I find it strange that a western practicing democracy for last 200+ years is so afraid of a dictatorial government taking over that they need to have automatic and semi-automatic guns available at all times! Looks like the pro-gun lobby is so much into the "armed militia" that they want to have same kind of small arms as the army so that they can defend the country if anyone uses the army to establish dictatorship in US

Why don't any other western country citizens feel the same way? Is it because Americans have little trust in their own institutions and compatriots? While one can understand the time when the constitution was written with the country having newly gained independence from a colonizing power,is situation the same 200+ years later? Do the NRA and its supporters have so little faith in their society? Is the honoring/respecting service members just a show, with a lurking fear of them taking over or supporting dictatorship in the country? Do they really think the armed forces which have sworn to uphold law/constitution will support a tinpot dictator in US? Do they really think the US soldiers will blindly follow orders of the president/dictator even though its unlawful/illegal, and SC having already ruled they don't have to follow any unlawful order?

When multiple murders of kids don't move them, I guess they won't be moved by any argument. Pity!

wowlookplanes wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

We can't have a conversation because to stop all mass shootings you have to ban all the guns.

Why are there no mass shootings in Western countries that have not banned guns? Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway....

This is my sincere belief, not a studied response, but I'm guessing a matrix of analysis containing variables such as magazine clip size, concealed carry legality, thoroughness of psychiatric evaluation, constitutional code, type of guns permitted, type of ammo permitted, and stringency of licensing process would capably answer that question.

The US has the perfect storm of permissiveness across all of those variables.

EDIT: Sorry, two more points....
1 - There are mass shootings in these countries (Port Arthur, 1996, Oslo, 2011, others...), but they're fewer and less deadly
2 - I think you'd find that many that are frustrated with this state of affairs would be overjoyed with **just** much greater regulation, and not an all-out ban. Start with assault rifles, move to high-capacity clips, then study handguns, and leave rifle hunting largely untouched.

NUMBERS DON'T LIE

-people like Trump, the NRA, the GOP, NIKV69 etc do...






Pretty straightforward regression analyses.

If you continue to close your eyes in the face of this, I'm really wondering why you'd even call yourself interested in aviation. After all, you seem to have a deep disdain for all things facts, numbers and scientific research. All of those being the reasons humans are even able to fly today.

In the meantime, a German court sentenced the arms dealer who sold weapons to the 2016 Munich shooter on accounts of negligent manslaughter and other offenses to prison.

Granted, he was an illegal arms dealer which made him a suspicious person anyways but this should be done in the USA on a regular basis, too. You own an arms shop and sell weapons to a killer? Well, in that case you are automatically an accomplice and have to face the consequences. And why not expand the responsibility to the manufacturer of the weapon?

MD80Ttail wrote:

Teachers should be trained in the proper use of concealed weapons and carry said weapons. Problem solved.

Nonsense. The US suffers from a mental gun disease.
Take away guns from civilians. Problem solved. That works everywhere else, with very few exceptions. Only in the US there is a large community unable to understand this.

lugie wrote:

Pretty straightforward regression analyses.

People suffering from NRA addiction and other followers of the Church of the Gun cant read such analyses. Its too much for their brains.

BartSimpson wrote:

In the meantime, a German court sentenced the arms dealer who sold weapons to the 2016 Munich shooter on accounts of negligent manslaughter and other offenses to prison.

Granted, he was an illegal arms dealer which made him a suspicious person anyways but this should be done in the USA on a regular basis, too. You own an arms shop and sell weapons to a killer? Well, in that case you are automatically an accomplice and have to face the consequences. And why not expand the responsibility to the manufacturer of the weapon?

Absolutely right. In consequence arms dealers aren´t that much different to drug dealers. Both kill through selling dangerous things which make no sense at all in the hands of the ordinary civilian.

NIKV69 wrote:

The shooter bought the rifle legally.

Hallelujah! You´ve identified one of the two root causes of the appalling murder rate in the US which puts the country right amid the Third World.

NIKV69 wrote:

To stop all mass shootings you have to take all the guns.

You cant achieve 100%, but you can achieve 80% with gun laws based on common sense. Start by forbidding sales of anything else than true hunters guns and simple pistols. Then forbid automatic guns. Impose a sanction on anyone not returning/scrapping them within the next 6 months. Gun holders need a pass, and to get one you have to have serious reasons, and have a clean record (no crimes, no drugs). Gun owners must keep their weapons in a safe, to present them openly is forbidden. Etc.

NIKV69 wrote:

Which is what the far left ultimately wants.

