More mass shootings

[millertime24 8]

A compromise I would be willing to make is no bump fire stocks as long as I can buy a suppressor as easily as I can a rifle.

Muff #5048

[normiss 848]

NRA now says feds should review whether bump stocks are even legal, and they "should be subject to *additional* regulations."

[rushmc 23]

mrubin

***I will ask you this same question since no one else will answer

Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

Only firearms with the technology known prior to December 15, 1791 can be owned by the public.

That would have prevented this shooting. But that is not what the pro gun control crowd is arguing needs to be done. You say that you will listen to ideas but then totally ignore what others are saying. The only way that there can be real improvement is for both sides to stop yelling at each other and work together to find a compromise.

They need to be practical offers which yours is not and has already been addressed in the courts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

normiss

NRA now says feds should review whether bump stocks are even legal, and they "should be subject to *additional* regulations."

this is fine

the bump stock was ATF approved in 2010

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,064]

>Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

A law that reduces maximum magazine capacity would have reduced the number of deaths, by reducing his maximum rate of fire.

(now ready, set - disparage!)

[normiss 848]

Glad you agree.
Abortion used to be illegal too.
Things change.

Hopefully the attachment and/or use of these devices WILL be illegal and hopefully enforced. 10 years for most weapons violations sounds fair to me.
Beats hell out of giving your life for it, unintentionally.

RESPONSIBLE gun ownership should be exactly what it means.

[millertime24 8]

billvon

>Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

A law that reduces maximum magazine capacity would have reduced the number of deaths, by reducing his maximum rate of fire.

(now ready, set - disparage!)

What should the max mag capacity be? And on what are you basing that train of thought?

Muff #5048

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

A law that reduces maximum magazine capacity would have reduced the number of deaths, by reducing his maximum rate of fire.

(now ready, set - disparage!)

Your guess and many would argue with you.

But then we can't all be as sarcastic and a smart as you think yourself to be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,064]

>What should the max mag capacity be?

5

>And on what are you basing that train of thought?

On a recent study by Boston University:

"Whether a state has a large capacity ammunition magazine ban is the single best predictor of the mass shooting rate in that state" - Michael Siegel, BU professor.

States with magazine capacity limits have a 63% lower rate of mass shootings.

[billvon 3,064]

rushmc

***>Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

A law that reduces maximum magazine capacity would have reduced the number of deaths, by reducing his maximum rate of fire.

(now ready, set - disparage!)

. . . .we can't all be as sarcastic and a smart as you think yourself to be
A perfect RushMC post. Say you are willing to listen, have someone tell you something, then ignore it.

[rushmc 23]

normiss

Glad you agree.
Abortion used to be illegal too.
Things change.

Hopefully the attachment and/or use of these devices WILL be illegal and hopefully enforced. 10 years for most weapons violations sounds fair to me.
Beats hell out of giving your life for it, unintentionally.

RESPONSIBLE gun ownership should be exactly what it means.

I agreed to it being reviewed. That's all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[millertime24 8]

billvon

>What should the max mag capacity be?

5

>And on what are you basing that train of thought?

On a recent study by Boston University:

"Whether a state has a large capacity ammunition magazine ban is the single best predictor of the mass shooting rate in that state" - Michael Siegel, BU professor.

States with magazine capacity limits have a 63% lower rate of mass shootings.

Ok. Going with that, if said mag limit restriction were placed, what do you do about the millions of mags with a capacity higher than 5 (Many lever-action rifles have a tubular magazine under the barrel with a higher capacity than 5 rounds)?

Also, when you say 5, do you mean 5 rounds in the gun total or a limit of 5 rounds in the magazine?

Muff #5048

[billvon 3,064]

>Ok. Going with that, if said mag limit restriction were placed, what do you do about the
>millions of mags with a capacity higher than 5 . . .

No new sales, no use in public, no transport in public. Over time the prevalence of them will decrease.

>Also, when you say 5, do you mean 5 rounds in the gun total or a limit of 5 rounds in
>the magazine?

5 rounds in the magazine. If you want a different limit for total gun capacity (taking into account the most common capacities) fine with me.

[millertime24 8]

Quote

No new sales, no use in public, no transport in public. Over time the prevalence of them will decrease.

If I remember my history correctly it seems as this was similarly tried in the 18th constitutional amendment with something else. Then something in the future about a 21st amendment due to the ineffectiveness or un-enforceability of the 18th.

Muff #5048

[billvon 3,064]

>If I remember my history correctly it seems as this was similarly tried in the 18th
>constitutional amendment with something else.

Not quite. Prohibition banned all alcohol. We are not talking about banning all guns.

Today, some forms of alcohol are banned (can't have methanol in drinks) and other aspects are highly regulated (drinking age, labeling requirements, advertising aimed at kids, lots of warnings required, laws on when pilots can drink etc.) Seems to work. A similar model will work with guns.

[millertime24 8]

billvon

>If I remember my history correctly it seems as this was similarly tried in the 18th
>constitutional amendment with something else.

Not quite. Prohibition banned all alcohol. We are not talking about banning all guns.

