So Very Sad....

[mrflynn03]

45 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Actually this is an inaccurate statement of gun laws. Among other things you have ignored the 1994 fed assault weapons ban, that Congress allowed expire, and the fact that gun laws focused on handguns because it didn't use to be the case that assault weapons were easily obtainable and used. 

I understand where you are coming from but the 1994 ban largely dealt with cosmetic features, meaning buttstock,handguards,pistol grip, flash hider ect. could only be manufactured in limited combinations. So technically a pre 94 AR15 couldn't be produced but manufactures could produce a rifle with fixed stock,pistol grip, handguards, and no flashhider for example. 

Before 1994 there were about 3-4 manufactures producing limited quantities compared to today.  At the time they weren't popular but werent hard to purchase, they just werent everywhere and assembling one at home was unheard of. It can be argued the 2004 sunset of the ban was the beginning of the popularity. Manufactures of parts and complete rifles are in the dozens and they sell them just about everywhere. 

 

No doubt something needs to figured out to end this nonsense. I just personally feel a ban or severe restrictions are not realistic. I will say one thing I think should be done immediately is raising the age of purchase to 21. At 18 one could still be enrolled in school and should not be able to purchase at that age. I also think opening up the NICS database for p2p sales would be prudent and one should be punished if they sell without running a background check. 

[hoosiertildeath]

I'm NOT the world's best Christian by any means  , but I Blame the evil b.s. that is happening in the world today ON THAT EVIL ONE Satan WHO WAS CAST OUT OF HEAVEN !! He has become too powerful over too many souls !! I Believe that when Jesus returns to earth [as prophicied] , only then will EVIL be defeated !!

[Hoosierhoopster]

1 hour ago, mrflynn03 said:

I understand where you are coming from but the 1994 ban largely dealt with cosmetic features, meaning buttstock,handguards,pistol grip, flash hider ect. could only be manufactured in limited combinations. So technically a pre 94 AR15 couldn't be produced but manufactures could produce a rifle with fixed stock,pistol grip, handguards, and no flashhider for example. 

Before 1994 there were about 3-4 manufactures producing limited quantities compared to today.  At the time they weren't popular but werent hard to purchase, they just werent everywhere and assembling one at home was unheard of. It can be argued the 2004 sunset of the ban was the beginning of the popularity. Manufactures of parts and complete rifles are in the dozens and they sell them just about everywhere. 

 

No doubt something needs to figured out to end this nonsense. I just personally feel a ban or severe restrictions are not realistic. I will say one thing I think should be done immediately is raising the age of purchase to 21. At 18 one could still be enrolled in school and should not be able to purchase at that age. I also think opening up the NICS database for p2p sales would be prudent and one should be punished if they sell without running a background check. 

Again, as the short article I quoted noted, the problem with the pre-1994 AR ban rules was that the prior (1968) law didn't address assault rifles etc. because, as you note, consistent with that article, those weapons weren't readily available -- " “With the rise of assault weapons in the 80s and 90s, the [1968] law was made obsolete,” says Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. As assault weapons became more popular over the next few decades among both manufacturers and gun owners, the minimum age requirement of 18 for purchasing long guns still applied to these more powerful rifles."

And the '94 law, as with any gun law, reflects compromises pushed by the NRA and the gun lobby. That's the problem, not the answer. I fully agree a solution needs to be worked out to address this nonsense. It's complete nonsense. Raising the age, which is about as obvious as obvious could be, is a start. There are all kinds of other things to address, though, like how easy it is to buy guns at gun shows, as opposed to stores, etc. At least the public conversation is finally getting some traction. I really don't get the need to push for semi-automatics, or assault rifles, there's just no reason for those to be available to the common guy, but at least get some reasonable restrictions out there, these school shootings are horrible, as was what happened in Vegas. It also should be embarrassing. Name the other countries that experience anything like what we suffer, as a country, in gun deaths. All rights have restrictions, rights are not absolute, and the idea of protecting gun ownership, and especially the right to buy what are just flat out killing machines, is one that is and should be met with calls for restraint.

[rico]

Let's shift gears here and discuss another topic concerning the shooting/deaths.  Florida does have the death penalty.  Should this kid get that?

[hoosierBGH]

On 2/19/2018 at 5:55 PM, KoB2011 said:

It's not a hunting gun.  It's a modification of an M4 (or now M16) which was designed for the military to kill humans.  Saying it's a hunting gun is like saying a Formula One car is a daily driver. 

Many states already have outlawed the AR15 for hunting purposes, though it can still be purchased.  

You really should educate yourself before posting or repeating nonsense. The AR 15 is currently one of the most popular gun being sold for hunting by numbers sold, primarily due to its modularity. One can configure it look like an M4, have a long, heavy barrel for long distance prairie dog hunting, have a shorter medium weight barrel for coyote hunting, or come in a variety of larger calibers for deer hunting. An AR 15 may look like an M4 to the uninformed but functionally they are completely different. An M4  is capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull, an AR 15 is only capable of firing one shot per trigger pull, by law. An M4 meets the definition of a machine gun, which have been prohibited for sale to civilians since 1986. An AR 15 does not meet the definition of a machine gun and is legal in some form or other in most states. 

The car argument is highly specious for many reasons foremost among them, that car ownership is not a protected right. However, if it will help you to understand the topic better, a NASCAR car to a standard car is a more accurate comparison. The Camaros, Fusions, and Camrys found on the track may bear some resemblance to the ones found on the road but just like the M4 to AR 15 comparison, the resemblance is only  superficial. In both cases function is what matters not appearance. 