Very, very simplistic thinking, and political prejudice. In fact this is what everyone wants who can think further than the next gun shop around the corner. I am not a leftist, in Germany I would be called as leaning a bit to the right.

seb146 wrote:

MODS: Another round of children being murdered en masse and we are supposed to remain calm? I get what you are saying but c'mon.

What we are saying is that you must conduct yourself in a civil manner which includes following the forum rules which includes no personal insults, no name calling, no swearing etc. The comment was made by atcsundevil that we assume you are all adults, so lets have an adult conversation without hurling abuse at each other. While this is a tragic outcome the same rules apply

NIKV69 wrote:

None of your suggestions above would have stopped this shooting. The shooter bought the rifle legally.

Despite the fact that he had already been kicked out of school for bringing knives, and threatening students, was constantly 'joking' about shooting people, and went to a school for people with behavioral issues. And he could STILL buy an AR-15 completely legally. That means the 'background checks' URGENTLY need to be made stricter.

To stop all mass shootings you have to take all the guns. Which is what the far left ultimately wants. Why do we always have to pretend that democrats want anything other than a society like Canada and Europe with no guns? We are not Canada and we are not Europe. Yes we should ban bump stocks, yes we should close the gun show loophole, register guns etc but when you have another mass shooter that owns his gun legally then what?

What is it with you people and always talking only in extremes? 'stopping ALL mass shootings' and 'taking ALL the guns'. How about sensible gun legislation to at least stop SOME of them? The rest of the western world didn't completely ban guns either, yet we only have a fraction of the mass shootings, or gun deaths in general, of you in the US. To answer your last question: make the background checks stricter, so someone with a history of violent threats and mental issues doesn't pass them.

Living in a country with very little gun crime and very few weapons among ordinary people, it is very hard for me to understand why so many americans still think liberal gun laws are good thing and they contribute positively to their society. Fewer guns means less gun crime. The correlation is clear enough for all to understand.

At the same time, one has to respect this is how a majority want it.
Choices have consequences, and the occational mass murder on children is apparently an acceptable risk for many Americans for having liberal gun laws.
I have great admiration for the US constitution, but the 2nd amendment was written for another time, where borders and democracy were not stable and when weapon technology was at a completely different level.
To me it is obvious, time has made the 2nd amendment a huge mistake and liability for the US.

Just to play devil's advocate here. Look here at Europe. Governments have disarmed us over the years with some very strict gun ownership laws and have invited in millions of people completely unchecked, many of whom hold extremist views and have the motive to kill us. Yet we are totally unarmed and can't do a thing to protect ourselves.

I'd be interested in a breakdown of the US gun deaths. We can automatically strip out those involved in gang land and drug violence as they reap what they sow and compare those to innocent people being shot dead. I appreciate that they will likely be higher than a comparable country with strict gun controls but I'd be interested in a full breakdown.

Dahlgardo wrote:

At the same time, one has to respect this is how a majority want it.

Majority actually wants some form of gun reform. It's the politicians in Congress who hold up the process.

If the issue were sent for a popular vote, I'm certain it would pass, and not because California, Illinois, and New York would carry the bulk of it (Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania can definitely offset votes from those states).

na wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

In the meantime, a German court sentenced the arms dealer who sold weapons to the 2016 Munich shooter on accounts of negligent manslaughter and other offenses to prison.

Granted, he was an illegal arms dealer which made him a suspicious person anyways but this should be done in the USA on a regular basis, too. You own an arms shop and sell weapons to a killer? Well, in that case you are automatically an accomplice and have to face the consequences. And why not expand the responsibility to the manufacturer of the weapon?

Absolutely right. In consequence arms dealers aren´t that much different to drug dealers. Both kill through selling dangerous things which make no sense at all in the hands of the ordinary civilian.

Sorry NA, but that's hardly a good comparison. A drug dealer is selling a arguably harmful substance with the only goal of the buyer to put it in their OWN bodies.
The buyer of arms is planning on putting the subatance/projectiles in other people's bodies.
A world of a difference.

tommy1808 wrote:

For Germany: profiency requirement for each gun you own, proof you understand the laws regarding guns, constant training requiremnt, safe storage and a valid reason to have that gun, i.e. People with mental issues ("I need it for my protection") get send to mental health professional and don't get a permit.

Best regards
Thomas

I'm honestly curious, not looking to start an argument.

If not "I need it for my protection" what is a valid reason to have a gun in Germany?

