First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[oxmixmudd]

It doesn't have the same capability as a SEVENTY YEAR OLD military weapon.

You might be able to pull off a shot a second if you don't care about aiming or you are a very good shot. Compared to shooting off 15 rounds a second with an m16. Just because you can buy various accessories doesn't make a rifle a military weapon or have the same capabilities.

And I believe M16 ammo is more powerful than an AR15's.

Well does the hunting rifle has the same capability of the AR 15 or not? You say it did in one post, and now you are backing off. The AR15 has the same shock absorbing spring, the same barrel design that allow for cooling. A quick google shows all sorts of hits on how to convert the AR15 into an m16.

From that I would say your initial downplay of the ar15 is what is amiss. It has significantly more capability, given its military full auto capabilities are just a google away.

I don't think my point has been lost here Sparko. There is too much power easily available to a crazy. Just find a state with lax laws or a civilian with no conscience, pick up an AR15, modify it, and significant mayhem is ready be unleashed.

Jim

[Littlejoe]

Well does the hunting rifle has the same capability of the AR 15 or not? You say it did in one post, and now you are backing off. The AR15 has the same shock absorbing spring, the same barrel design that allow for cooling. A quick google shows all sorts of hits on how to convert the AR15 into an m16.

From that I would say your initial downplay of the ar15 is what is amiss. It has significantly more capability, given its military full auto capabilities are just a google away.

I don't think my point has been lost here Sparko. There is too much power easily available to a crazy. Just find a state with lax laws or a civilian with no conscience, pick up an AR15, modify it, and significant mayhem is ready be unleashed.

Jim

Contrary to popular belief, AR's are not that easy to convert to full auto. CAN it be done...yeah, I believe so...with a machine shop and an experienced machinist who knows what they are doing...but it's not easy and doing it incorrectly has really bad consequences for the shooter. Now if you're talking about adding a Bump Stock then, yes, that's relatively easy. But it's really hard to be accurate with them because allowing it to "float" so as to bump back and forth to work the trigger makes it really hard to control and shoot with any degree of accuracy.

Several of my hunting buddies have AR's and my cousin hunted with a Ruger Mini 14 for many years as his primary weapon. They actually do have purpose and function besides being a scary weapon for crazy people. My sister kept 2 men (from their neighborhood no less) from Lord knows what when they kicked in her front door in rural Michigan after my B-I-L left for work by grabbing the AR15 from her closet and meeting them on the stairs with it aimed at them. They left in a BIG hurry. They never had another incident of someone breaking into their house.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your initial question was tautalogical, it had no answer. Laws don't stop people from committing crimes. We don't make laws because they stop crime. We make laws because their application and enforcement are critical to maintaining a civilization.

If you want to convince me I need to have my rights curtailed, you need to give me a reason why and the fact you can’t do and instead need to give a lecture instead of telling me why I need to accept proposed gun control laws is telling. Can you give me a reason to accept these proposals without resorting to emotional appeals and the very insults you condemn or not?

No I read your declaration I had nothing to say as a 'taunt' which it was. However, you have 'taunt' in quotes. Surely you didn't read 'tautological' as some form of the word 'taunt' - did you? Surely not.

Believe it or not, people who dare to disagree with you are not knuckling dragging apes and do know how to read. My question is perfectly satisfied, all you need to do is pick an example and explain how proposed gun control laws would prevent or make the event less likely to occur. I don’t know why you see that as unreasonable unless I am right and they wouldn’t and you know it and are trying to hide that little detail or you simply want to read the worse in your opponents. I want to know why I should accept a law with an explanation of how it will accomplish the goal it sets out to do. How that is any sort of tauntlogy, IDK but I have my suspicion that you can’t give me a reason to accept these gun control laws and trying to hide it or you simply read the worse of those who dare to disagree with you.

I never made an analysis of each mass shooting and then tried to correlate them with which laws might have had a chance of stopping them. My comments about gun shows was an example of a place where loopholes exist in some states allowing the purchase of firearms w/o a background check.

And how many crimes have been committed with these ‘loopholes’?

Never once advocated for treating people with mental illness like 'common criminals'. I would advocate for prevention of the sale of guns to people with mental illnesses that affect their judgment, perception of reality, or that negatively affect their emotional state and capacity for self-control (such as significant anger control issues). A gun is not something that can be responsibly managed if a mental illness affects a person in those ways.