On 2/20/2018 at 10:48 AM, Hoosierhoopster said:

Actually this is an inaccurate statement of gun laws. Among other things you have ignored the 1994 fed assault weapons ban, that Congress allowed expire, and the fact that gun laws focused on handguns because it didn't use to be the case that assault weapons were easily obtainable and used. Here's a writeup that provides more explanation:

The AR-15–style rifle that authorities say Nikolas Cruz used in his shooting rampage at a Florida high school on Wednesday was easier for the 19-year-old to legally purchase than a handgun, thanks to an absurd discrepancy in America’s gun laws.

While federal law requires gun buyers to be 21 to purchase a handgun, in many states anyone 18 or older can buy rifles. This includes the AR-15, a semi-automatic version of the military’s M16 that was also used in recent mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and San Bernardino, California.

Federal gun laws have traditionally treated handguns differently from rifles, shotguns, and other long guns. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, legislators raised the legal age to purchase handguns to 21. Congress likely focused on handguns because they were, and still are, used in the majority of firearm-related crimes.

Yet, 18-year-olds were still allowed to buy rifles, often used for hunting, under the act. At the time, assault rifles like the AR-15 were not popular or widely available to the American public. “Handguns were far, far more common and assault rifles had not reached the market saturation that they have today,” Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told Slate.

That wasn’t the case for long. “With the rise of assault weapons in the 80s and 90s, the [1968] law was made obsolete,” says Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. As assault weapons became more popular over the next few decades among both manufacturers and gun owners, the minimum age requirement of 18 for purchasing long guns still applied to these more powerful rifles.

Subsequent gun laws struggled to keep up with this trend and largely failed to address the gap. Finally, in 1994, Congress passed a federal assault weapons ban that was set to last for 10 years. The law effectively made it illegal to manufacture a wide variety of assault weapons for civilians. Though one could still own and resell existing guns, people weren’t supposed to be able to buy most new AR-15s—it didn’t matter if you were 18, 21, or 45.

A decade later, however, the Republican-controlled Congress let the ban expire. Thus, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is still a major pillar in our current federal firearms laws, especially when it comes to age restrictions. Even though AR-15–style rifles are becoming more and more sought-after—the NRA claimed in 2013 that “Americans own about five million AR-15s”—we’ve in many ways reverted back to laws that were crafted when these weapons were barely available. As Gardiner said, “It’s shocking that a 19-year-old can’t buy a beer, and can’t buy a handgun, but can buy an AR-15 under federal law.” 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/a-brief-history-of-the-laws-that-make-it-easier-for-teens-to-buy-ar-15s-than-handguns.html

I suppose I should give you the same advice I gave above and add that you really need to go to the source of the laws you are arguing about before blindly copying such articles or misusing terms. First, the term "assault rifle" originated with the German Sturm Gewehr rifle which was a select fire rifle (meaning capable of firing in both semi auto and full auto modes)  produced during WW II. Since both semi auto and full auto rifles predate the creation of the term and rifles capable of both modes of operation did not, the term "assault rifle" properly only applies to select fire weapons. Any other use of the term is erroneous and purposefully used to mislead. The National Firearms Act of 1934 correctly defines any weapon capable of firing multiple shots with one trigger pull as a machine gun regardless of whether they were select fire or fully automatic. Semi automatic rifles were excluded by definition from this Act. 

As posted and linked above and again here the the law was changed in changed in 1986 to prohibit the transfer of machine guns produced after 1986 to civilians. The deliberately misnamed "assault weapons ban of 1994" did not actually ban any rifles, instead it banned a combination of cosmetic features on the rifles and the same rifles were still sold with different cosmetic features. In addition to AR 15s still being available, sales other semi autos that didn't have these cosmetic feature weren't affected even though they functioned the same. Here are some examples, two of which were/are far more powerful than an AR 15:

Ruger 10/22

Browning BAR

Bl-22

M1A

Rifles of all types, let alone AR 15s are used in very small percentage of homicides compared to handguns and other methods of killing, according to the FBIs own statistics. The AR 15 makes up an even smaller subset of those rifles and yet despite that and despite other, more powerful rifles that function the same not being targeted. we see AR 15s specifically being targeted for bans by politicians purposefully preying on the ignorance you are helping to spread. You say you don't want to make this political (and then copy and paste an article the deliberately does so) but that's exactly what it is. 

[mrflynn03]

3 hours ago, rico said:

Let's shift gears here and discuss another topic concerning the shooting/deaths.  Florida does have the death penalty.  Should this kid get that?

I wish they would put these people in general population and let them sort it out. I think he should get the death penalty because I doubt he would spend his lifetime agonizing over what he did. And most likely spend a life sentence in isolation. 

[rico]

56 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said:

I wish they would put these people in general population and let them sort it out. I think he should get the death penalty because I doubt he would spend his lifetime agonizing over what he did. And most likely spend a life sentence in isolation. 

Right on board with you there.  

[Hoosierhoopster]

8 hours ago, hoosierBGH said:

You really should educate yourself before posting or repeating nonsense. The AR 15 is currently one of the most popular gun being sold for hunting by numbers sold, primarily due to its modularity. One can configure it look like an M4, have a long, heavy barrel for long distance prairie dog hunting, have a shorter medium weight barrel for coyote hunting, or come in a variety of larger calibers for deer hunting. An AR 15 may look like an M4 to the uninformed but functionally they are completely different. An M4  is capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull, an AR 15 is only capable of firing one shot per trigger pull, by law. An M4 meets the definition of a machine gun, which have been prohibited for sale to civilians since 1986. An AR 15 does not meet the definition of a machine gun and is legal in some form or other in most states. 

