Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Daradon]

Number 1 Is a misnomer though. No one is asking for a gun ban. No one has ever asked for a gun ban. It's the NRA that whips up that sentiment. Canada has plenty of guns. We haven't banned all guns. So do a lot of other nations that handle them responsibly. All the GUN CONTROL side is asking for is simply that, rules which help control the sale and use of guns. And not even big rules at that. Small common sense ones.

I suppose some of the larger guns may get grandfathered out. Those may get banned. But that represents a statistically small proportion, and is probably a rule even many other gun users would have no problem with. Really, who needs assault rifles? But no person in the responsible debate about guns has asked for a gun ban. Maybe some super hippie types, but the left side or 'anti-gun' side for lack of a better term has never asked for a gun ban. That's all NRA nonsense used to whip up their supporters. 'Dere coming to take your guns! Derp!'

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Number 1 Is a misnomer though. No one is asking for a gun ban. No one has ever asked for a gun ban. It's the NRA that whips up that sentiment. Canada has plenty of guns. We haven't banned all guns. So do a lot of other nations that handle them responsibly. All the GUN CONTROL side is asking for is simply that, rules which help control the sale and use of guns. And not even big rules at that. Small common sense ones.

I suppose some of the larger guns may get grandfathered out. Those may get banned. But that represents a statistically small proportion, and is probably a rule even many other gun users would have no problem with. Really, who needs assault rifles? But no person in the responsible debate about guns has asked for a gun ban. Maybe some super hippie types, but the left side or 'anti-gun' side for lack of a better term has never asked for a gun ban. That's all NRA nonsense used to whip up their supporters. 'Dere coming to take your guns! Derp!'

Not really, Out of the hundreds of people I know only 3 own a handgun(one of those has an old S&W relic and another is a cop) The US has over 300 million legal handguns, this is the problem and the only way to get most of them out of circulation is a ban(similar to Australia's and UK's) and the assault style rifles are such a joke they may as well be full automatic, 100 round mags are legal and as fast as you can "fan" the trigger it shoots, most people could shoot all 100 shots in under a minute.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by T@T

Not really, Out of the hundreds of people I know only 3 own a handgun(one of those has an old S&W relic and another is a cop) The US has over 300 million legal handguns, this is the problem and the only way to get most of them out of circulation is a ban(similar to Australia's and UK's) and the assault style rifles are such a joke they may as well be full automatic, 100 round mags are legal and as fast as you can "fan" the trigger it shoots, most people could shoot all 100 shots in under a minute.

The US clearly has the most guns and the most guns per capita. However, Canada does have a lot of guns: we are somewhere around 15th in the world per capita. Most of the weapons in Canada are rifles and shotguns used for hunting.

Gun ownership is part of the DNA of the USA. It's a staple of their origin story and has acheived a cultural status closely associated with 'freedom' and 'independence'. The UK and Australia (and Canada) don't share that cultural foundation. It's very easy for us to say it's ridiculous to have semi-automatic assault rifles since the only purpose they practically serve is to kill many people quickly...because it is ridiculous. But it's one of those deep-rooted flaws that every country has. Changing a nations mitochondria takes a lot of time.

[puffnstuff]

Was having a gun conversation with an American friend vacationing here. Talking about the 'right to bear arms' and the 'well regulated militia' language and he questioned what the authors of that language would think about the weapons of today and how the citizenry have somewhat perverted the meaning of the amendment.
If the founding fathers had been able to see into the future, would they have written it differently?

[troutman]

Newsweek Cover Story:

Americans Don't Have the Right to Bear Just Any Arms

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/b...rel=most_read1

Scalia clearly stated in Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” he wrote. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

In other words, even one of the modern era’s most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.

Proposed solution:

There is, however, a simple solution, a common-sense compromise that will infuriate both sets of extremists in the gun debate, but would place the United States on a saner path:

Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.

• Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
• Outlaw the public display of weapons.
• Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.
• Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.
• Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”
• Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

If the founding fathers had been able to see into the future, would they have written it differently?

No, because it was written with the intention that it was fluid and could change over time while adapting to new principals. That's what amendment means. Many American's seem to not realize this, and think the Constitution is written in stone as some sort of religious text.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by T@T

Not really, Out of the hundreds of people I know only 3 own a handgun(one of those has an old S&W relic and another is a cop) The US has over 300 million legal handguns, this is the problem and the only way to get most of them out of circulation is a ban(similar to Australia's and UK's) and the assault style rifles are such a joke they may as well be full automatic, 100 round mags are legal and as fast as you can "fan" the trigger it shoots, most people could shoot all 100 shots in under a minute.

