Orlando

[jdshock]

The debate is pointless. Those that want "assault rifles" banned, want them banned. It doesn't matter that these weapons are actually responsible for only a miniscule amount of violence. Those people want them banned. Documenting numbers is pointless. These people don't even understand the logic from the other side. And I don't blame them, their stance is based on emotion.

That said, the real reason these weapons are targeted isn't because of the mass shootings, it's because it is the easiest starting point to get all guns banned. Not many people own them, so many gun enthusiasts could be swayed to support banning the other guy's gun. Moreover, these guns look menacing. The look, and how they are described, puts fear in people. Fear, rationale or not, is a great motivator.

The problem is, when you get these "assault rifles" banned, you've solved nothing. There are many other guns that can do the same job, even better. And when the body count doesn't drop, it's time to move to the next round of guns. And the next, and the next, until good old Red Ryder is pulled from the shelves.

Agendas don't stop, what is considered "reasonable" gun control today, will simply move from a "assault rifles" to all semis, then to semi handguns, then bolt action and then shotguns.

You're overly condescending in this post. It's because the only way you can convince yourself you're right is by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying the other side is emotional.

I've admitted several times that the deaths achieved by assault rifles are relatively small. It's about proportions. How likely is the weapon to be used for an illicit purpose vs how important is the weapon for non-illicit purposes.

Your side is talking about the need to shoot back when the government comes for them... But yeah, I'm the emotional one.

[wufan]

Much of the texts you site are part of the debate surrounding the Articles of Confederation prior to the writing of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment was well crafted "well regulated militia" because there was a disagreement (imagine that lol) with some feeling that we (U.S.) needed a more powerful central government to fight against foreign states in the west (mostly Britain and France), and on our coast (as we know Britain attacked us in the War of 1812. With the Articles of Confederation, we were weak to withstand an attack. Surrounding these disagreements, the Shay's Rebellion was occurring because farmers didn't like being taxed for their goods, and they rose up with arms against state and local governments. Many were fearful that this problem could spread against the United States government. This is the history that surrounded the writing of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't think that all arms will or can be banned but their are some cities who are trying to limit arms. The question is whether this can be strengthened. The following article discusses another side about this issue. This issue is not settled and if Hillary Clinton wins, and selects the next Supreme Court justices, more bans could occur.

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

I don't see the need for guns from your eyes but I don't know that limiting certain killer machines, will limit mass killings (I'm open to it where you are not). However, I do think that their could be some loop holes limited like gun show loopholes, no fly lists, and more accurate lists that limit people who should not buy guns. The authorities knew about Mateen but they didn't communicate with each other.

What's a gunshow loophole? I've heard that before, but I don't understand how I can go to a gunshow and legally procure an otherwise illegal firearm.

[wufan]

You're overly condescending in this post. It's because the only way you can convince yourself you're right is by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying the other side is emotional.

I've admitted several times that the deaths achieved by assault rifles are relatively small. It's about proportions. How likely is the weapon to be used for an illicit purpose vs how important is the weapon for non-illicit purposes.

Your side is talking about the need to shoot back when the government comes for them... But yeah, I'm the emotional one.

It's not about proportions because the fact is that 2% of all gun injuries are mass shootings. 0.5% of all gun injuries are mass shootings perpetrated by "assault rifles". 0.0001% of assault rifles are used in gun violence annually, the same as handguns, yet you only focus on mass shootings. Why would only focus on mass shootings? Because they are emotionally upsetting. If it was about proportions you would go after things that matter like the other 99.5% of gun deaths. The problem there is that you would then have to state the purpose that all guns must be banned, thereby relinquishing the argument that banning semi-auto rifles doesn't bother that many people.

The fact that you don't see an AR-15 as useful doesn't mean it's okay to proclaim it as banned. As an example, France banned (requires licensing and special authorization) all pump action shotguns as they were utilized in a higher percentage of robberies than rifles. Why would anyone need three shots to hit a bird right?

[shoxilla]

interesting website if you want some numbers: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

and Orlando mass shooting incident: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/577157

[im4wsu]

interesting website if you want some numbers: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Seems like there should be more focus on the 260 children murdered than the 141 mass killings. Don't people care about children anymore?

Or police involved situations, police killed 147 to perps killed 375. Not a ratio that makes me comfortable.

[im4wsu]

Looking at some of the data available in the link

in the 72-hour period, there have been 231 reported gun-violence incidents resulting in 61 dead and 112 injured. There were 7 incidents with 2 dead, 47 with 1 dead and 177 with zero dead. There was 1 incident with 3 injured, 10 with 2 injured, 89 with 1 injured and 131 with none injured. 85 of the 231 incidents had no deaths or injuries reported.

Texas had 9 killed in 15 incidents, Illinois 5 dead in 8 incidents -- all killed were in Chicago.

[SB Shock]

Much of the texts you site are part of the debate surrounding the Articles of Confederation prior to the writing of the Constitution.

In my business if you want to understand why a rule (and amendments to the rules) you go back to the background and read why the authors proposed the rule (or change in rules) so you can understand the intent and how to comply with the rule. In this case, if you want to understand what the intent and why the 2nd amendment was proposed and passed - you study the framers discussion of said amendment. It is pretty clear.

[wu_shizzle]

You're overly condescending in this post. It's because the only way you can convince yourself you're right is by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying the other side is emotional.

I've admitted several times that the deaths achieved by assault rifles are relatively small. It's about proportions. How likely is the weapon to be used for an illicit purpose vs how important is the weapon for non-illicit purposes.

Your side is talking about the need to shoot back when the government comes for them... But yeah, I'm the emotional one.

Small vehicles contribute to higher than average death rates for collisions. I'm not saying we should ban all cars, but shouldn't we force people to buy safer cars?

I mean we're just talking about proportions and potentially saving lives right?

[MoValley John]

Proportionately, almost all mass shootings include more than just "assault rifles" and large magazines. Mass shooters usually have and use a combination of firearms including handguns. That was the case in Orlando, Columbine, Sandy Hook and the Aurora movie theater. It was not the case in the Omaha Von Maur shooting. So, thinking proportionately, if we want to address the weapons used in mass shootings, we need to ban all weapons.

[rrshock]

I saw that banning one type of gun is just the first step. I completely agree. It would be opening Pandora's box.

Just how does everyone see a gun roundup working out? That's what Hillary wants. If she is elected, we will start seeing the tyrannical government that many fear.