Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[thegreekdog]

27 pages... so, sorry if I'm repeating or these questions have been answered.

(1) For those in favor of stricter gun control, what firearms should be banned, if any? Please keep in mind the very real, but ignored, distinction between different types of firearms. For example, the phrase "assault weapon" is getting thrown around a lot. What is an assault weapon? What is a semi-automatic weapon? Do you guys know how a semi-automatic weapon works?

(2) If no firearms should be banned, what additional restrictions should be in place, if any? Please keep in mind that the killer's mother purchased these firearms and her son obtained them illegally. In other cases, the firearms were purchased legally under less strict gun control rules, so that is not meant as a criticism; rather, just that there are many different ways to obtain firearms in the United States.

[Symmetry]

27 pages... so, sorry if I'm repeating or these questions have been answered.

(1) For those in favor of stricter gun control, what firearms should be banned, if any? Please keep in mind the very real, but ignored, distinction between different types of firearms. For example, the phrase "assault weapon" is getting thrown around a lot. What is an assault weapon? What is a semi-automatic weapon? Do you guys know how a semi-automatic weapon works?

(2) If no firearms should be banned, what additional restrictions should be in place, if any? Please keep in mind that the killer's mother purchased these firearms and her son obtained them illegally. In other cases, the firearms were purchased legally under less strict gun control rules, so that is not meant as a criticism; rather, just that there are many different ways to obtain firearms in the United States.

My personal take- guns designed for anything other than self-protection and/or hunting should be banned. There really is no purpose for an assault rifle beyond killing people, indeed a large number of people. I'm no big fan of other types of guns, but the culture about gun ownership really needs to change in the US. And that starts with the idea that gun owning doesn't need to be about kill or be killed.

[thegreekdog]

27 pages... so, sorry if I'm repeating or these questions have been answered.

(1) For those in favor of stricter gun control, what firearms should be banned, if any? Please keep in mind the very real, but ignored, distinction between different types of firearms. For example, the phrase "assault weapon" is getting thrown around a lot. What is an assault weapon? What is a semi-automatic weapon? Do you guys know how a semi-automatic weapon works?

(2) If no firearms should be banned, what additional restrictions should be in place, if any? Please keep in mind that the killer's mother purchased these firearms and her son obtained them illegally. In other cases, the firearms were purchased legally under less strict gun control rules, so that is not meant as a criticism; rather, just that there are many different ways to obtain firearms in the United States.

My personal take- guns designed for anything other than self-protection and/or hunting should be banned. There really is no purpose for an assault rifle beyond killing people, indeed a large number of people. I'm no big fan of other types of guns, but the culture about gun ownership really needs to change in the US. And that starts with the idea that gun owning doesn't need to be about kill or be killed.

Okay. I want to clarify a few things.

(1) An assult rifle is a fully automatic or "burst-capable" rifle. The common American version is an M-16.
(2) The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms tightly regulates the ownership of assault rifles and, in 1986, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act banned the manufacture of assault rifles for civilians. Legal civilian ownership of assault rifles is not permitted except for those weapons registered before 1986. Many states have outlaws civilian ownership of assault rifles.

Assault rifles aren't the problem, unless the killer has or had an assault rifle registered to someone else pre-1986 (which would mean he or she obtained the assault rifle illegally).

Therefore, it appears that United States law, as currently constituted, is exactly the position you are espousing. You want to ban assault rifles. They've been banned since 1986.

[Symmetry]

27 pages... so, sorry if I'm repeating or these questions have been answered.

(1) For those in favor of stricter gun control, what firearms should be banned, if any? Please keep in mind the very real, but ignored, distinction between different types of firearms. For example, the phrase "assault weapon" is getting thrown around a lot. What is an assault weapon? What is a semi-automatic weapon? Do you guys know how a semi-automatic weapon works?

(2) If no firearms should be banned, what additional restrictions should be in place, if any? Please keep in mind that the killer's mother purchased these firearms and her son obtained them illegally. In other cases, the firearms were purchased legally under less strict gun control rules, so that is not meant as a criticism; rather, just that there are many different ways to obtain firearms in the United States.