Meh, an automatic weapon is inferior to a semi-auto weapon, especially when it comes to targeting.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by T@T

the assault style rifles are such a joke they may as well be full automatic, 100 round mags are legal and as fast as you can "fan" the trigger it shoots, most people could shoot all 100 shots in under a minute.

What is an assault style rifle? I assume you're talking about a semi-auto rifle that is black or FDE in color, made of metal and polymer, has a pistol grip and a removable magazine?

Even though it is 100% identical in function to a semi-auto that has a wooden stock, no pistol grip and is used for hunting in Canada?

If they were pulled of the restricted list, there are a ton of people who would use an AR to hunt in Canada. Affordable, easy to maintain, light, reliable and accurate. Everything you want in a hunting rifle. They are only restricted by name since someone decided it looks scary.

The term "assault rifle" means one thing, but the gun control groups have perverted the meaning in order to scare people and make something into something it's not.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

What is an assault style rifle? I assume you're talking about a semi-auto rifle that is black or FDE in color, made of metal and polymer, has a pistol grip and a removable magazine?

Even though it is 100% identical in function to a semi-auto that has a wooden stock, no pistol grip and is used for hunting in Canada?

If they were pulled of the restricted list, there are a ton of people who would use an AR to hunt in Canada. Affordable, easy to maintain, light, reliable and accurate. Everything you want in a hunting rifle. They are only restricted by name since someone decided it looks scary.

The term "assault rifle" means one thing, but the gun control groups have perverted the meaning in order to scare people and make something into something it's not.

So it's not a weapon made to kill things from a distance?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So it's not a weapon made to kill things from a distance?

A semi-auto rifle is not an assault rifle, no matter what accessories you slap onto it, despite what many people would like you to believe.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

A semi-auto rifle is not an assault rifle, no matter what accessories you slap onto it, despite what many people would like you to believe.

But it's still a weapon made to kill things from a distance, yes?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MattyC

No, because it was written with the intention that it was fluid and could change over time while adapting to new principals. That's what amendment means. Many American's seem to not realize this, and think the Constitution is written in stone as some sort of religious text.

Which is ridiculous, because it's actually called an AMMENDMENT. The whole meaning of the word is changed around in their head. As you said, they interpret it as akin to one of the Ten Commandments. Maybe the US public needs an english lesson more than they need gun control.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

A semi-auto rifle is not an assault rifle, no matter what accessories you slap onto it, despite what many people would like you to believe.

A semi-auto rifle:

Spoiler!

An "assault rifle"

Spoiler!

You can argue what they are called or what they can do or what the gun control groups have tricked us all into believing because we are too stupid to know otherwise, but the picture doesn't lie.

Besides rate of fire, what is the different between the two rifles?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

A semi-auto rifle:

Spoiler!

An "assault rifle"

Spoiler!

You can argue what they are called or what they can do or what the gun control groups have tricked us all into believing because we are too stupid to know otherwise, but the picture doesn't lie.

Besides rate of fire, what is the different between the two rifles?

Select fire ability is the defining trait between the two and is what makes the second one an assault rifle. Without a select fire trigger pack, the first rifle will never be an assault rifle.

The correct definition of an assault rifle has NOTHING to do with accessories, color or appearance. But people decided that if it looks "scary", its an assault rifle, even though there is no difference in function from something that is made from wood and doesn't have a pistol grip or threaded barrel.

And as a side note, the second one is impossible to get legally in the US for the vast majority of people and it's prohibited in Canada.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Select fire ability is the defining trait between the two and is what makes the second one an assault rifle. Without a select fire trigger pack, the first rifle will never be an assault rifle.

The correct definition of an assault rifle has NOTHING to do with accessories, color or appearance. But people decided that if it looks "scary", its an assault rifle, even though there is no difference in function from something that is made from wood and doesn't have a pistol grip or threaded barrel.

And as a side note, the second one is impossible to get legally in the US for the vast majority of people and it's prohibited in Canada.

For the record, I like guns and I don't want a ban either in Canada or the USA.

