Gun control - murderer control?

[ravenshrike]

yeah I do, because you are obviously a retard who don't get that crime rates has several contributing factors (such as socio‐economic and cultural factors, so crime rates can go up/down even though Gun ban has good/no/bad influence ) so making the conclusion you made is ignorant, moreover it predicated on the assumption the guns bans not only correlate but a deciding factor on crime rates, which something that gun lobbies has fought tooth and nail against for decades. which why we need a paper or some reputable source not a kid with google skills..

The fact of the matter is, even disregarding the other crime statistics, the murder rate decreases were virtually the same. Moreover, the number of guns in the US greatly increased over those 12 years(and has increased at a greater rate in the years since). Not to mention the overall liberalization of gun laws and the number of shall issue states increasing. The only possible conclusion to draw from that is that gun control DOES NOT AFFECT MURDER RATE, which is its supposed raison d'etre.

[LadyCrimson]

I know this is one of many topics that can be touchy and tempers may flare, but perhaps we could try discussing differing opinions without behaving as if intelligence-slurs etc. are actually debate points.

[Valsuelm]

I am not the one making ridicules assertions and logical leaps, with familiar slogans from blogger sites, nor will I try to prove a negative. (and My poor English grammar is not news to anyone)

 

But since you agree that there are a lot of factors to crime rates, please do some of that thinking you mentioned and tell me what you think about ravenshrike implied conclusion and then his "methodology"

Australia banned most weapons after the Port Arthur Massacre. Over the next 12 years, there was less than 3 tenths of a percent difference in the drop in murder rates between Australia and America. Unlike America however, where all other forms of violent crime have also been decreasing, in Australia they have been rising.

 

Oh really? I would love to see the study this is taken from and by study I don't mean some gun nut blog. Specifically the part that link the supposed rise in crime to gun ownership.

It is not particularly difficult to look up violent crime rates for the years 1995 and 2007 for both the US and Australia. You then divide the later number by the earlier number to see how much the rate has increased/decreased.

 

and if requesting some kind of research\data from reputable source as prerequisite for any kind of discussion on the matter is anything but granted. ( After all if the conclusion he tried to imply that gun control led to rise in crime was backed by real research it would be in the headlines of every news paper... and so easy to back up )

 

 

First, I'd like to point out that as indicated to the left, I live in the United States of America. Where I live is very pertinent to the discussion of 'gun control', as is where you live, and everyone else engaging in the discussion. When I discuss it I'm generally speaking of it in regards to where I live, state and nation. Laws are different and values vary throughout the world. What's good for one group of people is not necessarily good for another.  I'm a big fan of local governance, so if your nation decides that not having guns or implementing gun control protocol X is something you want to do, and it's people are largely actually behind this, then good for you. There is certainly no lack of places on earth one could go and live where the freedom to legally own a gun doesn't exist.  I may think said nation is making a bad choice for it's people, but I'm not going to go to a forum in that nation and tell them this, especially in an insulting manner.

 

Insofar as your grammar. It's generally pretty decent for someone writing in a second language. Good enough that it wasn't obvious to me that English was your second language. You do tend to use run on sentences though, and based on some of the things you've written I'm not entirely sure you understand what others have said. I don't mean this as an insult in any way, I point it out as a constructive criticism you can take or leave, and my observation may have nothing to do with your English language skills as there are plenty of folks who have demonstrated chronic lack of reading comprehension whose first language is English. I applaud anyone's effort to that the time to learn a language beyond their primary language.

 

To directly answer your post:

 

The general argument put forth by those in favor of 'gun control' is that with it, crime and murder rates would fall. Often this argument is accompanied with emotional indignation directed at those who are against 'gun control' with accusations such as calling them 'heartless', 'crazy', etc. You yourself have used the term 'gun nuts'.

 

The statistics Ravenshrike mentioned and that I partially linked prove that is a argument with no basis in reality. There are a great many statistics out there that prove this even better than the Australian example. ie: Chicago, Detroit, or Washington D.C. are much better examples of this than Australia. In fact, if one looks at crime rates in general throughout the U.S., one would find that 'tougher' gun laws in a jurisdiction has about zero negative impact on crime there. 'Gun control' is about as effective as the 'War on Drugs' from a crime prevention point of view, which is to mean ( so there's no confusion) that it's not effective in any good sense.

 

Folks who are against 'gun control' generally realize and cite that there are a number of factors in crime and murder, and those for it often want to ignore those other factors or don't understand them. The gun is just a tool and needs someone to aim and pull the trigger. Without a gun at hand someone intent on murdering someone else or committing crime X will find another way to do it, never mind that someone intent on committing a crime with a gun will likely find a way to illegally obtain a gun if 'gun controls' make it hard or impossible for them to legally do so. Where there is a will there is almost always a way. This last thing being something that a lot of folks seem to be unable to wrap their heads around in regards to this issue and others.

