The Guns thread

[TheCommissioner]

the weapons were purchased legally

the murderer had a license

 

[DeadPresident]

We carefully control the components of explosives. Why should bullets and guns be any different?

Definitely this.

I couldn't say for certain, though I would guess the components for explosives are under tighter regulation because those are your go-tos for suicide bombers, car bombers, and generally will do a greater deal of damage. Then there's the sporting factor - the only sportsmen that probably would use dynamite are the hillbilly fishermen; you know, drop a stick in the lake, then hold your net out and catch the fish blown out of the water.

Again - I'm not certain if this is the reason; just my observation from reports overseas and seeing the redneck stereotypes played out on television.

The problem here is we're considering whose "rights" we would infringe on before considering whose lives we could save.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of this "my rights" entitlement concept that's crept into democracy but it's really time to leave that **** behind. People can have their rights to dangerous items back when they prove they can handle that right responsibly, which quite evidently they can't. At the moment the USA is doing a sterling job of proving that firearms should be in the hands of law enforcement only. Screw anyone's "right" to hunt or own explosives or firearms while innocents are getting massacred week in and week out.

 

[Anita18]

the weapons were purchased legally

the murderer had a license

He also worked in security, so he was trained to use them, probably.

There's no reason for a private citizen to own or legally obtain an AR-15. You can't shoot a deer for food with them, the meat would be ruined after you riddled it with bullets. Its only use is to kill as many people at once.

I'm still befuddled over why banning these kinds of guns (at least) doesn't fulfill the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment. One person with an AR-15 (or even a bunch of them) aren't going to protect a free state against the full might of the US military and its current technologies, let's be honest.

 

[regwec]

Let me say- reluctantly, as a lifelong admirer of America and defender of American culture and values- that there is a malady within American culture if so many Americans wish to own weapons whose sole use is the slaying of their fellow men. I am uncertain whether culture follows the law or the law eventually follows changes in culture. As a conservative and a believer in our shared, ancient common law, I hope that it is generally the latter. And in the UK, a person who professes to wish to own a gun is considered a strange individual if they are not a farmer or a gamekeeper. And the law reflects that.

There are few issues on which I would condescend to lecture others, but on this small thing, I am pleased that the path of our culture has diverged from yours.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

He also worked in security, so he was trained to use them, probably.

There's no reason for a private citizen to own or legally obtain an AR-15. You can't shoot a deer for food with them, the meat would be ruined after you riddled it with bullets. Its only use is to kill as many people at once.

I'm still befuddled over why banning these kinds of guns (at least) doesn't fulfill the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment. One person with an AR-15 (or even a bunch of them) aren't going to protect a free state against the full might of the US military and its current technologies, let's be honest.

Why would the meat be riddled with bullets? It's not like the guns are fully automatic weapons that spray bullets. Unless you're a poor shot, most people could take the deer (or any other intended prey) down with a couple well placed shots.

 

[Anita18]

Why would the meat be riddled with bullets? It's not like the guns are fully automatic weapons that spray bullets. Unless you're a poor shot, most people could take the deer (or any other intended prey) down with a couple well placed shots.

But why would you need an AR-15 to do it instead of a hunting rifle?

 

[Victarion]

The problem here is we're considering whose "rights" we would infringe on before considering whose lives we could save.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of this "my rights" entitlement concept that's crept into democracy but it's really time to leave that **** behind. People can have their rights to dangerous items back when they prove they can handle that right responsibly, which quite evidently they can't. At the moment the USA is doing a sterling job of proving that firearms should be in the hands of law enforcement only. Screw anyone's "right" to hunt or own explosives or firearms while innocents are getting massacred week in and week out.

You are spot on here with your introduction, Deadpresident. The concept of rights can be strange to those unaccustomed to the American way of it, granted. I also agree with you that Americans can exercise their rights when they've proven they can handle their rights - and those firearm owners that haven't murdered anyone demonstrate that proof in their ability to keep their guns from autonomously murdering anyone. So in conclusion, I wouldn't take as sweeping a position as yours - rather I'd say those that have committed crimes using their firearms have forfeited their rights where those are concerned.