For instance, I enjoy occasionally hunting, and target/trap shooting. Surely those are valid reasons?

Calder wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

For Germany: profiency requirement for each gun you own, proof you understand the laws regarding guns, constant training requiremnt, safe storage and a valid reason to have that gun, i.e. People with mental issues ("I need it for my protection") get send to mental health professional and don't get a permit.

Best regards
Thomas

I'm honestly curious, not looking to start an argument.

If not "I need it for my protection" what is a valid reason to have a gun in Germany?

For instance, I enjoy occasionally hunting, and target/trap shooting. Surely those are valid reasons?

Yes, exactly. Those are valid reasons. Mostly it is hunting and shooting for sports competitions that are valid reasons here.

grozzy wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

There are two courses of action that have been proven, time and time again, to work in situations like these:

1. Thoughts and prayers
2. More guns for everyone.

That collective attitude is the reason why nothing has changed since April 1999
When will the USA look at themselves and demand change?

Never. If a bunch of first graders getting killed didn't do it, I don't see anything that will.

And to all of those implying that I'm 'racist' or a white supremacist because I somehow think Australian/French/Canadian lives are worth more than others you are simply wrong.

Those people came to England on holiday. They died here or were horribly injured here. I feel guilt and sadness for that. Not because of their ethnicity but because we had a duty of care toward them and they died here on our watch. We put TV and social media ads up throughout the world in order for people to visit here. The least we can do is to protect those who answer our calls to come visit here.

If that makes me the bad guy, then yes, I'm evil in its purest form.

Calder wrote:

For instance, I enjoy occasionally hunting, and target/trap shooting. Surely those are valid reasons?

Yup, valid reasons.

best regards
Thomas

Nicoeddf wrote:

Yes, exactly. Those are valid reasons. Mostly it is hunting and shooting for sports competitions that are valid reasons here.

tommy1808 wrote:

Yup, valid reasons.

best regards
Thomas

Thank you both for your quick and succinct answers.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics ... index.html


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!

7:12 AM - Feb 15, 2018

Now let's put in an article from Trump's first 100 days. Feb 28, 2017, showing his hipocracy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tr ... al-n727221


President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database.

President Barack Obama recommended the now-nullified regulation in a 2013 memo following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 first graders and six others dead. The measure sought to block some people with severe mental health problems from buying guns.

Related: Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

The original rule was hotly contested by gun rights advocates who said it infringed on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Gun control advocates, however, praised the rule for curbing the availability of firearms to those who may not use them with the right intentions

lugie wrote:

If you continue to close your eyes in the face of this, I'm really wondering why you'd even call yourself interested in aviation. After all, you seem to have a deep disdain for all things facts, numbers and scientific research. All of those being the reasons humans are even able to fly today.

I´d like to add to this that some 75% of the guns in Germany are illegal, yet death by gun is comparatively rare.

With the right social and legal environment legality status of the gun itself seems to be of rather little relevance....

best regards
Thomas

na wrote:

You cant achieve 100%, but you can achieve 80% with gun laws based on common sense. Start by forbidding sales of anything else than true hunters guns and simple pistols.

Even the patron saint of the Republican Party Ronald Reagan stated that no one needed an weapon like a AR-15, but President Bush the 2nd coward to the NRA and here we are..

There is absolutely no need for anything more than a handgun and hunting rifle in any household in the United States. Even then with a handgun the owners shoot more innocent family members than bad guys or their little children find the gun start playing with it and shoot themselves.

I find it strange that types like NIKV69 and the NRA believe the 2nd amendment is more important than the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution.

I will say this once again the NRA is nothing more than a domestic terrorist organization.

Every time there is a mass shooting, ammosexuals start screaming how "liberals want to ban all guns!" So, honest question: how often has a total gun ban ever been seriously pursued? Where are all these "liberals" demanding all guns be banned? All I ever see is the slippery slope argument with zero actual quotes from anyone.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

We can't have a conversation because to stop all mass shootings you have to ban all the guns.

Why are there no mass shootings in Western countries that have not banned guns? Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway....

I wouldn’t put norway on your list, we’ve had a mass shooting of children here.

Kiwirob wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

We can't have a conversation because to stop all mass shootings you have to ban all the guns.

Why are there no mass shootings in Western countries that have not banned guns? Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway....

I wouldn’t put norway on your list, we’ve had a mass shooting of children here.

One compared to "we have lost count" in the United States...

We all have our pet theories. My pet theory is MOST of these shootings are caused by side effects of psychiatric medications, in a poorly monitored treatment regime.