 

And, uh, no. Headlines of newspapers aren't usually too interested things as mundane as facts, they're almost always there to sell newspapers and/or satisfy the owner(s)/sponsors of the paper. Appealing to emotion in this issue and others is a way to do that. That said, there are certainly plenty of articles out there that have been written over the years stating as much as I've said here. 'Gun control' is not exactly a new or unusual subject in the last few decades, and a lot has been written about it.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

You two have been arguing a lot lately and need to get an avatar so I can tell who's which.

Its like having three Volourns :shudders: (No offense Vol)

 

One of these days I may get an avatar, it's been on the back burner of my mind to do so. It's possible I'll do it when I get around to finalizing my pledge for PoE as I think I'll have to dilly with my forum account settings then anyways. I'm not generally a fan of them for a couple reasons, and I actually find a number of people's avatars in this forum annoyingly distracting (especially the ones with animations). Note that doesn't mean I find those people annoying.

 

In find it amusing that you might confuse myself and Mor.

[Mor]

...

To directly answer your post:

The general argument put forth by those in favor of 'gun control' is that with it,

...

:/ My post has nothing todo with my position(which you can see on page3), but addressed a ridicules argument made by ravenshrike.

 

The fact of the matter is, even disregarding the other crime statistics, the murder rate decreases were virtually the same. Moreover, the number of guns in the US greatly increased over those 12 years(and has increased at a greater rate in the years since). Not to mention the overall liberalization of gun laws and the number of shall issue states increasing. The only possible conclusion to draw from that is that gun control DOES NOT AFFECT MURDER RATE, which is its supposed raison d'etre.

It might help to step aside and look at another example: Saudi Arabia GDP is higher then that of Switzerland, but surely you will agree that it would be foolish to suggest that there is only one possible conclusion concerning its economical policy based on those hard numbers..

 

Just the same comparing hard numbers of crime rates between two countries(with disregard to contributing factor such as socio-economic situation in those countries) and extrapolating of what those crime rates (not necessarily firearm related) means on semi-auto firearm ban is just     sorry, but I can't put it in any simpler terms...

Edited March 25, 2014 by Mor

[ravenshrike]

It might help to step aside and look at another example: Saudi Arabia GDP is higher then that of Switzerland, but surely you will agree that it would be foolish to suggest that there is only one possible conclusion concerning its economical policy based on those hard numbers..

Just the same comparing hard numbers of crime rates between two countries(with disregard to contributing factor such as socio-economic situation in those countries) and extrapolating of what those crime rates (not necessarily firearm related) means on semi-auto firearm ban is just     sorry, but I can't put it in any simpler terms...

 

*sigh* Except the ONLY direct connection GDP has with economic policy is government spending. Everything else is indirect. The majority of those in favor of gun control claim a DIRECT LINK between guns in civilian hands and murder rate. This is obviously disproven given the relatively similar culture between the US and Australia(arguably in many ways closer in socital makeup than any US-Euro comparison), almost identical(well within the error bars of any study) decline in murder rates, and RADICALLY different attitudes towards weapons ownership.

[Tale]

I guess I'm in favor of gun control. But I do feel the need to caveat it. I understand the sentiment in the US constitution regarding arms. However, I believe that its spirit was violated long ago. When the government uses tanks, planes, and body armor while forbidding civilians from those same things, then people with handguns, hunting rifles, and AR-15s that require a kit to fire full auto aren't exactly able to defend their liberty should the government wish to deny it.

 

We're left with the idea of people being armed to defend themselves from more common criminals. Something I believe is missing the entire point of the idea that arms are essential to liberty and something I've not seen much in the way of compelling research to support. Of course, I haven't seen much compelling research to support the idea that more gun control would restrict gun violence, so maybe I should be fair there.

[Hurlshort]

Resurrection time I know we discuss guns in the political thread regularly, but that is busy with a lot of other stuff, and I found this gem of a thread that was more specific. Mass shootings are back in the news after a relatively quiet year.

The FedEx shooting is terrible and tragic, and was committed by an individual that exhibited all of the warning signs you would expect. His mother had reported him to law enforcement and he went through an investigation. He was active on white supremacism websites. Despite that, he was still able to legally purchase two "assault rifles" (that is how the police department characterized them.)

Indiana actually has a law on the books to try and stop this, which can be seen as a gun control law. But is it effective? It clearly failed here. So how do we prevent these type of things?

  

Edited April 20, 2021 by Hurlsnot

[Gfted1]

Whoa, some old names in this thread.

As to your topic, to legally purchase a weapon, I think we need to incorporate some kind of psychological exam. But theres no realistic way to comb someone social media posts. Of course that does nothing to control the sales of illegal guns but its a start. 

[Raithe]

I think there's that question isn't there?  Is the focus of gun control on crime in general, or in an effort to decrease the amount of spree shootings that occur in schools and the like?

Because, (at least, in the cheap seats over this side of the Atlantic who hasn't spent hours researching it), it usually seems to be that most spree shooters are not "criminals" and have picked up or had access to their weapons legally.