And who makes that determination? The ones that screwed up and gave a mass shooter his weapons back?

That is just weird. And somehow I doubt the people slaughtered in Las Vegas would characterize an assault rifle that way. They are capable of much more damage than a typical rifle or handgun. They are weapons designed not for hunting or self-defense, but for war or mass 'assaults'.

Being a victim of a crime doesn’t make you an expert. Sorry, but an AR-15 uses the same exact rounds used in hunting rifles, the common .223 round found in other common hunting rifles. The differences are cosmetic and what actual experts say, not the NYT editor board, that only knows that an AR looks scary vs a common hunting rifle, even when they use the same rounds, loading system, and are both semi autos. I have a .357 lever action that had more stopping power than an AR, yet you seem to think the AR should be banned yet my lever action is more powerful. Interesting.

Not modern tanks like the M1, not with pistols and rifles.

And yet we’re still fighting wars overseas, despite having the technology lead.

But quote effective it your goal is mayhem and destruction or just eliminating a threat.

Which is why they tend to be used in guarding or attached to large vehicles.

That would be an interesting discussion. I doubt very much is was just 'guns' (e.e pistols and rifles) that were the deciding factor, but rather in concert with more modern hand-held weapons (hand held machine guns, rocket launchers, IED's etc), but feel free to make your case.

IED’s and rocket launchers are used to stop the convoy where small arms is than used to pick off individuals. Have you seen any modern war movies or talked to vets of these wars?

[oxmixmudd]

If you want to convince me I need to have my rights curtailed, you need to give me a reason why and the fact you can’t do and instead need to give a lecture instead of telling me why I need to accept proposed gun control laws is telling. Can you give me a reason to accept these proposals without resorting to emotional appeals and the very insults you condemn or not?



Believe it or not, people who dare to disagree with you are not knuckling dragging apes and do know how to read. My question is perfectly satisfied, all you need to do is pick an example and explain how proposed gun control laws would prevent or make the event less likely to occur. I don’t know why you see that as unreasonable unless I am right and they wouldn’t and you know it and are trying to hide that little detail or you simply want to read the worse in your opponents. I want to know why I should accept a law with an explanation of how it will accomplish the goal it sets out to do. How that is any sort of tauntlogy, IDK but I have my suspicion that you can’t give me a reason to accept these gun control laws and trying to hide it or you simply read the worse of those who dare to disagree with you.



And how many crimes have been committed with these ‘loopholes’?



And who makes that determination? The ones that screwed up and gave a mass shooter his weapons back?



Being a victim of a crime doesn’t make you an expert. Sorry, but an AR-15 uses the same exact rounds used in hunting rifles, the common .223 round found in other common hunting rifles. The differences are cosmetic and what actual experts say, not the NYT editor board, that only knows that an AR looks scary vs a common hunting rifle, even when they use the same rounds, loading system, and are both semi autos. I have a .357 lever action that had more stopping power than an AR, yet you seem to think the AR should be banned yet my lever action is more powerful. Interesting.



And yet we’re still fighting wars overseas, despite having the technology lead.



Which is why they tend to be used in guarding or attached to large vehicles.



IED’s and rocket launchers are used to stop the convoy where small arms is than used to pick off individuals. Have you seen any modern war movies or talked to vets of these wars?

You obviously have no interest in any sort of reasoned discussion. This is pointless, as it almost always is with you.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Well does the hunting rifle has the same capability of the AR 15 or not? You say it did in one post, and now you are backing off. The AR15 has the same shock absorbing spring, the same barrel design that allow for cooling. A quick google shows all sorts of hits on how to convert the AR15 into an m16.

From that I would say your initial downplay of the ar15 is what is amiss. It has significantly more capability, given its military full auto capabilities are just a google away.

I don't think my point has been lost here Sparko. There is too much power easily available to a crazy. Just find a state with lax laws or a civilian with no conscience, pick up an AR15, modify it, and significant mayhem is ready be unleashed.

Jim

Are you a gun smith?

[oxmixmudd]

Contrary to popular belief, AR's are not that easy to convert to full auto. CAN it be done...yeah, I believe so...with a machine shop and an experienced machinist who knows what they are doing...but it's not easy and doing it incorrectly has really bad consequences for the shooter. Now if you're talking about adding a Bump Stock then, yes, that's relatively easy. But it's really hard to be accurate with them because allowing it to "float" so as to bump back and forth to work the trigger makes it really hard to control and shoot with any degree of accuracy.