What medication was this idiot on?

And anyway, I don't really think gun control is a great solution, but we should probably ban AR-15s. The US is a fine country af773. The human condition itself results in a lot of chaos. But we have it pretty good.

sevenair wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate here. Look here at Europe. Governments have disarmed us over the years with some very strict gun ownership laws and have invited in millions of people completely unchecked, many of whom hold extremist views and have the motive to kill us. Yet we are totally unarmed and can't do a thing to protect ourselves.

I'd be interested in a breakdown of the US gun deaths. We can automatically strip out those involved in gang land and drug violence as they reap what they sow and compare those to innocent people being shot dead. I appreciate that they will likely be higher than a comparable country with strict gun controls but I'd be interested in a full breakdown.

And because getting weapons is pretty difficult most of those new immigrants haven’t done anything, yet in the US people are being killed in shootings dozens of times per day.

lugie wrote:

wowlookplanes wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why are there no mass shootings in Western countries that have not banned guns? Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway....

This is my sincere belief, not a studied response, but I'm guessing a matrix of analysis containing variables such as magazine clip size, concealed carry legality, thoroughness of psychiatric evaluation, constitutional code, type of guns permitted, type of ammo permitted, and stringency of licensing process would capably answer that question.

The US has the perfect storm of permissiveness across all of those variables.

EDIT: Sorry, two more points....
1 - There are mass shootings in these countries (Port Arthur, 1996, Oslo, 2011, others...), but they're fewer and less deadly
2 - I think you'd find that many that are frustrated with this state of affairs would be overjoyed with **just** much greater regulation, and not an all-out ban. Start with assault rifles, move to high-capacity clips, then study handguns, and leave rifle hunting largely untouched.

NUMBERS DON'T LIE

-people like Trump, the NRA, the GOP, NIKV69 etc do...






Pretty straightforward regression analyses.

If you continue to close your eyes in the face of this, I'm really wondering why you'd even call yourself interested in aviation. After all, you seem to have a deep disdain for all things facts, numbers and scientific research. All of those being the reasons humans are even able to fly today.

Pardon me, but it seems to me like education or general health (or the factors causing general health and education) are the drivers of gun deaths, not gun ownership. I would bet the line straightens out if you compare equally educated, equally healthy populations in those states.

Regression analysis is never straightforward.

sevenair wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate here. Look here at Europe. Governments have disarmed us over the years with some very strict gun ownership laws and have invited in millions of people completely unchecked, many of whom hold extremist views and have the motive to kill us. Yet we are totally unarmed and can't do a thing to protect ourselves.

Talk about yourself. I'm European, living in Europe and have 4 guns. All legal.

There are millions of legal gun owners in Europe. If you can't get one there's probably a very good reason for it.

wowlookplanes wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

We can't have a conversation because to stop all mass shootings you have to ban all the guns.

Why are there no mass shootings in Western countries that have not banned guns? Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway....

EDIT: Sorry, two more points....
1 - There are mass shootings in these countries (Port Arthur, 1996, Oslo, 2011, others...), but they're fewer and less deadly
2 - I think you'd find that many that are frustrated with this state of affairs would be overjoyed with **just** much greater regulation, and not an all-out ban. Start with assault rifles, move to high-capacity clips, then study handguns, and leave rifle hunting largely untouched.

The Port Arthur massacre 35 people died and it lead to an almost total gun ban in
Australia, which worked, they haven’t had another US style mass shooting since then.

Utøya was the exception which proved that effective gun control worked, it was an absolute anomaly, although unfortunately 76 people died.

Neither of these events are less deadly than what occurs in the US, they are both at the higher end of the scale.

Thank you for your well balanced reply Thomas with not a hint of sarcasm whatsoever. As a European my concern is with my continent. The USA and its gun issue is in its constitution and will likely never change. The US issue is an issue for the USA. It's Europe that concerns me.

Christian Pfeiffer's German government sponsored report showed a direct correlation between serious crime rate increases and arrivals of migrants.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42557828

To my knowledge Kalashnikovs are not produced in Europe yet found their way to attack Paris twice and were found in Brussels too. Once the guns are in Europe it's exceptionally difficult to contain and limit them. You can drive from one end to the other in 24 hours.

My desire if for easy self defence for those who feel the need to have it. If I lived in London, Paris, Brussels or most of Sweden then I'd sleep safer and walk with my head just that little bit taller knowing I had the ability to protect myself.

