Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Indeed not. Such a list of legal firearm owners will not serve any benefit to the public, as it would not be able to be used until after a mass shooting has already occurred, and the perpetrator is either dead or has surrendered, just as in every other case. The only thing that such a list can tell, will be if the firearm utilized was legally owned by the suspect, which in many cases it is.

The same surviving family members who are growing tired of their loss being exploited for the sake of selling a political talking point? Such as the Parkland survivors who objected and protested to having their vigil commandeered by out-of-state individual who wished to push firearm-related restrictions?

A false statement on the part of yourself. It is not being stated that tracing does not work, as it has been proven it does. Rather it is being stated that registration and licensing requirements do nothing to address or otherwise prevent illegal firearms trafficking. The ATF has also demonstrated such as being the case.

A nearly fifty percent rate of failure is not an improvement, nor does it do anything to "improve the odds" nor does it make for a better alternative to what is already in place.

 

The Norway massacre that left sixty nine individuals dead was committed with a rifle the government legally classified as a hunting rifle.

 

Firearms such as the AR-15 are so popular with the united states, simply because government and those such as yourself are so fixated and obsessed with telling the public that they simply cannot have them. The public of the united states does not appreciate being told that they cannot do or have something, and it serves as motivation for others to exercise disobedience and rebellion in response to what they are told. Such is why ownership has become so widespread in the last fifteen years.

 

So since you can't answer the question, because there are not functional differences between the two examples and instead merely cosmetic differences, you go with "you know about things and that's why those things should be banned!!!!"

 

Then as someone with such an admittedly close relationship with law enforcement, there is no reason on the part of yourself to understand how laws, especially firearm-related restrictions, do not serve to prevent or otherwise prohibit crimes from being committed. Rather they merely serve the purpose of declaring a specific act to be socially unacceptable, and detailing what sort of punishment said unacceptable act carries with it.

Therefore, firearm-related restrictions do not have the capability of saving even a single life that would be lost from the illegal misuse of firearms.

 

Since we're talking about concealment and not firing a weapon, you should pay attention to what was originally the discussion point. What I learned from a homicide detective from the largest police force in the country …. leg holsters, detached sawed off shot guns hidden in coats, .32 caliber pistols hidden in jacket sleeves (similar to old style derringers), semi and full auto's in hidden compartments of brief cases, luggage bags, etc. I could go on, but hopefully you get the picture.

Just to remind you: the discussion is about gun control of weapons that are NOT necessary for self defense in the general public....why weapons that were on the 1994 AWB list are the weapons of choice for numerous mass shootings in the last 20 years, and why fools stubbornly refuse to acknowledge such at the expense of others lives. One doesn't need your self vaunted "expertise" to understand that.

 

Stop acting silly...banning a SPECIFIC list of INDIVIDUAL weapons is NOT BANNING ALL WEAPONS in a category. The 1994 AWB adequately demonstrated this. Also, for your education: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

These BS label games rabid gun manufacturer/NRA flunkies play is most repetitive and tiring.

 

The chronology of your posts on this thread belie your first paragraph. You've meshed my OP to what others have stated here. You know what you are doing, you just can't adequately defend your position when it comes to what I am putting forth, so you feign confusion and try to project that onto me. You logically fail in that attempt.

And PLEASE spare us all this lame attempt at semantic games regarding the AR-15...because you can't split that hair to avoid the same root. For your education: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

 

Spare us all the revisionist NRA blather. The compromise with the gun lobby was a sunset clause....and the GOP controlled Congress earned their NRA campaign contributions by voting down reinstatement. And whaddya know, the AR-15 becomes the weapon of choice for many mass shooters as soon as it's back on the market! The marketing for this (these) weapons is very effective.....light, versatile, adaptable, rapid firing with accuracy. There's a plethora of videos by yahoos with your mindset showing this, so don't come here blowing smoke like it's no big deal....the victims families would differ would you.

Like I said before, you've got GOP & NRA leaving the reservation and joining the call for improved gun control laws.

 

No semantic games - I honestly wanted you to define what you were talking about. Since you refused to define what you meant, I will continue with my thoughts. This is what you said:

If you are referring to AR15s in the above statement, you are not telling the truth. If I wanted an AR15, I could have an AR15. That I CAN have an AR15, I guess, to use your terms, is just tfb.

 

The 94 ban banned cosmetics, not ars.
They banned bayonet lugs and folding stocks, not semi automatic mag fed rifles. This is why no one takes you seriously on this issue.

 

And again, we were talking about someone in plain clothes in the summer in Texas, not wearing a ****ing trench coat ffs.

Printing is obvious and mostly unavoidable in regular clothing, your daddys stories not withstanding.

 

Oh for the love of God! Dear readers, please go to the website and read the ENTIRE page. Here's a hint as to why the above excerpt is NOT a straight out confiscation like our gun wonk wants you to believe:

Can assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles still be registered?

Generally, no. The public registration periods for assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles ended several years ago as follows:

• Category 1 AW: must have been owned by 12/31/1991 and registered by 03/31/1992
• Category 2 AW: must have been owned by 08/16/2000 and registered by 01/23/2001
• Category 3 AW: must have been owned by 12/31/1999 and registered by 12/31/2000
• .50 BMG: must have been owned by 12/31/2004 and registered by April 30, 2006

Are there any restrictions on the use of a registered assault weapon/.50 BMG rifle?