In any event, we'll be able to fight for or against our beliefs in the ballot box. The exact hows of it - that's a good question, and one I will leave to those better qualified to make that decision than myself. In the end, will of the people, whatever it may be, will undoubtedly prevail.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

But why would you need an AR-15 to do it instead of a hunting rifle?

While not all people use them, some people prefer the performance, modularity and inherent reliability of the AR-15 platform. I'd say the AR-15 is more often used for varmint control and hog hunting than deer hunting. Most people I know who own AR-15s use them for target practice and marksmanship competitions but some typically do hunting with them.

 

[DeadPresident]

You are spot on here with your introduction, Deadpresident. The concept of rights can be strange to those unaccustomed to the American way of it, granted. I also agree with you that Americans can exercise their rights when they've proven they can handle their rights - and those firearm owners that haven't murdered anyone demonstrate that proof in their ability to keep their guns from autonomously murdering anyone. So in conclusion, I wouldn't take as sweeping a position as yours - rather I'd say those that have committed crimes using their firearms have forfeited their rights where those are concerned.

In any event, we'll be able to fight for or against our beliefs in the ballot box. The exact hows of it - that's a good question, and one I will leave to those better qualified to make that decision than myself. In the end, will of the people, whatever it may be, will undoubtedly prevail.

I respect your position. My only problem is that in cases as extreme as this one, it's no consolation to the families affected when we realize someone didn't deserve their privileges after they've murdered 50 innocents. And this is specifically why I would encourage people to argue as though it's their mother, cousin, husband or grandchild that was killed, because it's their opinions that matter on this topic, not ours.

If this kind of incident happened once every decade, I'd call it an anomaly and I'd probably agree with your position and adopt it completely. But at this rate, where it's an almost daily occurrence at one level or another, I think the statistics give a compelling argument for most Americans not deserving the right to have access to firearms. The frequency of these events points to systemic, prevalent and extremely resilient issues in American society, over and above the unreasonable access to firearms. Both need to be addressed expediently.

In a lot of other areas of life you need to prove you're capable of handling a responsibility, this needs to be one of those cases. It's actual lunacy for people to have access to something as dangerous as a gun without any regulation or supervision, and this increasingly dichotomous world if it's a choice between no guns or guns, only a fool would choose access to guns over innocent lives.

 

[redhawk23]

I couldn't say for certain, though I would guess the components for explosives are under tighter regulation because those are your go-tos for suicide bombers, car bombers, and generally will do a greater deal of damage. Then there's the sporting factor - the only sportsmen that probably would use dynamite are the hillbilly fishermen; you know, drop a stick in the lake, then hold your net out and catch the fish blown out of the water.

Again - I'm not certain if this is the reason; just my observation from reports overseas and seeing the redneck stereotypes played out on television.

Even with available materials, bombs are much more complicated and harder to pull off than walking into a room with a gun.

Columbine for instance was actually much more of a failed bombing than a shooting.

The real difference between explosives and guns is that guns have a powerful lobby group supporting their unrestricted proliferation.

 

[redhawk23]

the weapons were purchased legally

the murderer had a license

The murder had a license. The murderer has also been reported to have been on multiple watchlists.

Why was the license given to someone on a watchlist?

 

[regwec]

Because that's what the founding fathers wanted. Or something.

 

[TheCommissioner]

seems that way

 

[TheCommissioner]

The murder had a license. The murderer has also been reported to have been on multiple watchlists.

Why was the license given to someone on a watchlist?

because the bill to keep guns away from watchlisted people was defeated in Congress last year

 

[Webfoot Hero]

because the bill to keep guns away from watchlisted people was defeated in Congress last year

The problems with that watchlist are that it was not updated regularly, people weren't taken off even if they had actually been cleared, and people were included on it in some instances if they had even just talked to or interacted with people suspected of being terrorists. Without due process, taking away someone's rights is not something many agree with as it technically goes against several amendments in the Bill of Rights.