The car argument is highly specious for many reasons foremost among them, that car ownership is not a protected right. However, if it will help you to understand the topic better, a NASCAR car to a standard car is a more accurate comparison. The Camaros, Fusions, and Camrys found on the track may bear some resemblance to the ones found on the road but just like the M4 to AR 15 comparison, the resemblance is only  superficial. In both cases function is what matters not appearance. 

I suppose I should give you the same advice I gave above and add that you really need to go to the source of the laws you are arguing about before blindly copying such articles or misusing terms. First, the term "assault rifle" originated with the German Sturm Gewehr rifle which was a select fire rifle (meaning capable of firing in both semi auto and full auto modes)  produced during WW II. Since both semi auto and full auto rifles predate the creation of the term and rifles capable of both modes of operation did not, the term "assault rifle" properly only applies to select fire weapons. Any other use of the term is erroneous and purposefully used to mislead. The National Firearms Act of 1934 correctly defines any weapon capable of firing multiple shots with one trigger pull as a machine gun regardless of whether they were select fire or fully automatic. Semi automatic rifles were excluded by definition from this Act. 

As posted and linked above and again here the the law was changed in changed in 1986 to prohibit the transfer of machine guns produced after 1986 to civilians. The deliberately misnamed "assault weapons ban of 1994" did not actually ban any rifles, instead it banned a combination of cosmetic features on the rifles and the same rifles were still sold with different cosmetic features. In addition to AR 15s still being available, sales other semi autos that didn't have these cosmetic feature weren't affected even though they functioned the same. Here are some examples, two of which were/are far more powerful than an AR 15:

Ruger 10/22

Browning BAR

Bl-22

M1A

Rifles of all types, let alone AR 15s are used in very small percentage of homicides compared to handguns and other methods of killing, according to the FBIs own statistics. The AR 15 makes up an even smaller subset of those rifles and yet despite that and despite other, more powerful rifles that function the same not being targeted. we see AR 15s specifically being targeted for bans by politicians purposefully preying on the ignorance you are helping to spread. You say you don't want to make this political (and then copy and paste an article the deliberately does so) but that's exactly what it is. 

OK was insulting. Seriously? Golly I'm sorry I'm spreading ignorance. We could spend time actually quoting the applicable statutes and case law interpreting them along with current 2nd Amendment case law (you know, the Amendment that begins "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state"), as a lawyer and not someone cherry picking his way through a result-driven discussion, but this is going away from the actual point, you know, these horrible school and public shootings and what can be done about them.

Do you really think FBI statistics on the percentage use of AR's or semi-automatics in homicides compared to handguns has ANYTHING to do with the use of AR's and sem-automatic weapons, AR 15's or other, in school shootings?? Or the use of the bump stock?? That is a a clearly meaningless and irrelevant statistic in this context, it has absolutely no bearing on what is going on right now with school shootings, cinema shootings, and other MASS shootings. Gee, why didn't those mass shootings involve handguns? Isn't that obvious? And you post that while calling KoB's car argument "highly specious?" 

The  "popularity" of the AR 15 for hunting is also irrelevant. The discussion is about what can be done, to a certain extent within the bounds of current interpretation of 2nd Amendment law -- but to a much greater extent within what is politically viable, e.g., what can get past the gun lobby and NRA money and political influence-- to reduce the ability of these deranged killers from killing large numbers of people, quickly,  as in school children,  or crowds of people, because of the ease of access to such rapid fire weapons, however they may be defined by Congress, with gun lobby and NRA influence. And no, you don't need rapid fire weapons to hunt deer, ground hogs, or anything else. You're obviously grossly offended that there would be a discussion that could somehow miscast these weapons despite the numerous school shootings in the past several years. That's sad. 

[Muddy River]

5 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

OK was insulting. Seriously? Golly I'm sorry I'm spreading ignorance. We could spend time actually quoting the applicable statutes and case law interpreting them along with current 2nd Amendment case law (you know, the Amendment that begins "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state"), as a lawyer and not someone cherry picking his way through a result-driven discussion, but this is going away from the actual point, you know, these horrible school and public shootings and what can be done about them.

Do you really think FBI statistics on the percentage use of AR's or semi-automatics in homicides compared to handguns has ANYTHING to do with the use of AR's and sem-automatic weapons, AR 15's or other, in school shootings?? Or the use of the bump stock?? That is a a clearly meaningless and irrelevant statistic in this context, it has absolutely no bearing on what is going on right now with school shootings, cinema shootings, and other MASS shootings. Gee, why didn't those mass shootings involve handguns? Isn't that obvious? And you post that while calling KoB's car argument "highly specious?" 

The  "popularity" of the AR 15 for hunting is also irrelevant. The discussion is about what can be done, to a certain extent within the bounds of current interpretation of 2nd Amendment law -- but to a much greater extent within what is politically viable, e.g., what can get past the gun lobby and NRA money and political influence-- to reduce the ability of these deranged killers from killing large numbers of people, quickly,  as in school children,  or crowds of people, because of the ease of access to such rapid fire weapons, however they may be defined by Congress, with gun lobby and NRA influence. And no, you don't need rapid fire weapons to hunt deer, ground hogs, or anything else. You're obviously grossly offended that there would be a discussion that could somehow miscast these weapons despite the numerous school shootings in the past several years. That's sad. 