Yes. A person who has a registered assault weapon or registered .50 BMG rifle may possess it only under the conditions specified in Penal Code section 30945.

California Penal Code Section 30945. (a) At that person’s residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner’s express permission. (b) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets. Oct 25 2018

 

1. Go back and read the exchange, as one of your like minded compadres did just that. And even if they didn't, the question still stands as to how exactly to enforce such rules without a pat down or metal detector at each entrance.

2. And exactly how did that little ditty of yours (sans fact checking) change the FACT that weapons used in El Paso and Dayton were previously on the 1994 AWB list: https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/n...tings/67-715cac6d-f90f-499d-8b61-2f9e88319b02

 

Seriously, are you in denial or what? https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

 

1. Why do you think criminals file off serial numbers on stolen weapons or weapons to be used in a crime? So they can't be traced. People tend to be more careful as to whom they sell a product to when the sale can be traced back to them. And since a person with no criminal record can legally buy a weapon, it would be nice if the assault weapon of choice were not available. Like I said, not a perfect solution, but most normal people want to cut down the odds of death by mass shootings as much as possible.

2. Nuu-unnh, kid. you're not going to weasel out of this one by altering the question: try telling the surviving family members of mass shootings done with assault rifles that your available weapon ideology is more important than those lives snuffed out and to prevent future events from happening with the same weapon(s).

3. Check the chronology of the posts: You and your like minded brethren have stated or alluded that better gun tracing techniques don't work. Since you do NOT have a unified registration of guns in the USA, and you have active groups pushing to have one gun license fits all 50 states so as to cross borders, the proposal makes perfect sense. Criminals and even some nut jobs don't like cops potentially knowing their arsenal or their sources. Again, please post the EXACT statement from the ATF that says gun tracing techniques don't work, because your rendering is dubious at best.

4. Where do you get this 50% failure rate from? It's a proposal that has not been implemented. Got that?

 

And the El Paso and Dayton shootings were done with AR style weapons and once banned magazines. So what's your point. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

 

Dude, you are seriously into revisionism. Here, get educated beyond your opinion:

https://www.npr.org/2013/06/24/194228925/why-the-ar-15-is-more-than-just-a-gun

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

 

Naa-unnh, son. the reality is that every time gunners paint themselves in a corner, they try to detour by creating an alternative question that they deem is now the current definitive for the discussion. That dog of yours won't fly, and since it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what's the sales pitch, you're just blowing smoke as usual.

https://www.npr.org/2013/06/24/194228925/why-the-ar-15-is-more-than-just-a-gun

 

You just keep parroting your personal revision of reality as if it's a truism. Hint: the chronology of the posts shows you've been logically and factually proven wrong time and again. Most NYC cops do NOT want better or more efficient semi-auto's on the street...which is now the potential since the sunset of the 1994 AWB and with an active "iron pipeline" operating. Periodically, some yahoo is busted with a plethora of assault weapons stashed in their home or apartment (usually during an investigation into a minor felony or domestic trouble). don't take my word for it, do some honest research into the matter, because I tire of doing the homework for the insipidly stubborn..

 

1. You lie, as the chronology of the posts shows that I've explained, defined, clarified, documented my position and statements time and again. that you refuse to accept such is irrelevant. Your thoughts expressed on this thread are subject to analysis & debate. You don't like it, don't post.

2. I was speaking in terms of when the 1994 AWB was in effect, and if it (should) be reinstated. My apologies for not making that clear. That being said, I find it repugnant that you gloat about having a particular weapon as being more important than keeping it out of the hands of nut jobs that kill innocent people. Remember, anyone who purchased such BEFORE the law went into effect in 1994 could keep it. tough toe nails if people wanted it after the ban went into effect. They could always buy another type of gun that (as "expert" gunners are always telling me) does the same job, if not better.

 

Even though you started the thread, others have posted their thoughts. Some of those posts reflect that America should be more like Australia when it comes to gun control. They want bans, I don't. My responses have been related to that content. So at this point, I'm just not sure why you have been wasting forum space on this - so you simply want restrictions, not bans on all guns. I don't want bans, or the restrictions you speak of. So we both know where the other stands now.

If this upsets you and makes you call me a liar, well, that will just have to be. Your post #297 asked me when were gun ban laws passed. I never claimed that gun ban laws were passed. And, that really had nothing to do with the quoted conversation. There is nothing constructive to be gained by chasing this any longer. You may have the last word if that pleases you.

First, I do not own any AR15s. Second, there is no gloating from me, just returning "sour" with "sour". You started the gloat with your "tfb" comment. What goes around comes around.

 

Agreed. Even though I don't own an AR15, I am seriously considering getting one now. For the exact reason above. Heck, I may even get two. Maybe the first one will be 5.56 NATO and the second will be 6.5 Grendel. They will both be black and scary. Shoot, maybe I will get a third one, 300 Blackout in FDE.

 

Then the statement on the part of yourself, is ultimately an open acknowledgement of the fact that firearm-related restrictions simply do not work.

The effectiveness of the prohibition was reviewed when it was time for sunsetting or renewal, and it was determined the prohibition made no measurable difference and was not worthwhile renewing.

 

Since the list of firearms that would and would not be prohibited are basely entirely on cosmetic features, rather than on the functionality or overall design of the firearm, the list is not specific nor individual. Rather it is nothing more than a catchall to try and prohibit the legal ownership of as many types of firearms as possible.