More people died as a result of terrorism than guns here in the U.K. A good proportion of isendeaths as well as other violent crime were likely a result of gang activity and organised crime. I'm savvy enough to avoid the high risk areas and keep my nose clean so the result of me coming to harm as a result of a gun or knife is low already and I can mitigate against the risk by avoiding certain areas.

I cannot avoid streets, underground, busses, bars, pubs, shops, concerts etc etc.

NIKV69 wrote:

I produced two videos some time ago with the fringe of the left. Now people are calling for the AR-15 to be illegal which will lead to all semi auto rifles. Then we will have a Virginia Tech or Colin Ferguson type shooting where a shooter uses pistols and you will rail on them. It's right in front of your eyes if you want to deny it and couch it as all you want is "sensible gun reform" go ahead but we can see the forest for the trees.

Please explain to me why a non-military person need to own an automatic/semiautomatic weapon.
What is the obsession with automatic firearms about? Is it a fun toy?
Why would the US be a worse place if access to automatic firearms was restricted to military personnel.

Dahlgardo wrote:

Please explain to me why a non-military person need to own an automatic/semiautomatic weapon.
What is the obsession with automatic firearms about? Is it a fun toy?
Why would the US be a worse place if access to automatic firearms was restricted to military personnel.

It's our right to bear arms. If you want to ban certain guns you have to ban them all. under your reasoning no handguns would be legal either. See where this is going?


CNN is reporting that the FBI had info that the shooter was posting real bad things online including being "a professional school shooter" they too no action and contacted nobody in his area. No law enforcement person or school system person was notified.

Again you want laws that stop mentally unstable people from killing people you have to act when you get the info.

The President is telling people to warn the authorities about people with erratic behavior. This from a man who has the temperament and self-restraint of a chimp on acid. Thankfully he doesn't have access to guns (or maybe he does?) ... only to nuclear weapons.

Latest report is that the shooter was a member of a white nationalist group and trained with their militia. I wonder if the victim pool will reflect the hatred he had for non-whites.

What a horrific occurrence. Incredibly sad.

NIKV69 wrote:

It's our right to bear arms.

Which means the right to bear a coat of arms. Many nations that didn't have the right to bear arms for everyone, pretty much ever where before the US came to be, still required peasants to own weapons, so they could be called to arms, and follow a coat of arms bearer into battle.
There is no right to bear weapons codified anywhere, as that has always been a separate issue from the right to bear arms.

Best regards
Thomas

Why are Americans using the term "active shooter"? Are there passive shooters too? Is this an American thing like when you say bathroom when you really mean toilet? Why can't they use the term "terrorist"?

skyservice_330 wrote:

The President is telling people to warn the authorities about people with erratic behavior. This from a man who has the temperament and self-restraint of a chimp on acid. Thankfully he doesn't have access to guns (or maybe he does?) ... only to nuclear weapons.

Latest report is that the shooter was a member of a white nationalist group and trained with their militia. I wonder if the victim pool will reflect the hatred he had for non-whites.

What a horrific occurrence. Incredibly sad.

My favorite headline from Fark.

"According to Trump, there were many signs that the latest school shooter was mentally disturbed, such as his erratic behavior and his barely literate violent threats on social media, and people like that should be reported before they do any harm"


http://www.fark.com/politics/

If people followed Trump's advice. He wouldn't be President.

What a surprise, it was one of those Trump empowered folks...

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a85 ... 4f31d34100

NIKV69 wrote:

If you want to ban certain guns you have to ban them all.

Do you just like saying stupid shit that has no grounding in reality?

NIKV69 wrote:

CNN is reporting that the FBI had info that the shooter was posting real bad things online including being "a professional school shooter" they too no action and contacted nobody in his area. No law enforcement person or school system person was notified.

Again you want laws that stop mentally unstable people from killing people you have to act when you get the info.

Besides much of your understanding of the situation being wrong, might want to mention being welconed into these far right-wing paramilitary militia training camps. Wonder if he met a few certain former A.netters there!

Kiwirob wrote:

wowlookplanes wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why are there no mass shootings in Western countries that have not banned guns? Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway....

EDIT: Sorry, two more points....
1 - There are mass shootings in these countries (Port Arthur, 1996, Oslo, 2011, others...), but they're fewer and less deadly
2 - I think you'd find that many that are frustrated with this state of affairs would be overjoyed with **just** much greater regulation, and not an all-out ban. Start with assault rifles, move to high-capacity clips, then study handguns, and leave rifle hunting largely untouched.

The Port Arthur massacre 35 people died and it lead to an almost total gun ban in
Australia, which worked, they haven’t had another US style mass shooting since then.