My personal take- guns designed for anything other than self-protection and/or hunting should be banned. There really is no purpose for an assault rifle beyond killing people, indeed a large number of people. I'm no big fan of other types of guns, but the culture about gun ownership really needs to change in the US. And that starts with the idea that gun owning doesn't need to be about kill or be killed.

Okay. I want to clarify a few things.

(1) An assult rifle is a fully automatic or "burst-capable" rifle. The common American version is an M-16.
(2) The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms tightly regulates the ownership of assault rifles and, in 1986, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act banned the manufacture of assault rifles for civilians. Legal civilian ownership of assault rifles is not permitted except for those weapons registered before 1986. Many states have outlaws civilian ownership of assault rifles.

Assault rifles aren't the problem, unless the killer has or had an assault rifle registered to someone else pre-1986 (which would mean he or she obtained the assault rifle illegally).

Therefore, it appears that United States law, as currently constituted, is exactly the position you are espousing. You want to ban assault rifles. They've been banned since 1986.

First google hit:

Assault rifles for sale

Or perhaps a look at the website of the gun manufacturer of the assault rifle used would be more in order?

http://www.bushmaster.com/index.asp

[thegreekdog]

27 pages... so, sorry if I'm repeating or these questions have been answered.

(1) For those in favor of stricter gun control, what firearms should be banned, if any? Please keep in mind the very real, but ignored, distinction between different types of firearms. For example, the phrase "assault weapon" is getting thrown around a lot. What is an assault weapon? What is a semi-automatic weapon? Do you guys know how a semi-automatic weapon works?

(2) If no firearms should be banned, what additional restrictions should be in place, if any? Please keep in mind that the killer's mother purchased these firearms and her son obtained them illegally. In other cases, the firearms were purchased legally under less strict gun control rules, so that is not meant as a criticism; rather, just that there are many different ways to obtain firearms in the United States.

My personal take- guns designed for anything other than self-protection and/or hunting should be banned. There really is no purpose for an assault rifle beyond killing people, indeed a large number of people. I'm no big fan of other types of guns, but the culture about gun ownership really needs to change in the US. And that starts with the idea that gun owning doesn't need to be about kill or be killed.

Okay. I want to clarify a few things.

(1) An assult rifle is a fully automatic or "burst-capable" rifle. The common American version is an M-16.
(2) The United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms tightly regulates the ownership of assault rifles and, in 1986, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act banned the manufacture of assault rifles for civilians. Legal civilian ownership of assault rifles is not permitted except for those weapons registered before 1986. Many states have outlaws civilian ownership of assault rifles.

Assault rifles aren't the problem, unless the killer has or had an assault rifle registered to someone else pre-1986 (which would mean he or she obtained the assault rifle illegally).

Therefore, it appears that United States law, as currently constituted, is exactly the position you are espousing. You want to ban assault rifles. They've been banned since 1986.

First google hit:

Assault rifles for sale

Or perhaps a look at the website of the gun manufacturer of the assault rifle used would be more in order?

http://www.bushmaster.com/index.asp

I can only assume you've already been to wikipedia. But in an effort to continue to entertain myself with your droll little persona...

United States Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008.[24] Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_ri ... ted_States

[Symmetry]

Oh dear, not only do I give you a site that explicitly sells assault rifles, I gave a clear source for the manufacturer of the assault rifle used.

Perhaps this would be more useful:

Five Assault Rifles You Can Pick up at Walmart [PHOTOS]

When Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, inexplicably bent on ending as many lives as possible, he was carrying a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle and several high-capacity magazines. Although it is not clear yet where the AR-15 used by Lanza (which was registered to his mother) was purchased, the model is familiar to many shoppers at Walmart. It’s on sale at about 1,700 Walmart stores nationwide (though the retail chain pulled the weapon from its website early this afternoon), along with other guns of questionable use for duck hunting. Which other assault weapons can shoppers pick up at their Walmart?

[thegreekdog]

Oh dear, not only do I give you a site that explicitly sells assault rifles, I gave a clear source for the manufacturer of the assault rifle used.

Perhaps this would be more useful:

Five Assault Rifles You Can Pick up at Walmart [PHOTOS]

I'm afraid you are confused as to the definitions of various weapons. I'm also afraid I'll have to call you out on it, since I specifically mentioned the common definitional confusions in my first post in this thread.