The AR15 is not a  "rapid fire weapon" any more than my grandfather's Remmington 870 Wingmaster.  Part of what he is saying is that people are arguing the subject without knowing the facts.  In a way, you just proved his point.

[KoB2011]

15 minutes ago, Muddy River said:

The AR15 is not a  "rapid fire weapon" any more than my grandfather's Remmington 870 Wingmaster.  Part of what he is saying is that people are arguing the subject without knowing the facts.  In a way, you just proved his point.

 

I've seen SOME people make this claim, and I've seen SOME military people refute it and say it was designed specifically for taking human life.  I don't know who to believe and I'll admit I do not own a gun but what I don't understand is if the AR15 is not more efficient at killing than a handgun then what harm does it do to get rid of it?  If it's equally capable, why not use your handgun for hunting to prove that it won't curtail mass shootings? 

[KoB2011]

9 hours ago, hoosierBGH said:

You really should educate yourself before posting or repeating nonsense. The AR 15 is currently one of the most popular gun being sold for hunting by numbers sold, primarily due to its modularity. One can configure it look like an M4, have a long, heavy barrel for long distance prairie dog hunting, have a shorter medium weight barrel for coyote hunting, or come in a variety of larger calibers for deer hunting. An AR 15 may look like an M4 to the uninformed but functionally they are completely different. An M4  is capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull, an AR 15 is only capable of firing one shot per trigger pull, by law. An M4 meets the definition of a machine gun, which have been prohibited for sale to civilians since 1986. An AR 15 does not meet the definition of a machine gun and is legal in some form or other in most states. 

The car argument is highly specious for many reasons foremost among them, that car ownership is not a protected right. However, if it will help you to understand the topic better, a NASCAR car to a standard car is a more accurate comparison. The Camaros, Fusions, and Camrys found on the track may bear some resemblance to the ones found on the road but just like the M4 to AR 15 comparison, the resemblance is only  superficial. In both cases function is what matters not appearance. 

 

6

This is a nonsensical point. If an F1 car was street legal and affordable I'm confident it would be one of the best selling cars, that doesn't make it any safer.  That is to say, just because people use it for hunting does not make it designed for hunting.  

Your second paragraph weak as well.  Cars weren't even thought of when the second amendment was written.  The ability to own a car, or have access to transportation is a much more basic, fundamental right in 2018 than gun ownership regardless of what was written down 230 years ago.  Further, the second amendment makes no mention of AR15's nor does it mention hunting.  It does, however, mention in the very very three words "well regulated".  So, in sticking with your insistence on honoring a 230-year-old document, how should we regulate guns?  

[KoB2011]

And one more post, for now, on the subject.  Regardless of what the Second Amendment actually means (that's a separate debate), why should we have the RIGHT to own guns such as the AR15? Further, why should that right extend to keeping it in your home, with no regulations on how it is kept and no regulations on ongoing training?  

It seems to me the default answer from one side is to point to the Second Amendment, which is a debatable enough point on its own, but we never actually explore if the Second Amendment should hold up in today's society.  It appears to be the ultimate, "this is how we've always done it" or "because I said so" without any actual thought behind it for WHY we shouldn't regulate guns in America.  

[mrflynn03]

There is a difference between 18th century english (i.e. well regulated) and modern english. And one would be a fool to think the founders never considered the possibilty of technological advancement. Just look up leonardo da vinci's sketches involving tanks and helicopters. Also this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun for example. 

The problem with this debate is each side ends up on the exteme opposite ends. There is room in the middle, but one side wants bans and demands compromise where the other cant compromise because there will not be anything in return but more restrictions and the demand for more compromise. 

This gun debate is endless and it is in both sides interest to move on and work on a realistic solution. That is if people acutally care about the innocent people that need a solution.

My best friend is a high school teacher. I talked to him a couple days ago.  He belives this is a social problem, and a product of poor parenting and poor school policy. Attacking guns is easy. Dealing with the actual problem is hard. I trust his input. And this is also a reason for my intesrest in this issue.  

 

[mrflynn03]

Also, if one is so quick to want to regulate the 2nd amendment why cant there be common sense restrictions on the first. Such as ending the 24/7 news cycle and dictating when and how news is reported. Surely the writers of the bill of rights couldnt forsee modern media/propaganda methods. After all words are the most powerfull weapons in all of human history. 

[KoB2011]

7 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

There is a difference between 18th century english (i.e. well regulated) and modern english. And one would be a fool to think the founders never considered the possibilty of technological advancement. Just look up leonardo da vinci's sketches involving tanks and helicopters. Also this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun for example. 

The problem with this debate is each side ends up on the exteme opposite ends. There is room in the middle, but one side wants bans and demands compromise where the other cant compromise because there will not be anything in return but more restrictions and the demand for more compromise. 

This gun debate is endless and it is in both sides interest to move on and work on a realistic solution. That is if people acutally care about the innocent people that need a solution.

My best friend is a high school teacher. I talked to him a couple days ago.  He belives this is a social problem, and a product of poor parenting and poor school policy. Attacking guns is easy. Dealing with the actual problem is hard. I trust his input. And this is also a reason for my intesrest in this issue.  

 

You kind of hit the nail on the head, other than saying both sides are on extremes. In reality, very few people are on the extreme that says take away all guns. But, the "anti-gun" side does want to have compromise and work toward a solution and largely the "pro-gun" side does not. And they do get something out of it... A safer society. 

Then you say both sides need to work toward a realistic solution. How can we do that when you openly state one side is unwilling to compromise? 

