Quote: @Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Do common hunting rifles have the same level of velocity of an AR15? Why does a deer hunter need a gun that can fire 45 rounds a minute? Carry high capacity magazines?
Yes and much more. Does velocity matter in a classroom? When a riffle is used in human shootings its being used under close range positions anyway.
+75% of all the guns in America can fire at that rate. So the genie is kinda outta the bottle on that one.
I also have a 10-22 and do use a 30 round magazine. Id be just fine going to 10 if it’ll make people happy, but magazine size isnt going to slow someone hell bent on destruction from doing so.
Theres nothing that makes a black scary riffle anymore or less deadly then most other firearms. Gun manufactures took all the common riffle features and put them in a package that looks like a military weapon when in fact its just like its ranch riffle cousins. Its like jacked up trucks. They dont make the truck any faster or preform any better on the highway. They just look different. Some like that look. The practical ones of use trucks for what they were designed for.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Do common hunting rifles have the same level of velocity of an AR15? Why does a deer hunter need a gun that can fire 45 rounds a minute? Carry high capacity magazines?
Yes and much more. Does velocity matter in a classroom? When a riffle is used in human shootings its being used under close range positions anyway.
+75% of all the guns in America can fire at that rate. So the genie is kinda outta the bottle on that one.
I also have a 10-22 and do use a 30 round magazine. Id be just fine going to 10 if it’ll make people happy, but magazine size isnt going to slow someone hell bent on destruction from doing so.
Theres nothing that makes a black scary riffle anymore or less deadly then most other firearms. Gun manufactures took all the common riffle features and put them in a package that looks like a military weapon when in fact its just like its ranch riffle cousins. Its like jacked up trucks. They dont make the truck any faster or preform any better on the highway. They just look different. Some like that look. The practical ones of use trucks for what they were designed for.
I like that auto comparison, remember in the 70s and 80s there were those kit cars? You bought a cheap common car like a VW beetle, and then tore the body off, made a few bolt on mods, and then set the body of some exotic sports car on top, damn things looked like a GT500, but of course it was still just a VW bug.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Do common hunting rifles have the same level of velocity of an AR15? Why does a deer hunter need a gun that can fire 45 rounds a minute? Carry high capacity magazines?
What weapons did the police have?
And why did the police wait? what were they afraid of? Oh that's right, the "hunting rifle" he had.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
Now that we've hit 6 pages, maybe there are some common themes our various perspectives could agree on?
This country has a mass murder problem that should not continue
There needs to be more access to better mental health care in this country
Red Flag laws (properly implemented and executed) may be a "bullet in the holster" on how to try and manage a big problem
Limiting access to guns by those who shouldn't own one + mental health care are not mutually exclusive solutions
It doesn't seem that's the common theme here. It sounds like guns, 400 million of them being in circulation aren't the problem. Not their capabilities, not their impacts, it's broken people who are the problems which no one can fix. One poster says he would consider limiting magazine capacity. That's the answer from the gun side of the board. Maybe a mag cap change, maybe. No real solutions, we just need more guns.
So . . with that being said . . this problem will never get fixed. America will continue to have weekend after weekend of innocent people murdered by gun fire. I agree, as a personal protective Sig Sauer pistol owner, I am considering going out and buying an assault rifle as well. I mean why not be prepared to shoot a 24" barrel semi automatic with a 3300 plus velocity, which reacts as a hollow point inside the body of an innocent person, I mean rabbit and be able to do that with over and over again. Just in case the government I mean deer are ready to take over this country. That's obviously what the founding fathers had in mind.
Every amendment of the constitution is malleable and can change with the time except for the second one.
We could have a mass school shooting every fucking week in this country and it wouldn't change the argument one fucking bit.
14 people were shot this weekend in of course Chicago, oops, Chattanooga and another 5 in that shit hole LA, derp, I mean west Texas. That's where we are. This is America.
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ purplefaithful said:
Now that we've hit 6 pages, maybe there are some common themes our various perspectives could agree on?
This country has a mass murder problem that should not continue
There needs to be more access to better mental health care in this country
Red Flag laws (properly implemented and executed) may be a "bullet in the holster" on how to try and manage a big problem
Limiting access to guns by those who shouldn't own one + mental health care are not mutually exclusive solutions
It doesn't seem that's the common theme here. It sounds like guns, 400 million of them being in circulation aren't the problem. Not their capabilities, not their impacts, it's broken people who are the problems which no one can fix. One poster says he would consider limiting magazine capacity. That's the answer from the gun side of the board. Maybe a mag cap change, maybe. No real solutions, we just need more guns.
So . . with that being said . . this problem will never get fixed. America will continue to have weekend after weekend of innocent people murdered by gun fire. I agree, as a personal protective Sig Sauer pistol owner, I am considering going out and buying an assault rifle as well. I mean why not be prepared to shoot a 24" barrel semi automatic with a 3300 plus velocity, which reacts as a hollow point inside the body of an innocent person, I mean rabbit and be able to do that with over and over again. Just in case the government I mean deer are ready to take over this country. That's obviously what the founding fathers had in mind.
Every amendment of the constitution is malleable and can change with the time except for the second one.
We could have a mass school shooting every fucking week in this country and it wouldn't change the argument one fucking bit.
14 people were shot this weekend in of course Chicago, oops, Chattanooga and another 5 in that shit hole LA, derp, I mean west Texas. That's where we are. This is America.
