Bill To Ban Assault Weapons Introduced In Senate

[Pipeline 1010]

No, this is nonsense. I would suggest you search my previous posts that will show research indicates gun ownership and homicide/suicide risk are strongly related. The research is not ambiguous, what you are saying is almost ceraintly wrong and it’s backed up by a lot of facts.

Absolute nonsense.

Actually the part about reducing gun murders by ending the drug war was correct. It's a step we could take that would have an immediate, large, measurable effect. It would probably be more effective at reducing the loss of life than any gun law short of a total ban. More effective than this pathetic law banning guns that are used in about 100 murders per year, most of which could still be accomplished by guns that aren't banned.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually the part about reducing gun murders by ending the drug war was correct. It's a step we could take that would have an immediate, large, measurable effect. It would probably be more effective at reducing the loss of life than any gun law short of a total ban. More effective than this pathetic law banning guns that are used in about 100 murders per year, most of which could still be accomplished by guns that aren't banned.

I agree with ending the drug war but the idea that gun control doesn’t limit deaths is ignorant bullshit.

The gun laws we tend to enact are pathetic half measures because gun nuts in the US don’t allow actual effective measures to be taken. That doesn’t mean for a second that gun control isn’t effective though. The idea that the amount of killing in America is a set amount that exists independent of controlling the means of homicide is absolute stupidity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually the part about reducing gun murders by ending the drug war was correct. It's a step we could take that would have an immediate, large, measurable effect. It would probably be more effective at reducing the loss of life than any gun law short of a total ban. More effective than this pathetic law banning guns that are used in about 100 murders per year, most of which could still be accomplished by guns that aren't banned.

Firepower is key in most gun massacres. The Las Vegas Shooter put out 2000 rounds in less than 10 minutes. The Texas shooter put out 450 rounds in a very few minutes. That requires semi-automatic fire & detachable high capacity magazines.

It's a lot easier to kill a lot of people in a short period of time with weapons designed to do just that.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

Read the article it goes into several variables.

We're talking about the United States, not some other countries. Who the fuck cares about countries with absolutely no history of freedom or constitutional rights or without the American culture?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

A fetish isn't necessarily sexual at all-



If one took a strict constructionist view of the Constitution they'd realize that the arms of the times were black powder flintlocks. It's what they were talking about because it's all they knew.

The Founders were well aware of different types of firearms besides the ubiquitous "flintlocks" and advanced developments of firearms.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Founders were well aware of different types of firearms besides the ubiquitous "flintlocks" and advanced developments of firearms.

Absolutely false. The percussion cap was invented & patented in 1807 & didn't come into widespread use until the 1820's. Metallic cartridges weren't invented until the 1840's & smokeless powder in 1884.

At the time of the revolutionary war the basic flintlock mechanism hadn't changed in 150 years. The Ferguson rifle was the most advanced firearm of the period & was basically insignificant because only a few hundred were ever made. It was still a black powder flintlock.

 

[Jhhnn]

We're talking about the United States, not some other countries. Who the fuck cares about countries with absolutely no history of freedom or constitutional rights or without the American culture?

Freedom & democracy go back a very long way in England & France.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Freedom & democracy go back a very long way in England & France.

Not, however the 2nd Amendment or the settler / frontier culture. I also disagree with your blanket denial of advances in firearms, there were lever action black power firearms produced in the 1700's and semi-automatic air rifles that were known to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Atreus21]

Question:

Wasn't the Texas shooter supposed to be unable to legally acquire a gun owing to his domestic violence conviction?

 

[brycejones]

Question:

Wasn't the Texas shooter supposed to be unable to legally acquire a gun owing to his domestic violence conviction?

Yes, the AF messed up and didn't submit to the national database. However what would have prevented him from obtaining one through a private sale?

 

[Thebobo]

Question:

Wasn't the Texas shooter supposed to be unable to legally acquire a gun owing to his domestic violence conviction?

Question: How do not allready not know the answer to your question? Unless you live under a rock it is impossible. Unless you are Jeff Sessions, are you related?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Question:

Wasn't the Texas shooter supposed to be unable to legally acquire a gun owing to his domestic violence conviction?

He was also ruled mentally ill, another reason he should have been on the list. These other government apologists are trying to blame citizens for something that never happened instead of the government officials that didn't do their jobs.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes, the AF messed up and didn't submit to the national database. However what would have prevented him from obtaining one through a private sale?

I don't know. But we can fault government incompetence, not lack of gun control, for this guy being allowed to acquire the firearm that he used in a mass shooting.

It's just remarkable. The government failed to file the paperwork necessary to stop a crazy from getting a gun, while Joe Biden says the guy who legally owned the AR15 that killed or wounded the crazy shouldn't have been allowed to get one.

 

[Thebobo]

He was also ruled mentally ill, another reason he should have been on the list. These other government apologists are trying to blame citizens for something that never happened instead of the government officials that didn't do their jobs.

Ok I gotta know, who are these "other government apologist." And by saying "other" you are implying there are more government apologist. Who are the regular government apologist that you are differentiating from your original "government apologist?"

And what citizens are these "other government apologist" trying to blame. Are the regular government apologist trying to blame citizens and if so is it the same citizens that these other government apologist are blaming?

