OK Gun enthusiasts, I want an actual answer

[Vincent Brick]

It is not that it has prevented me from such, it is that I fear it would stand in my way of defending my home in this current rise of violent right-wing/fascist/Republican extremism. I will support no further gun legislation unless it also disarms the police and/or addresses the actual core issues of institutionalized hopelessness and lack of affordable mental health services. Without those factors, "gun control" will mean absolutely nothing and be merely a bandaid over the gaping wound of America's toxic capitalist culture, allowing white supremacist institutions to decide who can and cannot own firearms, further endangering marginalized communities. Liberals are pathetically out of touch and the left has no representation, so I have no faith in this occurring.

I don't own an "assault weapon" due to living in California and their restrictions on owning such weapons making it seem pointless, but if I bail for cheaper pastures I would purchase one asap, while I still can.

[myinfernalbmw]

When was the last time someone had an A/R and stopped someone else with an A/R?

I think the biggest problem with this is that there is a HUGE area in between some type of regulation and complete confiscation, but most people like to jump the the extreme. I think there should be some more scrutiny before anyone and everyone can get an A/R. I dont want to take YOUR gun away, I want it to be a little more difficult for ANYONE to get one...

The most recent would have been Dayton. I don't know if you watched the video of the shooter just before taking a dirt nap, but the responding officer dropped him with multiple rounds from an AR. If that "doesn't count" due to being law enforcement, then the shooting that took place at the Texas church a couple years ago would be the first I can recall from memory. If you're looking for FBI/.GOV statistics on where AR15s are used in a defensive shooting, they don't track or at least don't publish the type of weapon used. There are plenty of news reports of people using them though.

I agree with you on the political extremes. It's the reason that nothing gets done, or at least nothing beyond half measures. We should be making it harder for the wrong people to get guns. The trouble is that all of the posed legislation would have virtually done nothing to prevent any of the mass shootings in modern history. Simply doing SOMETHING isn't an excuse for bad legislation that would only negatively impact the law abiding.

[z31maniac]

What part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” is confusing for you?

What part of "well regulated militia" is confusing for you?

I didn't realize the retired guy across the street from me was part of a well-regulated militia. Gee what word is related to regulated, is it regulations? No, it couldn't be that. Sorry for think as such.

[Rob]

must....resist.....jumping.....in.......

on second thought, yeah. F it.

[z31maniac]

When it’s already illegal to kill large numbers of people at random, why are the lemmings so fixated on “gun control” ?

The people that commit these atrocities demonstrate each and every time a total disregard for the law. The law is absolutely the least of their concerns. So what makes the lemmings think that a new law will stop an illegal shooting?

The fact is, for all these years, liberals have been say “Oh no, we’re not looking to take away your guns, we just want a few reasonable limitations, that’s all....”

Now we are seeing their true colors shine through. Yes, total confiscation is what they want. Fact.

See actually, you're the lemming. Parroting talking points from the NSSF without understanding, well basically anything.

The 94-04 Assault Weapon ban lowered the number of mass shootings (yes mass shootings and school shootings happened before columbine, remember Stockton? probably not) and also lowered the lethality of those shootings when they happened. For the lemmings in the crowd, that means less people were injured or killed when those things happened.


Democrats want total confiscation? Really? Please explain why that didn't happen with the 111th Congress? I'll help you out since stats don't seem to be your strong suit. The 111th Congress had Democrats in control of the House, the Senate, and Obama was in the White House.

Please tell me what restrictions they enacted that prevented you from owning a gun?

[myinfernalbmw]

See actually, you're the lemming. Parroting talking points from the NSSF without understanding, well basically anything.

The 94-04 Assault Weapon ban lowered the number of mass shootings (yes mass shootings and school shootings happened before columbine, remember Stockton? probably not) and also lowered the lethality of those shootings when they happened. For the lemmings in the crowd, that means less people were injured or killed when those things happened.


Democrats want total confiscation? Really? Please explain why that didn't happen with the 111th Congress? I'll help you out since stats don't seem to be your strong suit. The 111th Congress had Democrats in control of the House, the Senate, and Obama was in the White House.

Please tell me what restrictions they enacted that prevented you from owning a gun?

Well took about as long as I assumed it would.

After Orlando and Vegas I got WAY into the numbers for modern mass shootings to try to sift through some of the talking points on both sides. I would have to go back and look at everything again and update my numbers, but what the data showed was that the number of mass shootings where an "assault rifle" was used was dwarfed by those where they weren't. It did show that the average number of people killed where an assault rifle is used is higher (3-4 deaths per event iirc). So if you're trying to stop how many people are killed at once, I can see the case for an AWB, but you can't necessarily argue that it would lower the frequency of shootings. There isn't anything saying that the shooters in those events wouldn't have just used a different weapon. If your goal is simply to try to prevent large number of people from being killed at the same time by an assault rifle, then in that specific circumstance it might.

Do you think that mass shootings will actually stop if there was a new AWB? Do casualty levels become acceptable when people are no longer using assault rifles to shoot up their classmates?

[z31maniac]

Well took about as long as I assumed it would.

After Orlando and Vegas I got WAY into the numbers for modern mass shootings to try to sift through some of the talking points on both sides. I would have to go back and look at everything again and update my numbers, but what the data showed was that the number of mass shootings where an "assault rifle" was used was dwarfed by those where they weren't. It did show that the average number of people killed where an assault rifle is used is higher (3-4 deaths per event iirc). So if you're trying to stop how many people are killed at once, I can see the case for an AWB, but you can't necessarily argue that it would lower the frequency of shootings. There isn't anything saying that the shooters in those events wouldn't have just used a different weapon. If your goal is simply to try to prevent large number of people from being killed at the same time by an assault rifle, then in that specific circumstance it might.