 

[dnno1]

The murder had a license. The murderer has also been reported to have been on multiple watchlists.

Why was the license given to someone on a watchlist?

because the bill to keep guns away from watchlisted people was defeated in Congress last year

The gunman was not on a watch list. He was twice under investigation by the FBI, but was found not to be a threat and, hence, the investigations were closed. I don't think we should just assume that someone who is under investigation should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. That restriction onlly be reserved to people who do commit a crime or are subject to a protective order from a court.

 

[Assassin]

You didn’t list Chicago by itself, you lumped them with two other states.

On the chart Chicago has 500. Higher than any other city I saw. Next up Detroit at 450

New Orleans is not surprising. Almost of all of these areas vote Democrat, yet the media wants paint a conservative voter picture on the problem.

The best solution for now it to increase security in the schools. Clearly tough gun laws do not stop shootings from happening.

yup. that's what the left does.

 

[samsnee]

Trump wants to ban all Muslims until we "figure out what's going on". Why don't we also ban all gun sales until we "figure out what's going on".

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Trump wants to ban all Muslims until we "figure out what's going on". Why don't we also ban all gun sales until we "figure out what's going on".

Because guns don't off by themselves while an actual person can. Blaming the tool while not getting to the root cause behind the problems of the person using it is not going to solve the issue.

 

[samsnee]

Because guns don't off by themselves while an actual person can. Blaming the tool while not getting to the root cause behind the problems of the person using it is not going to solve the issue.

Exactly. And yet the NRA consistently lobbies against doing any research on gun violence.

 

[Tilapia]

Exactly. And yet the NRA consistently lobbies against doing any research on gun violence.

The get the liberal Ivy elites to do the research. Are those private institutions incapable? Seems to be a great start if they were serious about social reform.

 

[PretenderNX01]

AR-15w used to be more regulated before the expiration of the Assulat Weapons Ban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

It's the gun of choice, it seems:

At 2 a.m., Mateen entered the club with an AR-15-type assault rifle. He began shooting, and at one point entered a gunfight with an armed, off-duty officer. Mateen left the building, then went back in, where the violence turned into a hostage situation, Mina said.

Around 5 a.m., authorities decided to attempt to rescue the hostages, leading to a gunfire exchange that ended in the suspect’s death, Mina said.

The type of gun Mateen used is the same legally obtainable weapon used in the Newtown massacre, the Colorado theater shooting and the San Bernardino shooting, in which 14 people were killed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/terror-shooting-at-gay-club_us_575d5938e4b0e39a28add1b4

In LA a seemingly planned attack was thwarted:

Patrol officers responded and encountered Howell, who was sitting in a car registered in Indiana, police said. Officers inspected the car and found three assault rifles, high-capacity ammunition and a five-gallon bucket containing “chemicals capable of forming an improvised explosive device,” police said.

Santa Monica police continued to search the suspect’s white Acura on Sunday morning. All four of the car’s doors were open and a green blanket, red gasoline canister and several other smaller items were being piled on the sidewalk next to it. The car’s license plate included a symbol of the National Rifle Assn. on the left side and the bottom said, "Teaching Freedom."

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gay-pride-la-weapons-20160612-snap-story.html

 

[Tilapia]

It's sad that CNN anchor Don Lemon was trying to press the gun angle on Mayor Patty Sheehan and she immediately responded to her credit that this is not a gun issue. She responded that this is a social issue and a mental illness issue.

 

[samsnee]

The get the liberal Ivy elites to do the research. Are those private institutions incapable? Seems to be a great start if they were serious about social reform.

And any research they come back with will automatically be labeled as biased because in your words, they are done by "liberal Ivy elites".

 

[dnno1]

Because guns don't off by themselves while an actual person can. Blaming the tool while not getting to the root cause behind the problems of the person using it is not going to solve the issue.

You'll never see a person "off" 50 people with a knife in one sitting.