Those laws provided a killer with easy targets. How much easier would you like to make it for murderers?
You've been so busy frothing at the mouth with this thread combatting what you choose as anti guns stance that you have lost any sense of humour.
Touchy touchy. You guys are really worried you'll lose your bang bangs. The anti gun movement must be becoming effective over there. Chill guys.
When I pose questions like the following, What makes a semi auto action more lethal than any other? What Distinguishes a Military Style firearm over any other? What makes a Military Style fire arm more lethal than any other? And no one provides an answer, logic, or substantiates such assertions I tells me people are making such statements out of ignorance and are parroting continually repeated dogma that is propagated and represented as facts, facts that are considered facts by virtue of being represented as such by sheer volume of repetition and no other objective, scientific, or definitive criteria. It’s just because somebody said so...
Stamp your feet long enough you might get a reply from those that use the term "military style". As I see it, pro gunners use tge constitution /2nd as their "cast in stone" justifucation for baring arms of all sorts-forever. What they dont realise is-nothing lasts forever...ask Hitler, Hussein Also pro gunners place all people other than their own fanatics in the one basket. It matters not if one is not anti guns but anti semi autos. No recognition for being reasonable at all. All because they dont want their toys taken off them.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the 2A, strict scrutiny, and issues of restriction, why should an a firearm be restricted or banned if basic questions cannot be answered that provide something that passes the Red Face test beyond the ‘just because’ reasoning.
Neigther you nor anyone else has answered my simple questions. This post of yours not much different than saying something needs to be done...let’s pass a law to make us feel better, emotion over logic... BTW, both my girls are crack shots, better than me, have been since their early teens, have their own collections (though one fancies pink), both licensed to carry, and both well trained in martial arts. Both are now married, one to a police office, and, like lion fish, are pretty to look at until you try to put your hands on one without permission. I don’t wish any child harmed, I helped mine acquire life skills that reduce that possibility when I can’t be there. Regardless, still would like to be educated on the questions I asked.
There is something wrong with your views. Just because you ask questions doesn't mean people are compelled to answer them. If you treated your questions like, well if they get answered that's a bonus but if they choose not to that's for them to decide. Isn't your "freedom of speech" likened to "freedom of choosing to answer? I don't know what the answers are to your questions. I don't have the advantage of living in the USA and that poses many problems as to answer question pertaining to the issues you raise. I do know enough information on, for example, the sadness of mass shootings and that we as a world of humane attitudes need to address it, whatever that might mean, and I am free to speak here as it is an international forum, but insisting people answer you isn't along the lines of being fair and reasonable. If you really need answers and you are not getting them here- find another source. As for your daughter, I would be proud of them also as you have displayed. And in the US as that environment has proven, self defense and gun operational know how would be important, I have never been anti all guns- a point that seems to elude many posters here. So well done. As for "emotions over logic" to pass laws, there is little other answer to the gun (sorry- semi auto and more lethal rat-a-tat weapons) issue. Lets be hypothetical shall we? - Suddenly just like DNA came about with obtaining such at crime scenes that shocked all of us in particular criminals that suddenly found themselves charged with offences they thought they'd never get caught, say a new ability came about for scientists to determine at birth whether someone would likely grow up easily developing into a mass shooter. We already have determined now drug addiction as some holding a certain number of characteristics that cause them to be more likely to be addicts. Now if that happened tomorrow, the slow process of law change/moral determinations etc that would be required to change society to limit the availability of semi auto guns in the hands of such people would take 30 years. Then there is the possibility of the black market and so on. So part of the answer has to be the withdrawal of semi automatic guns from society, however long that will take. How that is accomplished or whether it could be is not up for debate by me. Those suggesting it cannot be done (therefore why do it) do not know if it can or cant be done- it hasn't been tried! The lunacy of allowing semi auto guns and magazines holding many rounds of any gun in a sane society is, for me, a ridiculous situation. Many pro gun people are worried about- "when they take our semi auto's off us what will be the next step" and that is actually fair enough in a place where for 250 years you could possess any gun at all. So the politicians have their work cut out for them not only against their cash strapped NRA mob but wording the amendments of other ways to reduce the semi numbers. However, that wasn't the drive for this thread. The drive is to highlight that if you really cared about humans in general, and recognized the carnage has to stop, then pro gunners would and could work with people instead of standing their ground defiantly 100%. Society, no society runs effectively with zero flexibility on any one issue. The same goes for the snowflakes on the left- must show flexibility. The real problem here on a forum when someone like myself raises an issue with good intent is- neither the pro gunners or the left see anyone standing in the middle suggesting a middle ground answer to the killings issue. Both extreme sides see anything other than their radical extreme views as not "one of them". So while that dumb stubborn stance prevails there is actually no hope. That's why my first post says "some don't get it! " actually should have read "both extremes don't get it"!