So, let's go back. What is the definition of an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a fully automatic or "burst-capable" rifle. The common American version is an M-16. This from wikipedia. These weapons are banned, as I indicated previously. This is not a question up for debate. Assault rifles, which are automatic weapons, are illegal in the United States.

Now let's look at the weapons that you linked to above... oh no! They are all semi-automatic weapons built to look like automatic weapons!

So, do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons? Do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons? Do you want to ban just some semi-automatic weapons?

To be fair to you, it is a common misconception as to what guns are and are not banned in the United States, especially when one sees pictures of scary looking guns that look like they could fire off 50 rounds a second, but, well, they really can't.

I hope this helps you understand the whole situation better.

[Symmetry]

Oh dear, not only do I give you a site that explicitly sells assault rifles, I gave a clear source for the manufacturer of the assault rifle used.

Perhaps this would be more useful:

Five Assault Rifles You Can Pick up at Walmart [PHOTOS]

I'm afraid you are confused as to the definitions of various weapons. I'm also afraid I'll have to call you out on it, since I specifically mentioned the common definitional confusions in my first post in this thread.

So, let's go back. What is the definition of an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a fully automatic or "burst-capable" rifle. The common American version is an M-16. This from wikipedia. These weapons are banned, as I indicated previously. This is not a question up for debate. Assault rifles, which are automatic weapons, are illegal in the United States.

Now let's look at the weapons that you linked to above... oh no! They are all semi-automatic weapons built to look like automatic weapons!

So, do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons? Do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons? Do you want to ban just some semi-automatic weapons?

To be fair to you, it is a common misconception as to what guns are and are not banned in the United States, especially when one sees pictures of scary looking guns that look like they could fire off 50 rounds a second, but, well, they really can't.

I hope this helps you understand the whole situation better.

Not really, when your purchase an Assault Rifle, like an AR15, which, as you previously stated with regard to military grade weaponry, is a military grade weapon, you're buying an assault rifle.

It is both widely available and marketed as an assault rifle.

I'm a little baffled as to why you think the totally legal assault rifle is already banned given that I've not only shown you that this is not the case, but that there is deep debate in the US as to whether such assault weapons should be banned.

If we're doing the wiki thing:

There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features, as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped "Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only". The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.

Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[22] these features became legal in most states.[23] Since the expiration of the ban the manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_States

[Metsfanmax]

So, do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons? Do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons? Do you want to ban just some semi-automatic weapons?

To be fair to you, it is a common misconception as to what guns are and are not banned in the United States, especially when one sees pictures of scary looking guns that look like they could fire off 50 rounds a second, but, well, they really can't.

It is confusing, but the incredible specificity of laws like the Assault Weapons Ban do not help. When you specify certain cosmetic or other changes that are illegal, manufacturers will inevitably find loopholes and start making legal versions of essentially the same weapon. This happened during the period when the AWB was active. It also makes the status of what weapons are banned rather obfuscated, since most civilians do not know the ins and outs of the firearm industry.

[thegreekdog]

Poor Symmetry...

Oh dear, not only do I give you a site that explicitly sells assault rifles, I gave a clear source for the manufacturer of the assault rifle used.

Perhaps this would be more useful:

Five Assault Rifles You Can Pick up at Walmart [PHOTOS]

I'm afraid you are confused as to the definitions of various weapons. I'm also afraid I'll have to call you out on it, since I specifically mentioned the common definitional confusions in my first post in this thread.

So, let's go back. What is the definition of an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a fully automatic or "burst-capable" rifle. The common American version is an M-16. This from wikipedia. These weapons are banned, as I indicated previously. This is not a question up for debate. Assault rifles, which are automatic weapons, are illegal in the United States.

Now let's look at the weapons that you linked to above... oh no! They are all semi-automatic weapons built to look like automatic weapons!

So, do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons? Do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons? Do you want to ban just some semi-automatic weapons?

To be fair to you, it is a common misconception as to what guns are and are not banned in the United States, especially when one sees pictures of scary looking guns that look like they could fire off 50 rounds a second, but, well, they really can't.

I hope this helps you understand the whole situation better.

Not really, when your purchase an Assault Rifle, like an AR15, which, as you previously stated with regard to military grade weaponry, is a military grade weapon, you're buying an assault rifle.

It is both widely available and marketed as an assault rifle.

