When you are self proclaimed #1 in the world, people try to take you out. Internally and extenternaly. Unfortunately our current structure as a society allows for these attempts to be very easy, until there is change, it will continue.

 

What parts of our current society makes this easy?

 

I bet our answers differ.

Do you even have to ask?

 

No, I already knew the answer. Sadly, and obviously, it's just political.

As they should be. Everyone, including most NRA members believe in some gun control. The question is where should the line be drawn. I am starting to believe the line needs to be drawn back where it was from 1994-2004.

 

Or maybe people should start obeying the law and not use guns to kill innocent people.. A gun ban isn't going to change anything. Killing is not legal, so why would anyone that is willing to kill give a damn about a law that says the gun they are using to kill people with is illegal?

It's waaaaaaaaay less than 1% used for terrible acts. I know you know that, just pointing it out for some others.

 

People simply don’t realize how many millions have been sold. I try to put in proper context vs Ford F-150 sales to enlighten people.

We can't round them up so let's just keep producing more? That doesn't seem like a valid concern. They didn't try to round them up under the previous ban and mass killings dropped. Every little bit helps. I would like to see a study of these mass shootings with semi-automatic weapons and see when the perpetrators purchased their weapons. I wonder how close it was to the crime that they purchased their weapons.

 

This is where we agree.

 

The fallacy in some arguments is that if a measure doesn't eliminate ALL of the problem (in this case, firearm-related deaths), it doesn't merit consideration. Since we know that nothing will eliminate all of the problem, why not implement measures that could eliminate SOME of the problem? And I'm not just talking about semi-auto/magazine capacity reform, background checks and the like, but expanded mental health-related measures, drug policy, immigration vetting...any number of things.

 

It boggles the mind that pretty much the only countries that are "worse than us" with regard to the rate of firearm-related deaths are basically third-world countries.

Or maybe people should start obeying the law and not use guns to kill innocent people.. A gun ban isn't going to change anything. Killing is not legal, so why would anyone that is willing to kill give a damn about a law that says the gun they are using to kill people with is illegal?

 

Also someone with a weapon disrupted this guy today, a citizen, probably saved multiple lives.

And as an aside, I applaud our BGP membership for keeping this discussion out of the purely political realm.:thumb:

There are nutjubs in every culture, the difference here is that our country has facilitated an environment where nutjobs can too easily obtain firearms.

 

Over the last 15 years while the arms rights discussion became more beefed up, it became more and more apart of our country's mindset, making more and more people who ordinarily might not had given it much thought take a side, and with taking a side came more folks who might not have purchased weapons begin to become paranoid for various reasons regarding their rights and/or safety, along with gun enthusiasts buying more for fear of stiffer laws, and now we have even more citizens owning guns, and the more citizens you have owning guns, the more chance of some of those citizens to use those guns, and the more some of those citizens use them, the more others decide they too ought to own a gun, and the cancer of a culture with too many guns continues to grow with no cure in sight because we're out of control with our preoccupation with guns, and now have way too many in circulation to the point there's really nothing that we can do about it but live in the mess that we've created, while gun enthusiasts concerned about their rights ignore reality and look for reasons everywhere else while the obvious truth is staring at them right in their faces. If their grasp on their guns and their twisted logic wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.

And as an aside, I applaud our BGP membership for keeping this discussion out of the purely political realm.:thumb:

 

Unless the guy was shunned by this church or felt God did him wrong, it's all political.

This is where we agree.

 

The fallacy in some arguments is that if a measure doesn't eliminate ALL of the problem (in this case, firearm-related deaths), it doesn't merit consideration. Since we know that nothing will eliminate all of the problem, why not implement measures that could eliminate SOME of the problem? And I'm not just talking about semi-auto/magazine capacity reform, background checks and the like, but expanded mental health-related measures, drug policy, immigration vetting...any number of things.

 

It boggles the mind that pretty much the only countries that are "worse than us" with regard to the rate of firearm-related deaths are basically third-world countries.

 

To the bolded, how exactly do we eliminate part of the problem? The guy could have got hands on a gun if he wanted one regardless of any law against him having it. Though it turns out that a local next to the church is who stopped this attack and forced the suspect to retreat. Why did that happen, because the local neighbor was armed. Take that person's gun away and this could have been even worse than it already is.

Also someone with a weapon disrupted this guy today, a citizen, probably saved multiple lives.

 

I'm with you completely on that.

The ban of 1994 simply banned the production of semiautomatic weapons for civilian use. Did not ban the buying or selling of these firearms by the civilian population. How would this possibly help?

 

During the ten year ban, there were 15 mass murder shootings. There have been 10 this year alone.

 

There were 15 during the ten year ban. In the ten years after the ban was lifted there were 37.

 

In the last 3 years there have been 23 mass murder shootings.

 

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2

This is where we agree.

 

The fallacy in some arguments is that if a measure doesn't eliminate ALL of the problem (in this case, firearm-related deaths), it doesn't merit consideration. Since we know that nothing will eliminate all of the problem, why not implement measures that could eliminate SOME of the problem? And I'm not just talking about semi-auto/magazine capacity reform, background checks and the like, but expanded mental health-related measures, drug policy, immigration vetting...any number of things.

 

It boggles the mind that pretty much the only countries that are "worse than us" with regard to the rate of firearm-related deaths are basically third-world countries.

 

We are all in agreement that there needs to be extensive vetting of immigrants.

 

How about extensive vetting of people who are trying to purchase semi-automatic weapons?

 

Why should we do one and not the other? Isn't the goal of both to protect and save American lives?

During the ten year ban, there were 15 mass murder shootings. There have been 10 this year alone.

 

There were 15 during the ten year ban. In the ten years after the ban was lifted there were 37.

 

In the last 3 years there have been 23 mass murder shootings.

 

US Mass Shootings, 1982-217: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones

 

I think the idea of what is a semi automatic weapon is being lost in this conversation. All semi automatics were not banned, in fact very few were banned. VoR, you do great research, trust me, I've seen it first hand. I would encourage you to do the same with the gun ban as you do with football though, you'll be surprised at what was banned in '94 and what wasn't.