[Hoosierhoopster]

9 hours ago, Muddy River said:

The AR15 is not a  "rapid fire weapon" any more than my grandfather's Remmington 870 Wingmaster.  Part of what he is saying is that people are arguing the subject without knowing the facts.  In a way, you just proved his point.

I understand what you’re saying but 1) you’re focusing only on the AR 15, I’m not, my post obviously wasn’t, and this thread isn’t, it’s about school shootings and mass shootings and placing reasonable restrictions on the availability of rapid fire weapons used now in multiple school and mass shootings; and 2) and as to the AR 15, line KoB i’ve read descriptions and claims that cut both ways. Regardless, it’s clear that something needs to be done about limiting the availability of semi-automatic weapons, and the bump stock etc. theses are clearly not at all like hand guns and if you think I somehow proved they are then you should take a step back and re-read what I wrote 

[Hoosierhoopster]

7 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

There is a difference between 18th century english (i.e. well regulated) and modern english. And one would be a fool to think the founders never considered the possibilty of technological advancement. Just look up leonardo da vinci's sketches involving tanks and helicopters. Also this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun for example. 

The problem with this debate is each side ends up on the exteme opposite ends. There is room in the middle, but one side wants bans and demands compromise where the other cant compromise because there will not be anything in return but more restrictions and the demand for more compromise. 

This gun debate is endless and it is in both sides interest to move on and work on a realistic solution. That is if people acutally care about the innocent people that need a solution.

My best friend is a high school teacher. I talked to him a couple days ago.  He belives this is a social problem, and a product of poor parenting and poor school policy. Attacking guns is easy. Dealing with the actual problem is hard. I trust his input. And this is also a reason for my intesrest in this issue.  

 

I am going to step back as a mod from this discussion but think a couple points you make are good for discussion. 

First, what the the writers of the Constitution and it’s Amendments intended is and always will be a part of this and every other Constitutional discussion. It is central to every case addressing Constitutional rights, what they really mean, and what restrictions should be placed on them. No, no one is a fool for considering whether or not those who wrote the Constitution or its Amendments considered technology— whether they did or in the context of the language is a matter of interpretation, and in the context of the Second Amendment, it’s purpose was to address the need for an urban militia. What does technological advancement have to do with the general public’s easy access to rapid fire weapons? That’s not the point. 

But I could not agree more that - while the gun debate is endless (and really driven by the influence, on Congress, of the gun lobby and NRA), there is room in the middle for reasonable compromise— in the interest of public safety. The availability of these weapons needs to be better regulated. If anyone argues to the contrary they are turning a blind eye to what is now, clearly, a growing problem of school and public shootings using weapons that kill as many people as possible quickly. 

[rico]

10 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I've seen SOME people make this claim, and I've seen SOME military people refute it and say it was designed specifically for taking human life.  I don't know who to believe and I'll admit I do not own a gun but what I don't understand is if the AR15 is not more efficient at killing than a handgun then what harm does it do to get rid of it?  If it's equally capable, why not use your handgun for hunting to prove that it won't curtail mass shootings? 

Accuracy and range play the biggest part in choosing a weapon for hunting game.  As well as what kind of game your are going after.  Hand guns just aren't conducive for hunting game. 

[hoosierBGH]

9 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

OK was insulting. Seriously? Golly I'm sorry I'm spreading ignorance. We could spend time actually quoting the applicable statutes and case law interpreting them along with current 2nd Amendment case law (you know, the Amendment that begins "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state"), as a lawyer and not someone cherry picking his way through a result-driven discussion, but this is going away from the actual point, you know, these horrible school and public shootings and what can be done about them.

Do you really think FBI statistics on the percentage use of AR's or semi-automatics in homicides compared to handguns has ANYTHING to do with the use of AR's and sem-automatic weapons, AR 15's or other, in school shootings?? Or the use of the bump stock?? That is a a clearly meaningless and irrelevant statistic in this context, it has absolutely no bearing on what is going on right now with school shootings, cinema shootings, and other MASS shootings. Gee, why didn't those mass shootings involve handguns? Isn't that obvious? And you post that while calling KoB's car argument "highly specious?" 

The  "popularity" of the AR 15 for hunting is also irrelevant. The discussion is about what can be done, to a certain extent within the bounds of current interpretation of 2nd Amendment law -- but to a much greater extent within what is politically viable, e.g., what can get past the gun lobby and NRA money and political influence-- to reduce the ability of these deranged killers from killing large numbers of people, quickly,  as in school children,  or crowds of people, because of the ease of access to such rapid fire weapons, however they may be defined by Congress, with gun lobby and NRA influence. And no, you don't need rapid fire weapons to hunt deer, ground hogs, or anything else. You're obviously grossly offended that there would be a discussion that could somehow miscast these weapons despite the numerous school shootings in the past several years. That's sad. 

Are you always insulted by the posting of facts to counter the inaccuracies in your posts? And why would would you want to continue spreading ignorance and not correct it? it is pretty clear you are not a lawyer that specialize in firearms law so I'm not sure how that is in anyway relevant. If you do want to educate yourself on the subject however, I do know several very good lawyers who specialize on that very subject that I could direct you to. How exactly is posting a link to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, FIREARMS, and Explosives (you know, the federal agency in charge of enforcing firearms laws) website with summaries and links to the full language of the applicable laws cherry picking?