So what is your definition of assault rifle? It appears it is very different than the actual definition of assault rifle. Are we now on "military grade weapons?" Is that what you wish to ban? Can you define military grade weapons for us?

I'm a little baffled as to why you think the totally legal assault rifle is already banned given that I've not only shown you that this is not the case, but that there is deep debate in the US as to whether such assault weapons should be banned.

Because the item you've pointed out is not an assault rifle. It is a totally legal semi-automatic rifle. You've shown me that a semi-automatic rifle is legally available for purchase.

This is not hard, Symmetry. There is a definition of assault rifle. That definition says that assault rifles are fully automatic. Assault rifles are illegal. All the weapons you've posted are not assault rifles because they are not fully automatic, they are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic rifles are legal.

So, I ask again, would you like to ban semi-automatic rifles? Would you like to ban semi-automatic weapons, including rifles and handguns? Would you like to ban semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons?

If we're doing the wiki thing:

There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features, as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped "Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only". The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.

Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[22] these features became legal in most states.[23] Since the expiration of the ban the manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_States

Yes? And? The terms "assault rifle" and "automatic" do not appear anywhere in that wikipedia post.

[thegreekdog]

So, do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons? Do you want to ban semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons? Do you want to ban just some semi-automatic weapons?

To be fair to you, it is a common misconception as to what guns are and are not banned in the United States, especially when one sees pictures of scary looking guns that look like they could fire off 50 rounds a second, but, well, they really can't.

It is confusing, but the incredible specificity of laws like the Assault Weapons Ban do not help. When you specify certain cosmetic or other changes that are illegal, manufacturers will inevitably find loopholes and start making legal versions of essentially the same weapon. This happened during the period when the AWB was active. It also makes the status of what weapons are banned rather obfuscated, since most civilians do not know the ins and outs of the firearm industry.

Agreed. The law was probably too specific (and was probably written that way purposefully).

For Symmetry's reference (and again from wikipedia), the Assault Weapons Ban was a ban on certain "assault weapons" which are defined as SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons that possess the COSMETIC features of an ASSAULT RIFLE (which are FULLY AUTOMATIC).

Also from wiki:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[6] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[7]

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[8]

[Lootifer]

So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?

I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.

Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.

[Lootifer]

27 pages... so, sorry if I'm repeating or these questions have been answered.

(1) For those in favor of stricter gun control, what firearms should be banned, if any? Please keep in mind the very real, but ignored, distinction between different types of firearms. For example, the phrase "assault weapon" is getting thrown around a lot. What is an assault weapon? What is a semi-automatic weapon? Do you guys know how a semi-automatic weapon works?

Any rifles that fit the following criteria:
- Have calibres in excess of .22 (e.g .308), and,
- Have magazines that hold more than 7-10 bullets

In addition unless someone from a hunting background can make a good argument; i'd ban all rifles with a pistol grip.

To me there is no requirement for anyone to own a rifle that acts like a handgun; handguns are more than sufficient for personal protection; and single shot or very limited magazine rifles are all that is needed for hunting game.

(2) If no firearms should be banned, what additional restrictions should be in place, if any? Please keep in mind that the killer's mother purchased these firearms and her son obtained them illegally. In other cases, the firearms were purchased legally under less strict gun control rules, so that is not meant as a criticism; rather, just that there are many different ways to obtain firearms in the United States.

Eh, to me gun control is very much a secondary issue when trying to eliminate mass killings. BUt I would support very tight controls on gun ownership (tight registrations, gun safe requirements, etc etc)

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Lookit, I'm all for guns for self-defense, but PS and NS et al, you're deluded if you think that owning some rifles and a handgun is gonna save you from the U.S. gov't. If some ridiculous scenario plays out as you say and the feds hammer down on you, you're gonna get shot down, plain and simple. Cops won't even ask questions, they'll shoot you and frame you. You live in a dream world.

-TG

If and when the government turns its weapons on its own citizens, even liberals may begin to rethink things. Of course many of them will cheer, "KILL EM! KILL EM' ALL! Damned flag-wavin' bible-thumpin' anti-labor, pro-"personal responsibility hillbillies!... KILL THEIR KIDS, TOO!"

But it couldn't continue for long. The nation would not survive it.