Sincerely
confused in Maryland

 

[SlowSpyder]

This bill started life swirling the toilet, and it will be flushed. And that is great for America.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The problem you have though is that the barn door is already wide open. There's already a copious plethora of high capacity mags and a crapton of rounds out there. Even if you passed legislation that banned all semi-auto guns or limited them to 6 round mags, you'd have to pass a seizure law to get the high cap mags and good luck getting criminals or hard-core gun nuts to go along with that.

Not attempting to troll; just need to point out the elephant in the room.

So serious question - what do you consider to be reasonable gun control legislation?

I agree with ending the drug war but the idea that gun control doesn’t limit deaths is ignorant bullshit.

The gun laws we tend to enact are pathetic half measures because gun nuts in the US don’t allow actual effective measures to be taken. That doesn’t mean for a second that gun control isn’t effective though. The idea that the amount of killing in America is a set amount that exists independent of controlling the means of homicide is absolute stupidity.

 

[Thebobo]

The problem you have though is that the barn door is already wide open. There's already a copious plethora of high capacity mags and a crapton of rounds out there. Even if you passed legislation that banned all semi-auto guns or limited them to 6 round mags, you'd have to pass a seizure law to get the high cap mags and good luck getting criminals or hard-core gun nuts to go along with that.

Not attempting to troll; just need to point out the elephant in the room.

So serious question - what do you consider to be reasonable gun control legislation?

If certain items become illegal and it's a felony to have them it's your responsibility to turn them in. I assume most law abiding gun owners would do so. If not and you get caught with the item in their house, you could have your house forefit. Just like they can do with hunting and fishing laws and other drug laws in some states. If they are illegal and they are found they are sized, no? If a neighbor is in your house and see your guns and they are illegal they tell a cop they can get warnet come in and take them and you just like anything else that is illegal.

I don't know what you are talking about a seizure law. Sounds like some info world crazy idea. All though we do have eminent domain where a foreign country can take your land but for that's another thread.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem you have though is that the barn door is already wide open. There's already a copious plethora of high capacity mags and a crapton of rounds out there. Even if you passed legislation that banned all semi-auto guns or limited them to 6 round mags, you'd have to pass a seizure law to get the high cap mags and good luck getting criminals or hard-core gun nuts to go along with that.

Not attempting to troll; just need to point out the elephant in the room.

Sure, but you can start with banning sales and go from there. It's not a problem that will be solved overnight, just got to keep plugging away at it.

So serious question - what do you consider to be reasonable gun control legislation?

If I had my druthers handguns and long rifle ownership would be banned from the home with only shotguns available for home defense. Long guns that are used for hunting/target shooting can be stored in external locations like in other countries. Universal background checks for gun purchases, etc.

I find no value in gun ownership for the average person and a great deal of harm for both them and people around them.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Ok I gotta know, who are these "other government apologist." And by saying "other" you are implying there are more government apologist. Who are the regular government apologist that you are differentiating from your original "government apologist?"

And what citizens are these "other government apologist" trying to blame. Are the regular government apologist trying to blame citizens and if so is it the same citizens that these other government apologist are blaming?

Sincerely
confused in Maryland

You are.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If certain items become illegal and it's a felony to have them it's your responsibility to turn them in. I assume most law abiding gun owners would do so. If not and you get caught with the item in their house, you could have your house forefit. Just like they can do with hunting and fishing laws and other drug laws in some states. If they are illegal and they are found they are sized, no? If a neighbor is in your house and see your guns and they are illegal they tell a cop they can get warnet come in and take them and you just like anything else that is illegal.

I don't know what you are talking about a seizure law. Sounds like some info word crazy idea. All though we do have eminent domain where a foreign country can take your land but for that's another thread.

Have an illegal magazine and the government will seize your house? Sounds like a wet dream for an Authoritarian leftist like yourself. Maybe you can make up some nifty brownshirt uniforms and armbands to go along with your new laws. Then you can have gun owners wear a little yellow magazine patch on their clothes so you know where to search.

 

[brycejones]

I don't know. But we can fault government incompetence, not lack of gun control, for this guy being allowed to acquire the firearm that he used in a mass shooting.

It's just remarkable. The government failed to file the paperwork necessary to stop a crazy from getting a gun, while Joe Biden says the guy who legally owned the AR15 that killed or wounded the crazy shouldn't have been allowed to get one.

So you know of nothing that would have prevented him from obtaining a weapon from a private sale. Doesn't that seem like a problem to you?

 

[brycejones]

Have an illegal magazine and the government will seize your house? Sounds like a wet dream for an Authoritarian leftist like yourself. Maybe you can make up some nifty brownshirt uniforms and armbands to go along with your new laws. Then you can have gun owners wear a little yellow magazine patch on their clothes so you know where to search.

Sorry we prefer black clothes and helicopters in the New World Order.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sure, but you can start with banning sales and go from there. It's not a problem that will be solved overnight, just got to keep plugging away at it.



If I had my druthers handguns and long rifle ownership would be banned from the home with only shotguns available for home defense. Long guns that are used for hunting/target shooting can be stored in external locations like in other countries. Universal background checks for gun purchases, etc.

I find no value in gun ownership for the average person and a great deal of harm for both them and people around them.

"great deal of harm"? That's bullshit. "No value" another lie.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sorry we prefer black clothes and helicopters in the New World Order.

Every time you see a lefty talking about seizing homes and property for a minor crime it's time to start worrying.

 

[fskimospy]

"great deal of harm"? That's bullshit. "No value" another lie.

Nope, they provide net negative value, at least insofar as protection is concerned. The research is very clear on this.

How did you not know this? I mean this is basic, basic stuff.