If, as you say, you are interested in preventing murders with firearms, how are the FBI homicide statistics not relevant? Unless your real purpose is simply to focus on relatively uncommon  mass shootings with AR 15s to push a political agenda, then FBI statistics illustrating that the use of long arms(of which semi autos and AR 15s are only a subset) in homicides are not only a fractional percentage of handgun use, they are on par with the use of blunt objects(hammers, rocks, etc.), knives, and other tools. By the way, more mass shootings have been committed with handguns than long guns as well, but I would be very interested to learn what you think the "obvious" reason that handguns weren't used in the most recent mass shooting events. KOB argument was entirely specious for reasons I illustrated using his own chosen vehicle (pun intended). His response was even more specious. However, your failure to understand my arguments or attempt to dodge the facts in them do not make them specious.  

I don't want to let you side track me from the greater issue but I do want to take the opportunity to address bump stocks briefly since you brought them up. Your mention of bump stocks, perhaps more than any of the numerous other things you've posted, serves only to underscore your lack of understanding and ignorance of the subject. Bump stocks do not convert semi auto firearms into fully automatic firearms, any device that does so would be treated the same as a machine gun and subject to the same rules according to the firearms law of 1934. Further, any such newly manufactured item that did convert a semi auto firearm into a full auto firearm would be banned from sale to civilians according to the firearms law passed in 1986 and also linked in my original post. Instead, what a bump stock actually does is help the shooter to pull the trigger faster and the same thing can be accomplished with a piece of string, a rubber band, or...... skill without incurring the $300+ price tag of a bump stock.  

I agree that the popularity of AR 15s are irrelevant to the larger discussion and will take your response and abrupt reversion to that main topic as conceding that you are unable to successfully argue that AR 15s aren't popular for hunting as has been inaccurately asserted farther up the thread. I am grossly offended that those like you constantly use such tragedies as this recent school shooting to advance a political agenda despite the abject failure of such laws infringing 2nd Amendment. I'm saddened that more people will likely be murdered because of the refusal to acknowledge these failures or consider other solutions that actually have a chance of working. Not only do all such gun control efforts fail to prevent mass homicide, but they are also doomed to failure from the start. After all, murder is already among the most serious of all crimes and carries with it the worst possible punishments of life imprisonment or even the death penalty. The idea that making murders committed with firearms even more illegal is completely absurd. As we have seen time and time again, those that are willing to commit murder will ignore any other laws. Some examples of those numerous failures;

California kept an even more strict version of the so called "assault weapons ban" in place after the federal law expired and it still failed to prevent the San Bernadino shootings. 

Connecticut which has long had stricter firearms laws than most states and which, like all other states, participates in the mandatory federal instant background check system for firearms purchasers still failed to prevent a prohibited possessor, who couldn't have passed the background check, from murdering his guardian, stealing her firearms and committing mass murder in Newtown.  

The South Carolina church shooter erroneously passed a background check to purchase firearms after local authorities failed to properly disclose information to the FBI that would have prohibited in from purchasing firearms. 

Owning any kind of firearm in France is extremely difficult, requires following a long and arduous list of regulations and is prohibitively expensive and yet none of that stopped terrorists from using firearms to commit mass murder at Charlie Hebdo. 

Worst of all the ineffective and in this case counter productive gun control laws are the so called "gun free zones". With only 2 exceptions, all of the mass shooting events in  the past 50-60 years have occurred in such "gun free zones" where the murderers knew they would be guaranteed to have unarmed, defenseless victims at their mercy. in the fact the Colorado move theater shooter passed by 3 cinemas closer to where he lived for the stated purpose that those 3 did not specifically prohibit firearms as did the one he ultimately chose. 

It should be clear to anyone who understands the actual facts of such events and who is intellectually honest, that no form of gun control short of the complete confiscation of all firearms will ever have the possibility of stopping mass homicides committed with firearms. While few anti 2nd Amendment people will publicly admit that such confiscation  is exactly what they want or that it is entirely impractical, it should be noted that even if it were successfully accomplished it would only prevent mass homicides with firearms and would do nothing to prevent those using pressure cookers filled with steel ball bearings and household chemicals like the Tsarnaev brothers used, or other explosives as was used in Bath, Michigan  to murder 38 children in school, or from ramming a vehicle into crowds of people as has happened here, in France, in England and other parts of the world. 

There is only one real option that can prevent many mass homicides(whether by firearm or other means) from happening, can end others quickly before large numbers are killed and which not only doesn't infringe but actually restores some rights. Yet we cannot even discuss such a solution because of those that have an irrational fear of a tool or who have a political agenda to push. 

[hoosierBGH]

10 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

This is a nonsensical point. If an F1 car was street legal and affordable I'm confident it would be one of the best selling cars, that doesn't make it any safer.  That is to say, just because people use it for hunting does not make it designed for hunting.  

Your second paragraph weak as well.  Cars weren't even thought of when the second amendment was written.  The ability to own a car, or have access to transportation is a much more basic, fundamental right in 2018 than gun ownership regardless of what was written down 230 years ago.  Further, the second amendment makes no mention of AR15's nor does it mention hunting.  It does, however, mention in the very very three words "well regulated".  So, in sticking with your insistence on honoring a 230-year-old document, how should we regulate guns?  

Neither an F1 car or a NASCAR are street legal because they have some features and lack other that make them illegal unlike normal cars. AR 15s are like normal cars in that analogy in that they both have the required features and lack the prohibited features that make them street legal, unlike an M4 or M16. As with my more accurate NASCAR example,  just because a NASCAR(M4, M16) looks like or is shaped like a standard car(AR 15) does not mean that they are the same thing or perform similarly. 