How many soldiers would continue to kill citizens before just quitting, or signing up with the opposition? How many military commanders would carry out orders to kill citizens... damned few I would guess.

If and when? It's happened before and it'll happen again (Kent State, Jackson State, etc.) The U.S. gov't will quash rebellions and then make empty apologies later. This idea that the second amendment will protect you against the gov't is silly. Lookit, if there's some event where it becomes necessary to start a rebellion and overthrow the gov't, then the slip of paper that gives you those rights by the enemy gov't is null.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" -Patrick Henry

Let's just remember that the revolutionaries were also delusional thinking they could defeat the most powerful nation on the earth in 1776. I have no concern over having to fight off anyone from the government, but no person should just ignore when the government repeatedly works to take away their Constitutional rights. Only the extreme few want to fight the government, but all people should be wary of a government that continually passes legislation to take away Constitutional rights. Why should people allow the government to take away every right and to control every facet of their lives? By that time, it would be better to be dead from defending one's rights than to be forced to live under a tyrannical government that dictates your every action. This country was founded by people who understood the value and right of self-protection, and no person should turn over that right to rely on the government to provide all the protection for an individual.

It's a different world; the gov't is more efficient and better informed. There is no way a large scale rebellion would ever achieve any success.

And that starts with the idea that gun owning doesn't need to be about kill or be killed.

It's nice that you live in a place where you've never come under threat. Unfortunately, it's not like that in other places.

-TG

[Night Strike]

Lookit, I'm all for guns for self-defense, but PS and NS et al, you're deluded if you think that owning some rifles and a handgun is gonna save you from the U.S. gov't. If some ridiculous scenario plays out as you say and the feds hammer down on you, you're gonna get shot down, plain and simple. Cops won't even ask questions, they'll shoot you and frame you. You live in a dream world.

-TG

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" -Patrick Henry

Let's just remember that the revolutionaries were also delusional thinking they could defeat the most powerful nation on the earth in 1776. I have no concern over having to fight off anyone from the government, but no person should just ignore when the government repeatedly works to take away their Constitutional rights. Only the extreme few want to fight the government, but all people should be wary of a government that continually passes legislation to take away Constitutional rights. Why should people allow the government to take away every right and to control every facet of their lives? By that time, it would be better to be dead from defending one's rights than to be forced to live under a tyrannical government that dictates your every action. This country was founded by people who understood the value and right of self-protection, and no person should turn over that right to rely on the government to provide all the protection for an individual.

So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?

I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.

Not really, your argument was for gun ownership to protect people from the government. If you don't want to discuss that anymore, I can understand why. Let's not pretend that overthrowing a democratically elected government wasn't your big argument for owning guns though.

Isn't it ironic how the government works to take away rights? First they banned civilians from owning military-grade weapons (automatics, etc.). Then, because the guns civilians have would be ineffective against the government, the government goes ahead and takes away those guns as well. It's a sinister path of removing Constitutional rights from people that our government is eager to go down.

[thegreekdog]

27 pages... so, sorry if I'm repeating or these questions have been answered.

(1) For those in favor of stricter gun control, what firearms should be banned, if any? Please keep in mind the very real, but ignored, distinction between different types of firearms. For example, the phrase "assault weapon" is getting thrown around a lot. What is an assault weapon? What is a semi-automatic weapon? Do you guys know how a semi-automatic weapon works?

Any rifles that fit the following criteria:
- Have calibres in excess of .22 (e.g .308), and,
- Have magazines that hold more than 7-10 bullets

In addition unless someone from a hunting background can make a good argument; i'd ban all rifles with a pistol grip.

To me there is no requirement for anyone to own a rifle that acts like a handgun; handguns are more than sufficient for personal protection; and single shot or very limited magazine rifles are all that is needed for hunting game.

(2) If no firearms should be banned, what additional restrictions should be in place, if any? Please keep in mind that the killer's mother purchased these firearms and her son obtained them illegally. In other cases, the firearms were purchased legally under less strict gun control rules, so that is not meant as a criticism; rather, just that there are many different ways to obtain firearms in the United States.

Eh, to me gun control is very much a secondary issue when trying to eliminate mass killings. BUt I would support very tight controls on gun ownership (tight registrations, gun safe requirements, etc etc)

From a constitutional perspective, all of these items are problematic. But let's ignore the constitution (everyone else has... buh dum dum).