Today, some forms of alcohol are banned (can't have methanol in drinks) and other aspects are highly regulated (drinking age, labeling requirements, advertising aimed at kids, lots of warnings required, laws on when pilots can drink etc.) Seems to work. A similar model will work with guns.

Agree to disagree I guess. You have your opinions on firearm restrictions, and I have mine. At least for now I can still buy all the toys I wish and manufacture as many hundreds of thousands of rounds I wish.

Muff #5048

[normiss 848]

And innocent people will continue to innocently die because of it.
Hopefully no one close to you.

[Bob_Church 7]

rushmc

I will ask you this same question since no one else will answer

Provide one of two new laws that would have prevented this shooting?

That's the problem. Should we do something to prevent this sort of thing? Sure. But what? And I'm not even talking about legalities or the second amendment. If they stopped making handguns today there are still enough for at least a couple each for everyone. The one thing that helped at one level was stop and frisk, so of course that was banned by the same people who want to be protected from guns.
After something like this happens we want to do something, but it's when we get into the "we have to do something, this is something, let's do it" mode that things just get more screwed up, not safer.

[millertime24 8]

normiss

And innocent people will continue to innocently die because of it.
Hopefully no one close to you.

Yes. I hope so as well. I hope nobody dies needlessly due to a mental illness, or through poor decision making.

BTW, why use "innocent" twice when referring to the same subject in a single sentence?

Muff #5048

[yoink 321]

rushmc

Problem ?

Yes

but you do not have it identified because of your emotional response to all of this.

Let's do this in small steps:

1) I would suggest that 11,000+ American citizens being killed by guns so far this year is a problem.

Would you agree with that, or not?


2) I believe that somehow curtailing access to and/or the abilities of firearms would probably reduce these 11,000 gun-related deaths.
After all, it would be pretty difficult for 11,000 people do die to guns if (to use a ridiculous example) there were no guns in existence...

Would you agree with that logic?


If we can't agree on those 2 points then there's not even any point in having a discussion about potential solutions. You have to agree on the problem before you start proposing solutions, after all.
You're trying to rush to the end - 'show me a solution so that I can debunk it!' But because the problem isn't clearly agreed it's easy for you to continually try and move the goalposts.

You've said you're willing to listen to ideas - how about contributing? It's easy just to say 'you're wrong' to everything. how about telling us what YOU think the problem is, and what your ideas are?

[yoink 321]

Bob_Church

After something like this happens we want to do something, but it's when we get into the "we have to do something, this is something, let's do it" mode that things just get more screwed up, not safer.

Couldn't agree more.

[yoink 321]

millertime24

***And innocent people will continue to innocently die because of it.
Hopefully no one close to you.

Yes. I hope so as well. I hope nobody dies needlessly due to a mental illness, or through poor decision making.

BTW, why use "innocent" twice when referring to the same subject in a single sentence?

they have mental illnesses and poor decision making in other first world Western countries. None of them seem to have this discussion multiple times a year.

[rushmc 23]

Bob_Church

After something like this happens we want to do something, but it's when we get into the "we have to do something, this is something, let's do it" mode that things just get more screwed up, not safer.

Yes
and there then becomes the distinctive paths.
Do something (even though it will not work it makes me feel good)

Or learn from the incident. But what it there to learn from someone who obviously does not think like the norm of the population!!??


Yoink likes to throw around the 11,000 number but breaking that number down defeats much of his point so, lets stay with the 11,000 gun deaths narrative.

Bill likes to besmirch anyone who would question or debate his (in his mind) good ideas. But then that is what any good liberal would do.

Bump shoot stocks are now the big thing.
I looked at them years ago and decided they are a novelty at best but I can see the damage they could/can do when accuracy is not needed.

The suppressors argument shows the lack of knowledge that those who afraid of guns have about the item.

And those cry why would anyone need 40+ guns?

People collect them like some collect coins and they are a good investment.


In the end, if we are to have a free society these kinds of incidents will happen. they can never be totally stopped. France has tried and they have more people shot in mass shooting that the US when compared correctly.


the number of guns owned in this country have climbed in large numbers for decades. yet there is no increase in gun murders. that would indicate that guns are NOT the issue.

So the debate should then move to, what is the issue......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Phil1111 1,149]

millertime24

***And innocent people will continue to innocently die because of it.
Hopefully no one close to you.

Yes. I hope so as well. I hope nobody dies needlessly due to a mental illness, or through poor decision making.

BTW, why use "innocent" twice when referring to the same subject in a single sentence?

I find it amusing to see a comment on English grammar and sentence structure. Following one where reference to unprecedented mass murder is described as "poor decision making".

Carry on.

[Phil1111 1,149]

rushmc

***NRA now says feds should review whether bump stocks are even legal, and they "should be subject to *additional* regulations."

this is fine

the bump stock was ATF approved in 2010

The ATF department of the US government never "approved" bump stocks. Legal council for the ATF decided that it was a firearm part. As such, ATF would not likely be successful in any action in the courts to restrict it, or its sale.

With reference to automatic weapons in the US the receiver is the restricted, regulated part. As its defined as the firearm.

Thats why you can buy M-16 kits via mail, unrestricted. Which is the automatic version of the Ar-15. They would include every part of the automatic weapon with the exception of the receiver. One part.