To state that having access to transportation is a "fundamental right" just underscores your extreme lack of understanding on the subject. Having access to transportation is a privilege not a right and it is a privilege many people abuse to cause even more harm to others, both intentionally and unintentionally.  Yet I don't see you calling for any more restrictions on that privilege. The 1st Amendment makes no mention of the internet, TVs, or other modern media either and yet it still applies to those forms of media, as it should. The term "regulated" in 18th century parlance meant supplied or more accurately proper functioning. Context provided in the founding documents and by the author of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear what the meaning of the term is. 

9 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

And one more post, for now, on the subject.  Regardless of what the Second Amendment actually means (that's a separate debate), why should we have the RIGHT to own guns such as the AR15? Further, why should that right extend to keeping it in your home, with no regulations on how it is kept and no regulations on ongoing training?  

It seems to me the default answer from one side is to point to the Second Amendment, which is a debatable enough point on its own, but we never actually explore if the Second Amendment should hold up in today's society.  It appears to be the ultimate, "this is how we've always done it" or "because I said so" without any actual thought behind it for WHY we shouldn't regulate guns in America.  

Despite being all we have ever tried and the despite the repeated failures, attacks on the 2nd Amendment are always the first and only resort many like you are ever willing to consider. The 2nd Amendment was comprised in 1934, again in 1968, again in 1986, and yet again in 1994. None of these compromises did a thing reduce homicides with firearms and some were even counterproductive, nor did they appease those that were only intent on seeking more and more infringements. 

It is extremely arrogant of you to claim that others(conveniently defined as those that disagree with you) have given no actual thought to the topic when each successive post of yours only illustrates how little you understand of the topic and how little thought you have given to both the history and the possible ramifications of the things you propose. 

I, for one, am tired of the compromises that are never enough, I'm tired of only discussing additional  infringement of the 2nd Amendment, and I'm tired of those with an irrational fear of a tool thinking they have either the capability or the right to make a choice on what I or others do or do not "need". 

[rico]

^^^BGH touched on a lot of stuff in these last couple of posts that the anti-gun people just wont admit to.  If anybody out there thinks that outlawing the AR-15 is gonna stop what is going on in this country, you are sorely mistaken.  

[mrflynn03]

3 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Then you say both sides need to work toward a realistic solution. How can we do that when you openly state one side is unwilling to compromise? 

I think there is room to compromise and it lies in the middle in ideas nobody is talking about. For an example, I believe as do others I know, that teens and young adults today as a group are less mature than 15-20 years ago. I grew up with firearms, I hunt, was in boy scouts, and learned safety and usage as part of my childhood.  I think alot of kids today grow up without that and grow up in non gun owning households. But because of the popularity of games such as the call of duty and battlefield series they get the itch to buy.

 I think a healthy debate could be had here. If it is the case that there is a large influx of new gun owners with no knowledge or experience then I could see possibly rasing the age of purchase to 21 and require a basic safety course for those born after say 1995(similar to what Indiana did when requiring Hunter safety course before issuing a license) to teach the 4 rules and proper handling ect.  

 

As a gun owner I would not have been receptive to this until recently but I don't think it unreasonable since this is already done within the umbrella of gun ownersgip. I haven't heard anyone discuss this in this way, I was just musing about it when I was bored at work. 

A couple counterpoints to the inevitable 18 is an adult and blah you can't require safety training. If a parent feels their under 21 kid is responsible enough then they can purchase whatever and gift it (and maybe be liable until kid is 21) exactly what Indiana does with handguns and permitting( you can get a permit and carry at 18 but can't buy handguns until 21). And the required safety training wouldn't affect people who have already proven to be responsible enough but would bring in ones who need the knowledge. 

 

To add, I believe changing the purchase age would have likely prevented this latest event, which I think is an important part of the debate. 

[BGleas]

As a father of three elementary school aged kids this topic is very important to me. I have a rule that I don't discuss, post myself, or comment on others posts on politics on Facebook, so am glad I have this forum here to get my thoughts out!

It infuriates me that every time this happens we divulge into a non-stop debate about guns. It's happened in this thread, and it's a microcosm of what's happening on social media, the news, etc. right now. People have vaguely mentioned mental health, and then it gets right back to the gun debate. The gun debate is the like a doctor treating the symptoms and completely avoiding preventing the disease. 

With that said, I'm for gun law reform. Let's treat the symptom if it can stop even one of these horrific events from happening while we work on preventing the disease, but I just don't see very much commentary or talk at all on preventing the disease. Our founding fathers were brilliant, but they lived in a completely different world. They couldn't begin to comprehend the idea of the internet, video games, iPad's, on-demand video, etc., etc.,. We live in a different world, and while those documents are amazing and brilliant guardrails, we need to adjust accordingly with how we treat guns. 

But, IMO it's a disgrace how our society is avoiding and/or minimizing trying to prevent the disease. Everyone is so caught up in their political party being right that it makes me sick. The gun battle is one that democrats and republicans can "win" so they fight that battle, instead of trying to prevent the disease. Why are so many kids feeling its OK to carry out these mass shootings? What is causing them to feel like that's something they want to do? Why do they feel the way they do. While I'm for changing the gun laws, I also agree that guns aren't necessarily killing people, the person pulling the trigger is. 