I've heard both. That it's easy. That it's hard. Since I don't own one and wouldn't convert it if I did, I can't go too far beyond the google search, which shows several videos and discussions on how to do it.

Several of my hunting buddies have AR's and my cousin hunted with a Ruger Mini 14 for many years as his primary weapon. They actually do have purpose and function besides being a scary weapon for crazy people. My sister kept 2 men (from their neighborhood no less) from Lord knows what when they kicked in her front door in rural Michigan after my B-I-L left for work by grabbing the AR15 from her closet and meeting them on the stairs with it aimed at them. They left in a BIG hurry. They never had another incident of someone breaking into their house.

I understand that its not a problem in the hands of responsible people. And I'm glad your sister had a means of self defense. Those are reasons people want to have guns around. Is it worth making possible what happened in Vegas? Is it impossible to stop or significantly reduce the likelihood of what happened in vegas w/o also taking away your cousin and sister's guns? I don't see why it should be. They might not be able to walk down to the local gun store and walk home with one in 3 days, but unless one or the other has been to prison or is mentally unstable, why would you expect any of the proposed gun laws from keeping them from having the guns when they needed them if they wanted them? Did you sister actually need an AR15, would not the rifle sparko posted have done the job just as well? (or is it just the fact it looks like a machine gun it's significant contribution to her safety).


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

You obviously have no interest in any sort of reasoned discussion. This is pointless, as it almost always is with you.

Jim

Of course it is because you are using emotion and obviously don’t know the topic as well as you think and yet freely talk about something you know nothing about. You say that it’s easy to modify an AR to a full auto. Sure, if you’re a gun smith or a machinist it might be, but few have the skills to pull it off properly because these are tiny parts, put together in a precise way that takes some amount of precision to pull off. You try to argue that AR ammo is somehow more deadly, but it’s the same as any hunting rifle is. It’s clear you don’t know the topic, yet freely try to act as though you do. What’s that called again when you pretend to be an expert on something you clearly are not?

[lilpixieofterror]

I've heard both. That it's easy. That it's hard. Since I don't own one and wouldn't convert it if I did, I can't go too far beyond the google search, which shows several videos and discussions on how to do it.



I understand that its not a problem in the hands of responsible people. And I'm glad your sister had a means of self defense. Those are reasons people want to have guns around. Is it worth making possible what happened in Vegas? Is it impossible to stop or significantly reduce the likelihood of what happened in vegas w/o also taking away your cousin and sister's guns? I don't see why it should be. They might not be able to walk down to the local gun store and walk home with one in 3 days, but unless one or the other has been to prison or is mentally unstable, why would you expect any of the proposed gun laws from keeping them from having the guns when they needed them if they wanted them? Did you sister actually need an AR15, would not the rifle sparko posted have done the job just as well? (or is it just the fact it looks like a machine gun it's significant contribution to her safety).


Jim

I can find YouTube videos talking about quantum physics, does that mean I can perform quantum physics after watching these video’s? Modifying guns might look easy to those that know how to do it, but isn’t to those of us that are not experts. An AR had a lot of tiny, precision made, parts inside of it. Sure a trained gun smith or machinist might find it easy, but most of us are not trained gun smiths or machinist.

[Littlejoe]

I've heard both. That it's

Everything easy if you know how I guess. For a gun smith or machinist with experience I'm sure it could be done. I'm not so sure about just any Joe Blow. It's not as simple as just replacing a spring or some such...it takes replacing integral parts like the bolt, trigger mechanism etc. If they can modify an AR, they can make their own M16 frankly.

Also, if it's "easy" then why has no one done it to commit mayhem already? They've been around forever.

understand that its not a problem in the hands of responsible people. And I'm glad your sister had a means of self defense.

Thanks, so am I.

Those are reasons people want to have guns around. Is it worth making possible what happened in Vegas? Is it impossible to stop or significantly reduce the likelihood of what happened in vegas w/o also taking away your cousin and sister's guns? I don't see why it should be.

Depends on what you mean by impossible I guess. If you outlaw all semi-automatic rifles then you would have to take them away...otherwise they could be sold to someone undesirable who could possibly use them for nefarious reasons.