Utøya was the exception which proved that effective gun control worked, it was an absolute anomaly, although unfortunately 76 people died.

Neither of these events are less deadly than what occurs in the US, they are both at the higher end of the scale.

Utøya, fair enough, that is not less deadly.

I stand by that general statement, however, outside of the US they are fewer and less deadly. I won't argue the point as that's just getting too morbid/disrespectful for me personally.

NIKV69 wrote:

Dahlgardo wrote:

Please explain to me why a non-military person need to own an automatic/semiautomatic weapon.
What is the obsession with automatic firearms about? Is it a fun toy?
Why would the US be a worse place if access to automatic firearms was restricted to military personnel.

It's our right to bear arms

As part of a well regulated militia, not this hate group the terrorist belongs to.

The phrase "well regulated militia" comes first in the Second Amendment. Meaning: those men who know how to handle a gun, where to properly store a gun, how to clean a gun, and is responsible for a gun. The Second Amendment says nothing about stockpiling guns.

I remember during the Vietnam war, I believe it was Life Magazine printed the pictures of one weeks casualties, KIA .
http://time.com/3485726/faces-of-the-am ... june-1969/ I have never forgotten that and I believe someone had better start doing that with the pictures of these children and others who have died in these school shootings. A visual reminder of who and how it is happening, maybe that will stop the NRA and its Minions like Trump who explain about how it is a right to own weapons of war. In the Life pictures, one could see what weapons of war could do and are still doing against children this time. Our children.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

If you want to ban certain guns you have to ban them all.

Do you just like saying stupid shit that has no grounding in reality?

We have had mass shootings that don't involve AR-15s what do you do with them?

NIKV69 wrote:

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

If you want to ban certain guns you have to ban them all.

Do you just like saying stupid shit that has no grounding in reality?

We have had mass shootings that don't involve AR-15s what do you do with them?

Yet there have been deaths that are the result of AR-15's they are light- semi automatic, and easy to operate.

You work to limit the exposure. There is a balance at some point, and AR-15's are above that balance. No Mental Health checks, are above that balance, No Background checks are above that balance.

We need to limit the deaths where we can while still allowing reasonable uses of personal weapons.

NIKV69 wrote:

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

If you want to ban certain guns you have to ban them all.

Do you just like saying stupid shit that has no grounding in reality?

We have had mass shootings that don't involve AR-15s what do you do with them?

Thats like saying we shouldnt have seat belt/air bag laws if they didnt eliminate car fatalities.

Obviously, through lesser guns and other means, people will always be able to kill people. But we can do much better and not make it so damn easy for them.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Do you just like saying stupid shit that has no grounding in reality?

We have had mass shootings that don't involve AR-15s what do you do with them?

Thats like saying we shouldnt have seat belt/air bag laws if they didnt eliminate car fatalities.

DUI convictions almost universally never occur as a result of a convict's first actual incident. As well, until interlocks became part of the program, recidivism was astronomical; it's still high though.

Using NIK's logic, we can safely assume that he's also against DUIs being against the law too. All lives having been saved as a result be damned, of course.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Obviously, through lesser guns and other means, people will always be able to kill people. But we can do much better and not make it so damn easy for them.

I'm not really convinced type restrictions will do much, since I see this as much more of a people issue. However, I do totally agree that doing nothing is no longer an acceptable answer.

I work with ADs for a living, and there is no question how dramatically safer air travel is now than just 25 years ago.
This may well be an unsolvable problem, but it's negligent and idiotic to suggest that doing nothing is a plan. A reduction of incidents is still a success.

I am seeing another good point being brought up on other web sites: Ammosexuals and terrorist enablers are saying "just arm the teachers" but the same people who want to arm the teachers can never find any money in budgets to build new classrooms or hire new teachers or buy new equipment. If you think there is money in the budget to turn teachers into military, there is money to educate children.

Effective mental health screening for gun ownership is a non sequitur.
What could possibly go wrong with giving the government the power to judge the mental health of its citizens?
Most of the recent mass killers have been borderline and would only have been ID'd by a fairly draconian system (Cruz seems to be an exception here, he appears to have been a standout.)

Any system to identify people who might be a problem in the future would require a huge bureaucracy, which would then have a tendency towards mission creep and controversial decision making. It would also become a big boost for the legal industry. And the country has enough legal parasites as it is.

I'm enjoying all these new ideas and thoughts with regards to this subject. I'm really learning a lot of new things. Keep it up guys.