How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

That is pure speculation on your part. The guy killed 80 in France with his vehicle, and countless more injured. Guns have not ever reached that level from a lone shooter.

If a person is hellbent on destruction, there is more than one way to skin that cat. If magically, guns disappeared tomorrow, the notion of a nutjob wanting to be infamous for a mass murder-suicide would not end. They could get in their car and accomplish the exact same thing or perhaps even worse if they plan carefully, and one could just as easily argue that doing so is easier than being on foot with a gun.

To solve the problem you need to eliminate the nutjob. You can never eliminate all the options they have to create mayhem. There are not any easy answers to this problem. To pretend like this is all about gun control or lack thereof is to ignore the true problem.

 

Read "Irrelevant argument 5".

I have no idea what two rifles we're talking about, but then we need to ban BOTH. If we err, let's err on the side of saving lives.

Wow! 3% That's a LOT of people who could be alive today. Including many many children who had done nothing but .... just go to school.

I don't give a crap about the margin of error. I just want to save lives.

 

I have a perfect solution to enact your thread title.....

Move yourself to a country where they also hate people having certain rights and they have already banned guns. Problem solved.

Leave your authoritarian fascist tendencies away from other people's rights

 

Even the Black Panthers are more up to speed than you on what are civil rights Gun rights are civil rights | libcom.org

 

See "Irrelevant argument 2" That says it all. It's harder to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time with a car than it is with a gun. Cars are not designed to kill people. Firearms ARE. That is the one and ONLY purpose for which they were designed. There is no speculation whatsoever involved in that.

 

For a second there I thought you had some serious argument. Obviously not.

 

Short amount of time? Huh. Why does length of time matter? Even if it did, it is reported this last shooter was in there for an hour. The guy driving down the parkway in France did so in a couple minutes tops. I am not sure though why time is supposed to matter regardless.

The biggest mass killing by a lone assailant was with a vehicle. It is not even close. Just because you summarily declare that a gun is more efficient does not make it so. The facts tell a different story, regardless if you make a fancy bolded title that calls it irrelevant. You have not proven your point. Not by a long shot.

 

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes.
The judges do not agree with your claims.

 

Because more people can run away and save their life. Isn't that obvious?

The purpose of my proposal is not to make it harder for THIS shooter. He's already dead! The purpose is to make it harder for FUTURE shooters.

My proposal is a package of measures. Some will work in some cases, others in other cases... Which should have been obvious. For example, the "time" constrain might have no bearing in this case (maybe), but the AGE constraint might have made it more difficult. Who knows.. pure speculation. But ALL these measures WOULD make mass shooting more difficult. Not eliminate them all. But make them much more rare and/or reduce the number of victims per episode.

Was that all you had.... cherry-pick ONE of the proposals and then cherry pick ONE mass shooting instance to try to make your case?

Won't work!

 

Exactly. It's not the 2nd A. It was Scalia and his partisan collogues playing lawmakers. And, as what is about to happen to Roe v Wade demonstrates, it's much easier to overturn a Supreme Court decision (especially one as poorly reasoned as Heller), than it is to overturn an Amendment.

 

As I recall the largest ever mass murder at a school occurred a few decades ago with dynamite.

 

Yes, people took it to far. That is nothing new. Everything in moderation. However too little can hurt just as much as too much. We are seeing the effects of children not being disciplined properly.

 

You cannot run away if you are not looking and the vehicle is traveling 60 mph, which is what happened in France. Or perhaps the vehicle suddenly jumps a curb and mows down a large crowd of people before they had the slightest idea of what happened. Isn't that obvious?



Why then are the most people killed by a lone assailant from a vehicle versus a gun? Isn't that obvious?

Do you not care about facts? Are you proposing that we ignore that more have been killed in a single attack from a vehicle vs a gun, and instead just take your word that a gun is easier because you said so, and then asked "isn't that obvious"?

A gun being more efficient certainly was not obvious to the victims in France. Most people spend far more time practicing controlling a vehicle than they do with a gun. A vehicle is second nature to most drivers. A gun frequently jams. Cars not so much.

I approached you to refute the above topic only. I find it far more productive to stick to one narrowly defined topic at a time.

 

Such an argument is being put forth because regulating guns is worthless. The core issues are still there. Address those. Additionally less than .001% of guns are ever used in a crime. And FAR less are used in mass shootings. The statistics simply do not call for regulating guns to the point that people like you want.

 

If we take Brown v Board of Education in 1954 as the opening shot of the Warren Court's liberal majority, it took over fifty years to change the SCOTUS's direction. I doubt the current conservative court will be any less durable.
The 2A is exactly whatever the judges say it is.