Regardless of one's ideological stance, how is it possible for someone to disagree with the above? Well put, Sir. Thank you.
Hmm struck a cord, eh? I do believe there are many that are genuine in their desire to prevent violence. But often their view are shaped by an intersection of wanting to advocate for the right thing, but are frustrated with what that might mean. In the US, those views are more often than not shaped by the massive repetition and super hyping of tradgedies from the left to support a narrative that the answer lies in gun laws and/or removing guns from the population (often viewed as those of the right). Concealed by many of the leaders of the left, among the appeals to emotion, deceptive rhetoric, and propaganda tactics to vilify gun owners are objectives of power and pushing a collective philosophy. Because the collaboration of the mainstream media, the vilification of anything gun, and continual attempts to associate gun ownership (political opposition) with criminal behavior in the minds of the population has been repeated so much that their narratives are presented as fact (unsubstantiated) where anyone expressing differences of opinion is automatically labeled as tainted in morals. What they understand are the huge numbers of people that are ignorant about firearms, get their knowledge from a misleading media and the unreal representations of Hollywood, and are therefore vulnerable to believe anything about guns that is repeated enough, despite not being factual. To create more confusion, terms like ‘fully automatic’ were introduced, a nonsense term deliberately used to confuse semi auto with fully auto (already restricted). Thus, AR15’s have magical deadly high power military ammo, despite the round they mostly refer to the 5.56/.223 Was derived from the .224 round in the early 60’s that was considered suitable only for small varmits and is disallowed for deer size game in virtually every state as being in humane for medium and larger game. As for what constitutes a military weapon, most cannot establish criteria that makes a gun a military style weapon so, as they did in the assault weapon ban, they described it by a gun having certain cosmetic features and came up with a list of specific models to be banned. Interestingly, the AR15, was erroneously, but deliberately labeled a military grade weapon, not because the military every used it (they didn’t) but because it resembles the M16/M4 the military uses. Interestingly enough, on one hand the Ruger mini 14, identical in chambering and action as the AR15 but having a wood stock was not banned, but the Ruger 10/22 in .22 lr suitable for squirrels/rabbits with an aftermarket plastic stock resembling an AR configuration was. As more and more people were informed that guns like the civilian guns resembling AKs and AR weren’t full auto but semi auto, the narrative shifted, and the new daemon was semi auto which referred to a gun’s action, but still deliberately creating a confusion among the unknowlegeable. They did that in part to cast a wider net on which guns were bad, hoping that with the proper deception, they could get legislation passed that would restrict or ban the semi auto action, which now, would include the majority of handguns and a massive chunk of guns used for hunting. Interestingly, there are gun action designs that are nearly, if not as fast as semi auto actions. The Lee Enfield of WWI-WWII is so quick and smooth that enemy units often thought they were facing matching guns (see the mad minute on You Tube). The same can be said of other designs like straight pull actions used by the Swiss and others, pump actions (many rifles also use that action), and even guns with double action designs. I could go one with the huge numbers of myths and deliberate deceptions, but a few should suffice. One thing that rarely gets press, is how many lives are saved by firearms. Any mention of it is discounted the left. Yet lives are saved... mine has been twice and several others posting here have shared their stories. So, consider, my questions weren’t necessarily directed or meant to be trick for you, but cast to see if any GCAs would respond...still would like to see that. Just as a Finn posting here has questions, I don’t expect someone not from the US, not fairly well educated in firearm history and design, or US history for that matter to understand. People fall victim to violence for a complex relationship of variables, among which are cultural differences, wealth related mental health related, hate, etc. Remove guns, and there are bombs, arson, vehicles, planes, ... the limitation is the sick mind. The sick mind being out there is why I carry...has worked for me 100% of the time, and those I protected when I did. Will it always? Maybe, maybe not, but I want the freedom to choose.
"Maybe, maybe not, but I want the freedom to choose" Quite a remarkable reply. I'm more than grateful. Had trouble quoting it for some reason. The education you provided above far outweighed all previous interactions. I still have the same resolve just the detail is different and on such a serious topic I'll go away and contemplate it all. Probably the best way forward is for law enforcement agencies to enforce current laws. Better character screenings and school security. I appreciate your post.
That assumes that other nations don't have guns. I prefer a society where honest people can be armed-not one where the only armed people are criminals and the government.
Then disarm the police first because as long as they are armed, other people will be able to obtain firearms from that supply stream. As a 24 year veteran of the DOJ, I know that gun control laws are most likely to disarm the people LEAST likely to misuse firearms, and have almost no impact on those who already ignore laws that penalize serious crimes, such as murder
We have a Second Amendment and should have no need for, for-profit prisons under our form of Capitalism.
I agree. As much as I dislike gov running anything, prisons are different and should not be privatized, ever.