They might not be able to walk down to the local gun store and walk home with one in 3 days, but unless one or the other has been to prison or is mentally unstable, why would you expect any of the proposed gun laws from keeping them from having the guns when they needed them if they wanted them? Did you sister actually need an AR15, would not the rifle sparko posted have done the job just as well? (or is it just the fact it looks like a machine gun it's significant contribution to her safety).

Jim

Wasn't the Vegas shooter a legal owner of his rifles? Can you explain how would a 3 day waiting period have helped in that situation? Would it POSSIBLY stop someone from angrily going to the store and buying a AR15 and going and shooting up a place, that's a pretty rare occurrence I think most of them are planned out so, I need you to explain what you think the advantage of a 3 day waiting period does.

Did my sister need THAT particular gun? No, I guess not, it was her hunting rifle and she was very familiar with it. She's a small lady and a shotgun would be a problem for her, a pistol she could handle but don't we have the same issue with semi auto pistols? Two big men meant she needed more than one shot. How about revolvers? You see, making "responsible" laws seem to most of us to be nothing but "feel good" measures that won't really accomplish anything. But, what do you see as measures that would make a REAL difference? Please list some besides the 3 day waiting period?

How do we get Mental Health info into background checks without violating the HIPAA Laws?

[oxmixmudd]

Everything easy if you know how I guess. For a gun smith or machinist with experience I'm sure it could be done. I'm not so sure about just any Joe Blow. It's not as simple as just replacing a spring or some such...it takes replacing integral parts like the bolt, trigger mechanism etc. If they can modify an AR, they can make their own M16 frankly.

Also, if it's "easy" then why has no one done it to commit mayhem already? They've been around forever.

Thanks, so am I.

Depends on what you mean by impossible I guess. If you outlaw all semi-automatic rifles then you would have to take them away...otherwise they could be sold to someone undesirable who could possibly use them for nefarious reasons.

Wasn't the Vegas shooter a legal owner of his rifles? Can you explain how would a 3 day waiting period have helped in that situation? Would it POSSIBLY stop someone from angrily going to the store and buying a AR15 and going and shooting up a place, that's a pretty rare occurrence I think most of them are planned out so, I need you to explain what you think the advantage of a 3 day waiting period does.

Did my sister need THAT particular gun? No, I guess not, it was her hunting rifle and she was very familiar with it. She's a small lady and a shotgun would be a problem for her, a pistol she could handle but don't we have the same issue with semi auto pistols? Two big men meant she needed more than one shot. How about revolvers? You see, making "responsible" laws seem to most of us to be nothing but "feel good" measures that won't really accomplish anything. But, what do you see as measures that would make a REAL difference? Please list some besides the 3 day waiting period?

How do we get Mental Health info into background checks without violating the HIPAA Laws?

Interesting response. What I see in it reminds me so much of the kinds of debate tactics that were used by the cigarette industry to stop or delay efforts to expose the dangers of smoking, the kinds of debate tactics that were used by the auto industry to delay implementation of air bags in automobiles, the same sorts of debate tactics that were used to try to delay or slow down implementation of requirements to filter industry smokestacks, or to put things like catalytic converters on cars, or to try to reduce the effects of Freon on the ozone layer. ALL of which we have benefited significantly from.

Many of the ideas for laws come out of trying to plug loopholes that allowed a person to get a gun that should not have. They didn't come out of a vacuum. Do I have a list of them all - which case sparked the idea and what it would be expected to accomplish? No. However here are a two examples of shootings that likely would have been prevented if existing laws where better enforced or more widely applied:

Source: vox

In 2007, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and himself at his college campus. Cho was not supposed to be able to buy a gun due to a history of mental illness. But the correct records were never sent to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

© Copyright Original Source

Source: vox

We now know how Devin Kelley, who was previously convicted of domestic abuse while he was in the Air Force, was able to purchase guns and on Sunday kill 26 churchgoers in Sutherland Springs, Texas. After Kelley was court-martialed, sentenced to 12-months confinement, and received a bad-conduct discharge, the Air Force failed to enter his record in the National Criminal Information Center database — even though Pentagon guidelines require the Air Force to do so.

© Copyright Original Source

Even with the existing laws, millions have been refused the right to purchase guns due to felony convictions of mental illness. So how do we assess what shootings have been avoided by the systems that are in place, even if they may currently not be as effective as they could be? Why are gun lobbyists and enthusiasts not pushing to get these laws and loopholes fixed so that we can see how effective the existing laws can be?