Do you think that mass shootings will actually stop if there was a new AWB? Do casualty levels become acceptable when people are no longer using assault rifles to shoot up their classmates?

I can argue it, because the numbers show it. Your decision to ignore facts doesn't make them disappear. During the AWB mass shootings and lethality, went down. Please show me a source that says otherwise. Outside of that, most mass shootings are gang/drug/domestic related...............the first two. I literally could not care less. If you decide to be in a gang or sell illegal drugs and get killed, that was your choice.

I do care about innocent people, going to the grocery store on a Saturday morning, like I often do myself, and people being murdered in cold blood from some malcontent asshole.

[myinfernalbmw]

I can argue it, because the numbers show it. Your decision to ignore facts doesn't make them disappear. During the AWB mass shootings and lethality, went down. Please show me a source that says otherwise. Outside of that, most mass shootings are gang/drug/domestic related...............the first two. I literally could not care less. If you decide to be in a gang or sell illegal drugs and get killed, that was your choice.

I do care about innocent people, going to the grocery store on a Saturday morning, like I often do myself, and people being murdered in cold blood from some malcontent asshole.

Your irony and virtue signaling has been a wonderful addition.

[MrBurgundy]

I guess you could argue that the public should be able to own and purchase "assault" weapons, because in the event that our government became tyrannical we would not be able to defend ourselves with hunting rifles, single action revolvers and lever action rifles.

Yeah, obviously, in that event, that would be enough, but blah blah blah..

Yes, guns are tools for killing people. "Assault" weapons, even more so, but if everyone is really genuinely concerned about protecting innocent lives, guns are a bad place to start.. 62 people have died this year in mass shootings. That number up against other statistics is nominal.

For example, just texting and driving related deaths are in the thousands every year...

[cale]

What part of "well regulated militia" is confusing for you?

I didn't realize the retired guy across the street from me was part of a well-regulated militia. Gee what word is related to regulated, is it regulations? No, it couldn't be that. Sorry for think as such.

Way to take the contribution I intended to make.

I'm not an American but I am a gun enthusiast, who I may add has changed his stance on firearms that can plainly be seen throughout my post history on this forum. I used to believe AR stood for assault rifle, and I even believed I've been corrected on this point here. Semantics aside however, it's surprising to me the lack of regulation in your country, and it takes some serious mental gymnastics to not see a correlation between firearm accessibility, prevalence, casual attitudes towards carrying them and mass shootings. Those things are unquestionably connected and there is undoubtedly ground to be gained if you start snipping the connections.

What I am curious to see, and hopefully someone can actually educate me on this, is the data on firearms used in these types of shooting and how long they've been in possession of the shooter or been accessible to them. If it can be shown that 75% of firearms responsible for a significant number of these shootings were purchased recently, we can certainly put a stopper in some of these events.

[z31maniac]

Your irony and virtue signaling has been a wonderful addition.

Ahhh, so you don't have a defensible retort, so a sad attempt at mocking sarcasm. You showed me!

[z31maniac]

Way to take the contribution I intended to make.

I'm not an American but I am a gun enthusiast, who I may add has changed his stance on firearms that can plainly be seen throughout my post history on this forum. I used to believe AR stood for assault rifle, and I even believed I've been corrected on this point here. Semantics aside however, it's surprising to me the lack of regulation in your country, and it takes some serious mental gymnastics to not see a correlation between firearm accessibility, prevalence, casual attitudes towards carrying them and mass shootings. Those things are unquestionably connected and there is undoubtedly ground to be gained if you start snipping the connections.

What I am curious to see, and hopefully someone can actually educated me on this, is the data on firearms used in these types of shooting and how long they've been in possession of the shooter or been accessible to them. If it can be shown that 75% of firearms responsible for a significant number of these shootings were purchased recently, we can certainly put a stopper in some of these events.

"Assault weapons" which I admit is just a media ruse. Since you can buy hunting rifles that have the exact same capabilities, but don't look "scary." Are responsible for a very low number of murders, IIRC, something on the order of 3% or so. That shouldn't deter from their ability to kill large numbers quickly. And that's the entire point of the national conversation at the moment.

The Dayton shooter killed 9 people and injured another 20+ in less than 30 seconds. Think about that.

But gun bros we be like, "but yeah bruh, i need an ar for reasons"

The home defense and hunting narrative is dead.

[Motheye99]

There's to many unregistered guns in America for a ban on "Assault Weapons" to make a impact on a motivated terrorist. Concentrating on mental health and better federal background check would have prevented many of these shootings.

[z31maniac]

There's to many unregistered guns in America for a ban on "Assault Weapons" to make a impact on a motivated terrorist. Concentrating on mental health and better federal background check would have prevented many of these shootings.

Oh really? Can you please provide the stats, for the recent mass shooters, that would have something that popped up in a background check?

Pro Tip: There isn't anything in the vast majority of these people. Hell, I'll keep it easy. What showed up in the El Paso or Dayton shooters background check that would have prevented them from buying a rifle?

Care to try again, or go back to the peanut gallery?

[Motheye99]

Oh really? Can you please provide the stats, for the recent mass shooters, that would have something that popped up in a background check?

Pro Tip: There isn't anything in the vast majority of these people. Hell, I'll keep it easy. What showed up in the El Paso or Dayton shooters background check that would have prevented them from buying a rifle?

Care to try again, or go back to the peanut gallery?

You asked for a solution, I said better background checks

Both of these shooters alleged far left and far right online footprints might have been something flagged. We have the technology to find this information on someone, actually its probably already on file somewhere. I just don't think going around and asking for everyone AR's is going to stop these from happening.