Don't get your panties in a twist. The constitution is amendable. You can take every gun in America if you want.
Here's the process: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Do common hunting rifles have the same level of velocity of an AR15? Why does a deer hunter need a gun that can fire 45 rounds a minute? Carry high capacity magazines?
Yes and much more. Does velocity matter in a classroom? When a riffle is used in human shootings its being used under close range positions anyway.
+75% of all the guns in America can fire at that rate. So the genie is kinda outta the bottle on that one.
I also have a 10-22 and do use a 30 round magazine. Id be just fine going to 10 if it’ll make people happy, but magazine size isnt going to slow someone hell bent on destruction from doing so.
Theres nothing that makes a black scary riffle anymore or less deadly then most other firearms. Gun manufactures took all the common riffle features and put them in a package that looks like a military weapon when in fact its just like its ranch riffle cousins. Its like jacked up trucks. They dont make the truck any faster or preform any better on the highway. They just look different. Some like that look. The practical ones of use trucks for what they were designed for.
according to the FBI ( 2020 data) , what are classified as "assault rifles" account for only 3% of all reported firearm related murders.
The AR15 styled gun has been available to the public for over 60 years, why now is it becoming a hot button issue? perhaps its not the gun that is the real issue here? we are seeing a sky rocket in the reported "active shooter" types of incidents in the last 20 years. why, if the gun is the problem, and that gun has been widely available to the public for over 60 years, is it only now the problem? I will concede that the AR was banned for 10 years from 94 to 04, but even prior to its re-introduction we were already seeing the active shooter incidents on the increase.
the only difference between my AR15, and any of my other other semi auto guns is that the AR has a 30 round clip, although I typically only use the 5 or 10 round mags, and the other guns all come with smaller mags. make anything over 10 illegal again if it really is the amount of ammo without reloading that is allowing these types of events to occur, but the gun is not the issue.
Kids dont have anything to do. They dont work on farms. Most dont even have responsibilities around the house. They have all this free time that gets filled by screen time.
The bullying starts when the kid wakes up and doesn’t stop until they go to sleep because everyone can talk to everyone 24/7/365.
We can ban asult riffles. Go for it. It wont make a difference. So all we’re accomplishing is political points.
We have a constitution. It quite clearly protects our ability to own and use firearms. If you want to take the guns youll need to amend the constitution. Its quite literally set up to be amended when needed.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
Kids dont have anything to do. They dont work on farms. Most dont even have responsibilities around the house. They have all this free time that gets filled by screen time.
The bullying starts when the kid wakes up and doesn’t stop until they go to sleep because everyone can talk to everyone 24/7/365.
We can ban asult riffles. Go for it. It wont make a difference. So all we’re accomplishing is political points.
We have a constitution. It quite clearly protects our ability to own and use firearms. If you want to take the guns youll need to amend the constitution. Its quite literally set up to be amended when needed.
I agree, i think its societal more than opportunistic.
1. we have raised a generation that doesnt recognize that actions have consequences... look at the student debt situation, now that is supposed to be forgiven?
2. we have rasied a generation that is not prepared for the realities of the real world. life sucks at times, life isnt fair at times, more so for some than others, but when and where did it become an option to go on a killing spree? this has always been there, but why so much more now? I just dont buy the notion its due to the availability of a certain type of weapon, or that removing that weapon is going to stop the killings. remember the pissed off guy and the christmas parade in wisonsin last winter, hate, anger, and mental illness will find a way.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Do common hunting rifles have the same level of velocity of an AR15? Why does a deer hunter need a gun that can fire 45 rounds a minute? Carry high capacity magazines?
Yes and much more. Does velocity matter in a classroom? When a riffle is used in human shootings its being used under close range positions anyway.
+75% of all the guns in America can fire at that rate. So the genie is kinda outta the bottle on that one.
I also have a 10-22 and do use a 30 round magazine. Id be just fine going to 10 if it’ll make people happy, but magazine size isnt going to slow someone hell bent on destruction from doing so.
Theres nothing that makes a black scary riffle anymore or less deadly then most other firearms. Gun manufactures took all the common riffle features and put them in a package that looks like a military weapon when in fact its just like its ranch riffle cousins. Its like jacked up trucks. They dont make the truck any faster or preform any better on the highway. They just look different. Some like that look. The practical ones of use trucks for what they were designed for.
according to the FBI ( 2020 data) , what are classified as "assault rifles" account for only 3% of all reported firearm related murders.
The AR15 styled gun has been available to the public for over 60 years, why now is it becoming a hot button issue? perhaps its not the gun that is the real issue here? we are seeing a sky rocket in the reported "active shooter" types of incidents in the last 20 years. why, if the gun is the problem, and that gun has been widely available to the public for over 60 years, is it only now the problem? I will concede that the AR was banned for 10 years from 94 to 04, but even prior to its re-introduction we were already seeing the active shooter incidents on the increase.
the only difference between my AR15, and any of my other other semi auto guns is that the AR has a 30 round clip, although I typically only use the 5 or 10 round mags, and the other guns all come with smaller mags. make anything over 10 illegal again if it really is the amount of ammo without reloading that is allowing these types of events to occur, but the gun is not the issue.
What if we banned what makes really mass shootings popular?
The media would never agree to not profit from tragedy.
|