 

-Because that's what's wrong with America, left and right battling each other, forcing one way on the other.

-AmeriCANs are convinced (did you notice your self contradiction here) that it's past time to do something about gun violence, they are not at all on the same page what that should be.

-I think that is a good place to begin. The second sentence is not true.

-Gun ban's or confiscation is the least of my worries.

-Now you're running off the rails again. Yes, the NRA has lost it's way. No, penalizing manufacturer's and retailers, that are abiding the law, is one of the things gun people oppose.

-Though the Second Amendment is poorly worded, it clearly makes gun ownership a Constitutional right. Maybe not as all encompassing as the gun lobby wants to believe, but it IS an American right. It's been held up by the Supreme Court several times. I agree the wording needs to be clarified, but gun ownership is protected by the Constitution.

 

Of course you can. Look at the videos. Not only CAN they.... many DID!

But what the hell does that have to do with this thread? Read "Irrelevant argument 2"

I knew I should have included this in the "Irrelevant argument" section but... read the part in bold at the top of the OP.

If you want to talk about people being killed by car, and you have suggestions on how to reduce the number of instances and/or the number of victims.... open your own thread! THIS thread is about how to reduce the number of instances and/or the number of victims with GUNS!

What part is so difficult to understand?

Well, the reason you failed to do that is because this thread is not about cars. But you might have better luck if you start a thread about mass killings with cars. We won't know unless you try.

 

There is always an excuse as to why MORE gun control is needed. Always.

As far is the increase prove that it was because of guns. You can't. Even for many years afterwards there was no increase, indeed there was still a steady decline. And then we hit the decade of idiocy.

My brother has an old .22lr that my dad got when he was in his teens. "eventually" involves decades. And you're assuming people are too stupid to fix them. Pretty much every part of a gun can be fixed with things you can find in a common hardware store.

All of them right? After all, even the weakest bullet can kill a cop.

No, you want to ban all guns. You've said so before. This is just a step. Either way though...it doesn't make mass shootings more difficult. California has bans on "high capacity magazines" and guess what...they still have more mass shootings than my state.

Your "irrelevant argument 5" is in relation to the 2nd Amendment. This had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Something which I purposefully pointed out.

Why? The chance of you getting shot with a gun is less than .001% in the US in relation to how many guns or gun owners there are.

So all of them. More difficult? Nah..you just want a complete ban. NO.

Of course you think addressing the "gun issue" is a priority. Your irrational fear of guns makes it to where you are incapable of thinking anything else could solve the problem.

Noticed that you couldn't address all the points I made. Just proof that your OP is indefensible.

 

Bold: Its arguments like this that makes trying to ban guns a non-starter also.

Doesn't matter what percent of American's "support" UBC's. The Federal government only has jurisdiction on a federal level. They do not have jurisdiction on an intrastate level. As such they cannot mandate UBC's.

 

They were used Tuesday. And many children would be alive today if they hadn't. They were used also in El Paso, Las Vegas, Parkland, ... A LOT of people would be alive today. And the only reason anybody would try to view it as a matter of "percentage" is that they couldn't care less about the dead. Sick!

 

Yeah, he doesn't care. As obvious by the fact that he considers a part of the Constitution an "irrelevant argument".

 

The 2nd A is what the 2nd A is. And Scalia's legislation is what Scalia's legislation is. Bottom line: there is NO constitutional issue involved in gun control. So we can keep on going trying to save lives. You can try "judges decision" as your excuse for all the dead, but NOT 2nd Amendment.

 

@Golem If you ban the ammunition for assault rifles, you will also be banning the ammunition for many bolt action rifles, rendering them useless.

What specifically is an “assault” rifle?

 

As you wish. Our disagreement about Scalia is broader. I have to say that your claim that there is no constitutional issue involved in gun control strikes me as a startlingly irrational rant.

 

What the hell does that have to do with any of this? Who gives a crap?

Most are in agreement with what I propose on the OP, as po

Why would they oppose that? I mean, I take medications when I need them because I'm sick. That doesn't mean I am not in favor of holding drug manufacturers accountable when they act irresponsibly. You seem to view gun ownership as a "cult". it's not!

The 2nd Amendment is PERFECTLY worded. It states exactly, unequivocally and succinctly what the framers intended. In the ONLY way that could be perfectly understood by any English speaker of the time with an average level of education. Your assumption that our founding fathers were too stupid to word an amendment properly is sorely misguided. And the 2nd Aa does NOT, in any way, address gun ownership. Read "Irrelevant Argument 5". Follow the link included.