I would support, generally, tighter controls on gun ownership, including limits on numbers of guns and ammunition restrictions (although it would not fill me with happiness to support such tighter controls... government being what it is). I don't think having 25 guns is going to keep you better protected than having 5 guns. I also don't think having 20 bullets in a clip is going to keep you better protected than having 7 bullets (unless zombies).

[gordon1975]

do you really believe that there will ever be a time where your civilians will need these guns to overthrow your government? i think America is well past that stage now,is it really a right worth fighting for? if all guns there magically disappeared tomorrow.would you want them back?

[Phatscotty]

we don't need tighter controls. 1990-1999 there were 42 mass shootings. 2000-2009, there were only 26.

We are trending better, not worse

[Night Strike]

do you really believe that there will ever be a time where your civilians will need these guns to overthrow your government? i think America is well past that stage now,is it really a right worth fighting for? if all guns there magically disappeared tomorrow.would you want them back?

I doubt there will be a time to overthrow the US government, but that's mostly because there are too many people already who don't care about freedoms and want governmental controls on everything. But there will always be people who will break into homes and try to harm others, and every person has the right to protect themselves and their property. And people should have the ability to hunt animals for food or sport, so guns are necessary in that regard as well. And there are tons of people who would miss having guns, and there are a lot of people who would go hungry without guns as well.

[gordon1975]

do you really believe that there will ever be a time where your civilians will need these guns to overthrow your government? i think America is well past that stage now,is it really a right worth fighting for? if all guns there magically disappeared tomorrow.would you want them back?

I doubt there will be a time to overthrow the US government, but that's mostly because there are too many people already who don't care about freedoms and want governmental controls on everything. But there will always be people who will break into homes and try to harm others, and every person has the right to protect themselves and their property. And people should have the ability to hunt animals for food or sport, so guns are necessary in that regard as well. And there are tons of people who would miss having guns, and there are a lot of people who would go hungry without guns as well.

im not tying to be rude about it,where i live we have no or hardly any guns(terrible knife crime though) it just seems america has such an obsession with guns,its like your stuck in a catch 22,as in everyone is pretty scared of each other,it just fascinates me that someone would want something thats designed to kill someone,to an outsider its pretty crazy

[Phatscotty]

We aren't obsessed with guns, rather we know how precious that right is, and do everything possible to protect it. We know if we ever give up an inch, we will lose a mile, and NEVER get it back. And the second amendment isn't anything to play with, especially when it comes to only trying to make people feel better, and when the calls by the ignorant and irrational beg for laws that won't change a God damned thing.

Assault rifle have already been banned, and the truth is there were more mass shootings during the ban, and less mass shooting after the ban sunset under BWB. What's more, even Berkley University, Leftist of all Leftist institutions, found in their own study that banning assault rifles did not make any impact at all.

[Lootifer]

So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?

I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.

Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.

Quote to get a NS/PS answer.

[Phatscotty]

So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?

I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.

Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.

Quote to get a NS/PS answer.

If you are looking for an answer to Symmetry's question, all I can say is I don't willingly let myself get trolled

the whole thing barks up the wrong tree

[Night Strike]

So, if I'm getting this right, you're saying that you want guns so that people can overthrow the democratically elected government by sheer firepower?

I'm saying that people should be allowed to have guns for self-protection. Whether that protection is due to assault from a citizen criminal or the government is relatively moot.

Just a little thought experiment. How would you feel about the 2nd amendment being changed to this instead:
- You have a right to bear arms in respect to personal protection from criminal activity (you can word it however you like)
- Some allowance for sports and recreational use of firearms
- If the government is not a fair and democratic representation of the population, and that government seeks to remain in control through non-democratic process, then the control of the powers of national defense shall be passed over to the people; all defense force personal shall be free to use themselves and their relevant resources to overthrow the tyranical government.

Quote to get a NS/PS answer.

There's nothing wrong with the way it's currently worded (except that it doesn't explicitly say individuals have the right to bear arms). The current problems are with the people who demand that the government ignore the Constitution and take away the right.

[Phatscotty]

gun control worked in this case, in that it prevented the psycho from getting a gun. The psycho tried to get a gun legally, he was turned down. It didn't stop shit.