Somehow I see an EO authorizing the AG, who is responsible for 100's of gun deaths in Mexico, including children, to take action.

And this same AG was involved in an armed take-over of a school maybe he should be in jail rather than making ANY decisions involving guns....

Drugs are the biggest reason for gun crime. No apples and oranges.

 

Look at Chicago, they outlawed the sale and possession of handguns in 1982. In just one weekend in September alone there were at least nine people killed and 37 others wounded in shootings throughout the city. Now, feel free to check out how many shootings they had in that city alone just this year. So please, tell me how a ban has stopped shootings.

Your Chicago citing really means nothing. Just a number meant to scare people away. Citing the number of homicides in one weekend fails miserably in telling the story.

 

I can copy and paste this all day:

 

Once again, if a reason is because we have more guns why is fixing that not worthy of consideration? You, yourself said our abundance of guns is a reason these types of incidents happen more here than elsewhere.

Drugs are the biggest reason for gun crime. No apples and oranges.

 

Look at Chicago, they outlawed the sale and possession of handguns in 1982. In just one weekend in September alone there were at least nine people killed and 37 others wounded in shootings throughout the city. Now, feel free to check out how many shootings they had in that city alone just this year. So please, tell me how a ban has stopped shootings.

Regarding your opening statement, are you telling me drugs were the cause of this shooting and the reason we cannot have a debate on gun laws? That's what I'm discussing. Not a silly attempt to deflect the issue because you know I support the legalization of drugs.

When would be the right time to talk about changing something?? Any other situation that caused such a serious problem, would expected to be immediately addressed. If bridges started collapsing and people died we'd expect a thorough investigation and immediate action to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

I don't have the answer. I don't think banning guns fixes anything, and I don't think any sane person is advocating a complete ban of guns. I've owned guns, and enjoy shooting (even though I don't hunt). The reality of the situation is the worst mass shootings ever have all occurred in the last decade. And I don't think everyone walking around packing heat is the answer to preventing this issue from continuing. I do think that it starts with a more accessible, affordable mental health care system.

Here's what I'd like to see. More responsibility from parents. The guns were legal and he had clear access to them. I understand he was 20 but it was abundantly clear he had some issues that were a constant burden of sorts according to what I've read. It cost the mother her life as well as all of the others and for the life of me I don't understand why there wasn't a gun safe or at the minimum a trigger lock on the weapons. If he was hellbent on this agenda, I'm sure he could have found another way, but the easy access to the weapons was just as easily made more difficult if not impossible.

When would be the right time to talk about changing something?? Any other situation that caused such a serious problem, would expected to be immediately addressed. If bridges started collapsing and people died we'd expect a thorough investigation and immediate action to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

I don't have the answer. I don't think banning guns fixes anything, and I don't think any sane person is advocating a complete ban of guns. I've owned guns, and enjoy shooting (even though I don't hunt). The reality of the situation is the worst mass shootings ever have all occurred in the last decade. And I don't think everyone walking around packing heat is the answer to preventing this issue from continuing. I do think that it starts with a more accessible, affordable mental health care system.

Totally agree.

Both CT and NY already have Brady-style bans on 'assault weapons'. See how those worked. Of course the reason that will be cited for another new and more stringent federal ban is that you can not have neighboring states where the law is in effect and not next door.

 

I looked at the CT one. They listed actually specific models of guns and they also do the '2 of any of these elements listed' to define an assault weapon. Sliding stocks, bayonet mounts, pistol grip, multi-round mags, flash suppressor, etc.

 

I have seen grossly inaccurate articles in the last 24 hours on the fact that guns like the Bushmaster 'are designed to shoot ammunition that breaks apart and causes more damage'. Good grief, those pushing the agenda do not care how bad the lie is. Or maybe they do not understand that guns - almost all guns - accept different types of ammunition. Maybe they had to depict the hollow point as some evil creation when it does have a purpose - do not go through a person or a wall and continue downrange to avoid hitting innocents with a through and through shot. Air marshals carry hollow points - so that the round stays in the target and does not continue through the plane. A video I posted in another thread - an FMJ standard round and hollow point from the same gun react very differently and I think it under shows the impact of a high velocity FMJ round.

 

We will hear the following words over and over again:

 

1. 'high powered rifle'. Q: what is a non-high powered rifle? The power comes from the round not the rifile. Deer rifles are much more 'powerful' than an AR .223 FMJ round. Are we going to ban deer hunting rifles.

2. 'military features'. Q: what is different about military needs vs. civilian needs? Are civilian guns supposed to be less accurate, less useful? Pistol grips and sliding stocks have uses in civilian use as they do in military.