A washington post article here has a good bit of the available information on the effect of gun laws. One thing it notes that when we are talking about gun fatalities, mass shootings are a small part of the picture. Many of the proposed laws target gun violence other than mass shootings. However, the data shows that large magazine rifles and assault rifles increase the carnage at such events due to their increased power and the reduced time lost to reload. They show that the use of assault weapons in crime decreased during the ban and have been on the increase since the ban.

In specific, the Las Vegas shooter actually exposes several of the sorts of loopholes that need to be closed. This man bought a large number of guns in a short period of time, but he bought rifles rather than handguns. The purchase of a large number of pistols in a short period of time requires notification of the authorities, but the purchase of a large number rifles does not. And we all know how it highlighted the concept of a bump stock and produced calls for them to be banned.

The point here is that instead of working to help make gun ownership safer over all and allowing events like the Las Vegas shooting or other events help us to taylor our responses to help reduce the possibility of recurrence, gun organizations put up the same kind of 'there is nothing we can do about it anyway' opposition that is characterizing many of the posts in this thread and in the end prevent us from making intelligent, evidence based responses to these events.


Jim

ETA: An interesting graphic from the WP article below. Note the rather dramatic year over year increase in mass shootings.

Mass shootings.jpg

[MaxVel]

Interesting response. What I see in it reminds me so much of the kinds of debate tactics that were used by the cigarette industry to stop or delay efforts to expose the dangers of smoking, the kinds of debate tactics that were used by the auto industry to delay implementation of air bags in automobiles, the same sorts of debate tactics that were used to try to delay or slow down implementation of requirements to filter industry smokestacks, or to put things like catalytic converters on cars, or to try to reduce the effects of Freon on the ozone layer. ALL of which we have benefited significantly from.

Many of the ideas for laws come out of trying to plug loopholes that allowed a person to get a gun that should not have. They didn't come out of a vacuum. Do I have a list of them all - which case sparked the idea and what it would be expected to accomplish? No. However here are a two examples of shootings that likely would have been prevented if existing laws where better enforced or more widely applied:

Source: vox

In 2007, Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and himself at his college campus. Cho was not supposed to be able to buy a gun due to a history of mental illness. But the correct records were never sent to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

© Copyright Original Source

Source: vox

We now know how Devin Kelley, who was previously convicted of domestic abuse while he was in the Air Force, was able to purchase guns and on Sunday kill 26 churchgoers in Sutherland Springs, Texas. After Kelley was court-martialed, sentenced to 12-months confinement, and received a bad-conduct discharge, the Air Force failed to enter his record in the National Criminal Information Center database — even though Pentagon guidelines require the Air Force to do so.

© Copyright Original Source

Even with the existing laws, millions have been refused the right to purchase guns due to felony convictions of mental illness. So how do we assess what shootings have been avoided by the systems that are in place, even if they may currently not be as effective as they could be? Why are gun lobbyists and enthusiasts not pushing to get these laws and loopholes fixed so that we can see how effective the existing laws can be?

A washington post article here has a good bit of the available information on the effect of gun laws. One thing it notes that when we are talking about gun fatalities, mass shootings are a small part of the picture. Many of the proposed laws target gun violence other than mass shootings. However, the data shows that large magazine rifles and assault rifles increase the carnage at such events due to their increased power and the reduced time lost to reload. They show that the use of assault weapons in crime decreased during the ban and have been on the increase since the ban.

In specific, the Las Vegas shooter actually exposes several of the sorts of loopholes that need to be closed. This man bought a large number of guns in a short period of time, but he bought rifles rather than handguns. The purchase of a large number of pistols in a short period of time requires notification of the authorities, but the purchase of a large number rifles does not. And we all know how it highlighted the concept of a bump stock and produced calls for them to be banned.

The point here is that instead of working to help make gun ownership safer over all and allowing events like the Las Vegas shooting or other events help us to taylor our responses to help reduce the possibility of recurrence, gun organizations put up the same kind of 'there is nothing we can do about it anyway' opposition that is characterizing many of the posts in this thread and in the end prevent us from making intelligent, evidence based responses to these events.


Jim

ETA: An interesting graphic from the WP article below. Note the rather dramatic year over year increase in mass shootings.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33172[/ATTACH]

Attacking the integrity of someone you want to persuade to think differently is very poor persuasion technique, and morally dubious to boot. Littlejoe gave you a polite and reasoned response, asking you what "...you think the advantage of a 3 day waiting period does" and "But, what do you see as measures that would make a REAL difference? Please list some besides the 3 day waiting period?"