I think this country has a major mental health problem on it's hands, and maybe even more than that the big elephant in the room nobody is talking about is the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical and food industry are ruining this country. What foods are our kids eating? What chemicals are in those foods? What medications are they on? Do their doctors even really know what they're prescribing? So many kids are on prescription drugs that come with suicidal side effects, and then the doctor doubles down with more medication to try and quell the side effects from the first one. What is causing all these to need to be on pharma drugs? I don't have the answer to that. Is it the breakdown of the American family? Too much violence and sex being introduced to kids in music, movies, etc. earlier and earlier? All of the above and more probably, right?

But, every time something like this happens liberals and conservatives go into their corners on guns (which again, I agree needs fixing) because it a fightable and winable war. There are votes and money on the line in the gun debate. No politician is getting headlines for going after big pharma and it's not going to cause a voting stir. 

I'm just saying, the debate is like 95% guns, where IMO it should be about 50% guns and 50% trying to figure out what the heck is going on with our kids. 

[KoB2011]

6 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

I think there is room to compromise and it lies in the middle in ideas nobody is talking about. For an example, I believe as do others I know, that teens and young adults today as a group are less mature than 15-20 years ago. I grew up with firearms, I hunt, was in boy scouts, and learned safety and usage as part of my childhood.  I think alot of kids today grow up without that and grow up in non gun owning households. But because of the popularity of games such as the call of duty and battlefield series they get the itch to buy.

 I think a healthy debate could be had here. If it is the case that there is a large influx of new gun owners with no knowledge or experience then I could see possibly rasing the age of purchase to 21 and require a basic safety course for those born after say 1995(similar to what Indiana did when requiring Hunter safety course before issuing a license) to teach the 4 rules and proper handling ect.  

 

As a gun owner I would not have been receptive to this until recently but I don't think it unreasonable since this is already done within the umbrella of gun ownersgip. I haven't heard anyone discuss this in this way, I was just musing about it when I was bored at work. 

A couple counterpoints to the inevitable 18 is an adult and blah you can't require safety training. If a parent feels their under 21 kid is responsible enough then they can purchase whatever and gift it (and maybe be liable until kid is 21) exactly what Indiana does with handguns and permitting( you can get a permit and carry at 18 but can't buy handguns until 21). And the required safety training wouldn't affect people who have already proven to be responsible enough but would bring in ones who need the knowledge. 

 

To add, I believe changing the purchase age would have likely prevented this latest event, which I think is an important part of the debate. 

I brought up a couple of the middle compromises in my first post of substance in this thread then was proceeded to be attacked by the Pro-Gun side for suggesting that MAYBE we should look into banning the sale of AR15s in addition to the middle.  If the Pro-Gun side was serious about compromise when people like me bring up things about background checks, mental health screenings and mandatory wait periods they'd jump on that so as to table the gun discussion.  

The NRA has shown no interest in any compromise and those regurgitating their talking points haven't either.  

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

As a father of three elementary school aged kids this topic is very important to me. I have a rule that I don't discuss, post myself, or comment on others posts on politics on Facebook, so am glad I have this forum here to get my thoughts out!

It infuriates me that every time this happens we divulge into a non-stop debate about guns. It's happened in this thread, and it's a microcosm of what's happening on social media, the news, etc. right now. People have vaguely mentioned mental health, and then it gets right back to the gun debate. The gun debate is the like a doctor treating the symptoms and completely avoiding preventing the disease. 

With that said, I'm for gun law reform. Let's treat the symptom if it can stop even one of these horrific events from happening while we work on preventing the disease, but I just don't see very much commentary or talk at all on preventing the disease. Our founding fathers were brilliant, but they lived in a completely different world. They couldn't begin to comprehend the idea of the internet, video games, iPad's, on-demand video, etc., etc.,. We live in a different world, and while those documents are amazing and brilliant guardrails, we need to adjust accordingly with how we treat guns. 

But, IMO it's a disgrace how our society is avoiding and/or minimizing trying to prevent the disease. Everyone is so caught up in their political party being right that it makes me sick. The gun battle is one that democrats and republicans can "win" so they fight that battle, instead of trying to prevent the disease. Why are so many kids feeling its OK to carry out these mass shootings? What is causing them to feel like that's something they want to do? Why do they feel the way they do. While I'm for changing the gun laws, I also agree that guns aren't necessarily killing people, the person pulling the trigger is. 

I think this country has a major mental health problem on it's hands, and maybe even more than that the big elephant in the room nobody is talking about is the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical and food industry are ruining this country. What foods are our kids eating? What chemicals are in those foods? What medications are they on? Do their doctors even really know what they're prescribing? So many kids are on prescription drugs that come with suicidal side effects, and then the doctor doubles down with more medication to try and quell the side effects from the first one. What is causing all these to need to be on pharma drugs? I don't have the answer to that. Is it the breakdown of the American family? Too much violence and sex being introduced to kids in music, movies, etc. earlier and earlier? All of the above and more probably, right?

But, every time something like this happens liberals and conservatives go into their corners on guns (which again, I agree needs fixing) because it a fightable and winable war. There are votes and money on the line in the gun debate. No politician is getting headlines for going after big pharma and it's not going to cause a voting stir. 

I'm just saying, the debate is like 95% guns, where IMO it should be about 50% guns and 50% trying to figure out what the heck is going on with our kids. 

100% agree with the point about health care.  No one in our country should be unable to get the mental health care they need, yet here we are with millions of Americans that don't have access to the care they need.  Even those that do have insurance often get mental health care cut off as soon as they hit a certain threshold of recovery as deemed by the insurance companies, not the health care providers.  

I'd be interested in hearing from those that think no restrictions should be placed on guns would be willing to guarantee everyone had the proper mental health care coverage?