3. 'high capacity magazines'. Q: What is time different between shooting 2 20 round mags and 1 40 round mag? 2 seconds? Maybe 3? Its a red herring. But if someone wanted to 'give' here is one to give. But you will never ban these all together - see the 2nd video in the other thread. Magazines from 20 years ago are on the market. Common capacity is 20-30-40 rounds.

 

So this administration is going to show it can save the world with the upcoming action (and its already planned). Even if their intentions were 100% pure and sincere their arrogance in their ability to 'fix this' is astounding.

I think there needs to be close examination of ways gun control can be improved. A ban is not one of them. I do not want to hear any slippery slope arguments from the NRA crowd. There will never be a complete ban on guns in this nation. Never. Even people like myself who don't own a gun, don't hunt and prefer tight rules on gun control will fight with all our power against a ban. If I want a gun, I want to be able to get one.

 

This argument is about what is real and right in gun control. As I said, I am not a gun person and need more education to have firm opinions, but here are questions that come to mind:

 

1. Why does anyone need a weapon with a clip that holds more than 10-12 bullets?

 

2. Why does anyone in the general public need a hollow point bullet?

 

3. Are there weapons being sold legally that are designed purely as assault weapons? Why should that be allowed?

 

I know we have knowledgeable gun enthusiasts on here and look forward to some education. I also would like to hear from gun enthusiasts the answer to this:

 

If you must have 2 or 3 new gun control laws put in place, what should they be?

Your Chicago citing really means nothing. Just a number meant to scare people away. Citing the number of homicides in one weekend fails miserably in telling the story.I can copy and paste this all day:

 

Once again, if a reason is because we have more guns why is fixing that not worthy of consideration? You, yourself said our abundance of guns is a reason these types of incidents happen more here than elsewhere.

 

Huh? I'm not following as his point was that even with a ban, deaths will occur. I believe year to date Chicago is around 500 deaths from shootings. Does that tell a story? It would be a good story to find out the number of shootings and shooting deaths since the ban started.

Here's what I'd like to see. More responsibility from parents. The guns were legal and he had clear access to them. I understand he was 20 but it was abundantly clear he had some issues that were a constant burden of sorts according to what I've read. It cost the mother her life as well as all of the others and for the life of me I don't understand why there wasn't a gun safe or at the minimum a trigger lock on the weapons. If he was hellbent on this agenda, I'm sure he could have found another way, but the easy access to the weapons was just as easily made more difficult if not impossible.

Totally agree. Has it come out for certain neither of those precautions were in place?

I think there needs to be close examination of ways gun control can be improved. A ban is not one of them. I do not want to hear any slippery slope arguments from the NRA crowd. There will never be a complete ban on guns in this nation. Never. Even people like myself who don't own a gun, don't hunt and prefer tight rules on gun control will fight with all our power against a ban. If I want a gun, I want to be able to get one.

 

This argument is about what is real and right in gun control. As I said, I am not a gun person and need more education to have firm opinions, but here are questions that come to mind:

 

1. Why does anyone need a weapon with a clip that holds more than 10-12 bullets?

 

2. Why does anyone in the general public need a hollow point bullet?

 

3. Are there weapons being sold legally that are designed purely as assault weapons? Why should that be allowed?

 

I know we have knowledgeable gun enthusiasts on here and look forward to some education. I also would like to hear from gun enthusiasts the answer to this:

 

If you must have 2 or 3 new gun control laws put in place, what should they be?

 

All good points and questions. I would add are there laws currently on the books that can be made tighter so that people cannot get around them easily or can they be enforced better?

I agree something needs to be done. However, I don't think a "gun ban" would solve anything, in fact I feel it'd make things worse.

 

1) I think for all schools there should be certain teachers (maybe 2 per school) that after extensive psychiatric evaluations (to determine they're of sane mind) should be trained and carrying at all times.

 

2) I believe in another thread it was LC who mentioned that classroom doors should be bulletproof and have some sort of "lockdown" locking mechanism that makes entry by a potential threat an impossibility. I 100% agree.

There are said to be 300,000,000 guns in America. I would assume all 300,000,000 if functioning properly have the ability to kill. Obviously there are varying degrees of calibers, ammunition limitations, etc. that can be set forth from here. Not to be doom-and-gloom, but is it to late for sweeping reform on making guns illegal? People always say "gun control" but I have no idea what that means and it is never really expanded upon. I always think back to Plaxico having to go to jail for his incident. Is that what we are headed towards? More strict jail sentences for possessing guns?

 

I really do not know. I am not anti-gun or anti "gun control". I really just do not know what that means.

My worry is that if there is a ban on one type of gun that we define as "assault" then there will be another when a handgun is used. Then another when a shotgun is used.

 

Is there any chance we can take better security measures at the schools? I could walk in any day at our high school and wipe out no less than 50 people with the shotguns I own if I could keep the ammo flowing. If we owe our kids more, I would like to start there.