However, you are arguing such a minutiae detail that it isn't even worth arguing. Both of these guns are extremely dangerous, and it should be equally has hard to obtain the first one as it is the 2nd one. The only difference between the two rifles is the rate of fire. Mind you, a semi-auto still has an extremely high rate of fire so it may as well be an assault rifle, despite the fact that it isn't. Surely, you must see the common sense here.

Americans are being gunned down at a rate that is mind-blowing. Being the most powerful democracy in the world, you would assume they would have figured out public safety by now. People need to stop arguing over their "rights" and look at the bigger picture. For Pete's sake, the original constitution was amended, it can be amended again to save lives.

Yes, I know that criminals don't follow the law. But the culture of guns, or rather the cult of guns, needs to be changed in order for anything to happen. And it starts by amending the amendment.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Select fire ability is the defining trait between the two and is what makes the second one an assault rifle. Without a select fire trigger pack, the first rifle will never be an assault rifle.

The correct definition of an assault rifle has NOTHING to do with accessories, color or appearance. But people decided that if it looks "scary", its an assault rifle, even though there is no difference in function from something that is made from wood and doesn't have a pistol grip or threaded barrel.

I thought you said there were no accessories that could make it an assault rifle.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

For the record, I like guns and I don't want a ban either in Canada or the USA.

However, you are arguing such a minutiae detail that it isn't even worth arguing. Both of these guns are extremely dangerous, and it should be equally has hard to obtain the first one as it is the 2nd one. The only difference between the two rifles is the rate of fire. Mind you, a semi-auto still has an extremely high rate of fire so it may as well be an assault rifle, despite the fact that it isn't. Surely, you must see the common sense here.

If you want the first to be as hard to get as the second, then you must support a measure that would make it just as impossible to get any semi-auto as it is to get a full auto?

What has happened is the US with defining and assault rifle by a meaningless feature is outright deceit in order to push an agenda. These measures should be sold to the public on facts, not fear mongering and lies.

Originally Posted by MattyC

I thought you said there were no accessories that could make it an assault rifle.

I think you need to understand what an accessory is.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If you want the first to be as hard to get as the second, then you must support a measure that would make it just as impossible to get any semi-auto as it is to get a full auto?

What has happened is the US with defining and assault rifle by a meaningless feature is outright deceit in order to push an agenda. These measures should be sold to the public on facts, not fear mongering and lies.

Fear mongering and lies like the idea that you need to hold onto your guns to overthrow tyranny?

Look I hunt, enjoy hunting and love eating wild meat. If you need more than one bullet to put something down you should be going home. If you want a single shot rifle or shot gun to do some hunting, have at er.

I think you need to understand what an accessory is.

Something that can be added to the gun to modify it in some way? I have no idea what the select trigger pack is, but on a quick google, it looks like something you add to a gun to modify it.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If you want the first to be as hard to get as the second, then you must support a measure that would make it just as impossible to get any semi-auto as it is to get a full auto?

What has happened is the US with defining and assault rifle by a meaningless feature is outright deceit in order to push an agenda. These measures should be sold to the public on facts, not fear mongering and lies.



I think you need to understand what an accessory is.

You are so concerned about the definition of assault vs non-assault rifle that you miss the entire point. I know what the difference is. I'm saying it doesn't matter what the difference is. It's not fear mongering. America has a huge problem with gun violence, that is a fact. The non-assault rifle, AR-15 is a major contributor to the gun culture here, ere go, the gun violence.

What needs to happen to solve America's gun violence problem, that is the real question. Not what different guns are classified as.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If you want the first to be as hard to get as the second, then you must support a measure that would make it just as impossible to get any semi-auto as it is to get a full auto?

What has happened is the US with defining and assault rifle by a meaningless feature is outright deceit in order to push an agenda. These measures should be sold to the public on facts, not fear mongering and lies.

If we're going to start worrying about stating facts and not using fear mongering and lies, the pro-NRA side should probably be the ones you look at first, they're the ones far and away using fearmongering and scare tactics to convince people to vote on their side.

Also the only reason that common-sense gun laws aren't enacted is not because the public doesn't support them. They don't get passed because gun manufacturers and the NRA are lining the pockets of legislators who then vote in their favor.

Then when a politician with half a brain starts suggesting basic things like universal background checks, the NRA gets Fox News to tell their viewers that THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY even though that's not what's happening at all.

If we're going to talk "fear mongering" you really need to look at your side of the issue way before you start splitting hairs over what's an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.