He's agreeing with you that there are problems in the laws and their enforcement, and asking you what should be done differently, or can be done to fix problems.

Accusing him of 'debate tactics' is itself a debate tactic, BTW. No doubt you still wonder why people don't give your posts the respect you think they deserve. Perhaps the morally superior attitude has something to do with it.

[oxmixmudd]

No you didn't.

Thanks - I do appreciate that. Very much.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Attacking the integrity of someone you want to persuade to think differently is very poor persuasion technique, and morally dubious to boot. Littlejoe gave you a polite and reasoned response, asking you what "...you think the advantage of a 3 day waiting period does" and "But, what do you see as measures that would make a REAL difference? Please list some besides the 3 day waiting period?"

He's agreeing with you that there are problems in the laws and their enforcement, and asking you what should be done differently, or can be done to fix problems.

Accusing him of 'debate tactics' is itself a debate tactic, BTW. No doubt you still wonder why people don't give your posts the respect you think they deserve. Perhaps the morally superior attitude has something to do with it.

If I missed little Joes politeness, I apologize to him and to you. You are correct I should not have characterized his response as a tactic. In the end I see it as the sort of pushback I described, but it was wrong to attach a nefarious intentionality to it.

Jim

[Sparko]

Well does the hunting rifle has the same capability of the AR 15 or not? You say it did in one post, and now you are backing off. The AR15 has the same shock absorbing spring, the same barrel design that allow for cooling. A quick google shows all sorts of hits on how to convert the AR15 into an m16.

Yes the hunting rifle does have the same capability as the AR-15. I don't know where you are getting that I am backing off. I was comparing the AR-15 to the M-16 not the rifle. You could make the rifle fully automatic in exactly the same way, Jim. Just because you can illegally modify a semo-automatic into a fully automatic doesn't mean it is legal to do so. Nor does it give you an excuse to ban them.

From that I would say your initial downplay of the ar15 is what is amiss. It has significantly more capability, given its military full auto capabilities are just a google away.

as it is with any semi-automatic.

I don't think my point has been lost here Sparko. There is too much power easily available to a crazy. Just find a state with lax laws or a civilian with no conscience, pick up an AR15, modify it, and significant mayhem is ready be unleashed.

Jim

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is for military use of firearms by citizens. It wasn't written for sport shooting or hunting. It was specifically written for militia use by civilians. So banning military style weapons is exactly what the 2nd was written to protect. This whole idea of allowing hunting guns but not military style guns is completely wrong.

And again, the MISUSE of these guns is by a VERY small segment of the population. They just happen to get a lot of news coverage. Googling, I see there are roughly 5 to 10 million AR15s owned in the USA. How many have been used in mass shootings over the last decade? maybe 10? so 1 in a million owners of AR15s have used them to commit mass shootings. Why is that a reason to ban them? IF one in a million owners of vans decided to run down a crowd of people is that a reason to ban all vans? And that has happened several times now in europe and the USA.

[JimL]

Yes the hunting rifle does have the same capability as the AR-15. I don't know where you are getting that I am backing off. I was comparing the AR-15 to the M-16 not the rifle. You could make the rifle fully automatic in exactly the same way, Jim. Just because you can illegally modify a semo-automatic into a fully automatic doesn't mean it is legal to do so. Nor does it give you an excuse to ban them.


as it is with any semi-automatic.



The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is for military use of firearms by citizens. It wasn't written for sport shooting or hunting. It was specifically written for militia use by civilians. So banning military style weapons is exactly what the 2nd was written to protect. This whole idea of allowing hunting guns but not military style guns is completely wrong.

And again, the MISUSE of these guns is by a VERY small segment of the population. They just happen to get a lot of news coverage. Googling, I see there are roughly 5 to 10 million AR15s owned in the USA. How many have been used in mass shootings over the last decade? maybe 10? so 1 in a million owners of AR15s have used them to commit mass shootings. Why is that a reason to ban them? IF one in a million owners of vans decided to run down a crowd of people is that a reason to ban all vans? And that has happened several times now in europe and the USA.

Military weapons in the 1700's were basically muskets. That's obviously what the framers had in mind. Your not living in the 1700"s Sparko, and the framers had no idea nuclear weapons would exist. Use your common sense for a change.