (8 for a while) unelected individuals to undue 2nd Amendment rights. If you oppose the right to bear arms, you have to support a constitutional amendment. There's no other way. States can't ban guns. The federal government can't ban guns. The Supreme Court can't (or shouldn't, I suppose) make it constitutional to ban guns.

[shocka khan]

A little jumpy there, Sparky.

Stay clam, maintain composure and just breath. You'll be alright.

That is all.

That gave me a good laugh this morning. I hope you get a good laugh today, too. Always helps your outlook.

[shock]

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–12)

[wufan]

I feel like a broken record...

Let's say there are 100 million handguns in the United States. Let's say 90% of them are used for protection purposes, 9.999% are used for recreational purposes, and .001 are used for illicit purposes. That would be something like 100,000 handguns for illicit purposes. Let's say there are 5 million assault rifles in the United States. Let's also assume 80% are used for recreational purposes, 19.99% are used for protection, and .01% are used for illicit purposes. That's something like 50,000 assault rifles for illicit purposes. In this (completely made up) hypothetical, there are twice as many handguns being used for illicit purposes as there are assault rifles. That said, it is more justifiable to ban the assault rifles because a greater percentage of them are used for illicit purposes and there is a relatively low burden on society since they are used for recreational purposes as opposed to protection purposes.

Raw numbers don't tell me anything. It is not a good argument to say other weapons kill more people than assault rifles. I need to know the burden imposed on society by banning assault rifles. Further, all of the stats that are getting mentioned are about the homicide rate in general. Mass shootings are different from one on one homicides. An individual will always have the ability to kill another person. We can work to prevent individuals from having the power to kill 20 people in one sitting.

There are about 20000 acts of gun violence per year with a handgun. There are about 200000000 handguns; so about 0.0001 handguns are used in a violent crime annually.

There are about 30000000 "assault rifles" in the US. There are about 3000 injuries/deaths due to violent crimes committed with an assault rifle each year. About 0.0001.

Its pretty much the same burden.

[ShockerPrez]

Why is the reaction to person A breaking the law, to take away the freedoms of law abiding person B,C,D,E,F,G....

[jdshock]

There are about 20000 acts of gun violence per year with a handgun. There are about 200000000 handguns; so about 0.0001 handguns are used in a violent crime annually.

There are about 30000000 "assault rifles" in the US. There are about 3000 injuries/deaths due to violent crimes committed with an assault rifle each year. About 0.0001.

Its pretty much the same burden.

Thanks for doing that research. I didn't expect those numbers to be so close.

The burden also has to take into consideration the use of the weapons. Limiting recreation is obviously less burdensome than limiting self-defense.

[jdshock]

Why is the reaction to person A breaking the law, to take away the freedoms of law abiding person B,C,D,E,F,G....

https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=181

(Inappropriate language)

[wufan]

Here's an article that supports MVJ

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/16/why-banning-ar-15s-and-other-assault-weapons-wont-stop-mass-shootings/

[Cdizzle]

Maybe we should just write a law to not kill people. Seems like that would cover just about all the aforementioned methods. Really hit it at the source.

[jdshock]

Here's an article that supports MVJ

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ass-shootings/

The article states that assault rifles are used in 27% of public mass shootings. According to your statistics, assault rifles make up at a maximum (under your numbers 30,000,000/[30,000,000+200,000,000]) 13% of all guns. That's assuming the only kinds of guns you can purchase are handguns and assault rifles, which is inaccurate. That means that assault rifles make up a disproportionately large percentage of the public mass shootings. It absolutely does not support opposing a ban on assault rifles. Not 100% solving a problem is NOT a reason to oppose legislation. If it makes the problem at all better and it imposes a relatively small burden, it might still be a good idea.

[ShockerPrez]

This act didnt happen because of guns. It happened because the guy did not agree with American principles of a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And furthermore, his religious beliefs in this case, taught him that he had the right, which he viewed as above that of the state's 'legislation', that he could go kill those that pursued their happiness contrary to his beliefs.

Tell me how we end this.