So who wants to do a breakdown on how many of these spree shootings have been carried out by someone with no criminal past, with legal weapons compared to someone who had to illegally obtain them?

Also, for the bonus points, with how the gun-bunnies love to talk about playing hero and stopping these bad guys, how many spree shootings have actually been stopped by some local resident who happened to also be armed?

[Hurlshort]

1 minute ago, Raithe said:

Also, for the bonus points, with how the gun-bunnies love to talk about playing hero and stopping these bad guys, how many spree shootings have actually been stopped by some local resident who happened to also be armed?

I remember this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/08/when-a-bystander-fired-on-the-texas-church-shooter-the-nra-found-its-hero/

[ShadySands]

Now I'm curious if there are any reports of a good guy with a gun accidentally killing someone. Other than cops because I know that's happened.

CO just passed a law making it mandatory to report a lost or stolen gun.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

7 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Now I'm curious if there are any reports of a good guy with a gun accidentally killing someone.

I'd have to look into it, but I think there's been recent instances of mistaking a family member for a burglar that ended that way. I can't recall anything like shooting the wrong guy during a mass shooting though.

[ComradeYellow]

My current stance on gun control is thus:

There should be a process to legally buy a firearm.  You should have to go through a significant background check and meet an official to go through a firearms safety course.

Something is very wrong if it's much harder to acquire a drivers license than it is to pick up a gun.

Besides, firearms are messy, expensive, loud, leave way too much evidence/can easily be traced.

I still don't know why would be killers don't see the value in

Spoiler

these bad boys.  Garrot wire is silent, cheap as Hell/disposable.

[Malcador]

Garrote wire isn't efficient. These pieces of trash aren't Agent 47, they're after a body count.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

So how do we prevent these type of things?

  

answer: prohibit Americans from owning so many handguns.

is the obvious solution. accidents, intentional homicides, and suicide attempts resulting in death by firearms overwhelming happen 'cause o' the accessibility o' handguns.

firearms are lethal and they are designed to be lethal. act surprised we got so many die in firearm incidents is national level obtuse. the only meaningful solutions are the ones which serious limit the access americans have to the firearms they use to kill each other.

however, handgun ownership is Constitutional protected, which is kinda weird 'cause the most recent 2nd amendment cases, written by textualists, took a decidedly originalist approach focusing on history o' gun laws and intent o' the founders n' such. arming a militia circa 1787 as the basis for the kind o' weapons being protected by second amendment is gonna result in the ar-15 kinda weapons getting protection as 'posed to handguns, no? no. also, as weird as it may be, there were no comprehensive history o' gun laws previous to heller, so scalia and others were kinda talking out their arse and turns out they made a few objective wrong assumptions.

moot. 2nd amendment current protects handgun ownership.

all liberties have a body count. nobody wants to face that truism. protect freedom o' religion means those folks who believe invasive medical practices taint one's soul is protected from government interference even if it means children will be denied basic life saving procedures. taken to an extreme no previous Court would recognize, freedom o' religion means even if we know groups o' people singing in close quarters indoors for an hour or more great increases the risk o' covid-19 transmission, Court says such religious gatherings need be protected, tacit accepting the resulting body count. freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures or self incrimination means guilty people will go free and be free to prey 'pon and even murder american citizens in the future. etc.

second amendment has a body count which is more easily observed than most liberties, but is no different. as Americans we have accepted the body count as necessary, or at least unavoidable-- a cost in blood to protect a priceless freedom. right to bear arms allows an individual to protect themselves not only from bandits, british invaders and indians, but from the US government if it ever decides to go too far, with "too far" being an admitted subjective measure. am not mocking as is indeed a legit concern and as vulgar and crude as it may appear, am personal recognizing some kinda body count is indeed warranted to guarantee americans is able to protect themselves from bad guys, especial if those bad guys is claiming to be agents o' the government. 

'course the history o' 2nd amendment protections is NOT as described by most o' the 2nd amendment honks here and elsewhere. literal were not until after ww1 that the fed took any meaningful position on gun regulation by the individual states. is this weird narrative that the government is itching to take your guns and your God-given second amendment rights which has existed since the founding. utter poppy****. you have more second amendment protection today than during any meaningful span o' US history... evar. government, and Courts, inexplicable keep finding ways to expand you gun rights, in spite o' the nonsense nightmares concocted by the alt-right which suggest that w/o constant vigilance, washington would beat down your door and take away your guns the moment they thought they could get away with doing so.

regardless, solution would seem to be bans on handguns, and am honest not giving a freaking darn 'bout recreational use exceptions. deaths attributed to ownership o' shotguns and rifles, while frequent the most lurid when presented in the media stories, is resulting in negligible body counts when looking at the totals o' tens o' thousands. even the guy in las vegas were representing a near insignificant addition to the yearly total o' firearms deaths. 

try and ban only bad people from owing guns as a solution to the problem is doomed. such limits is a way to make people feel like they did something useful or have some kinda agency. obvious accidents happen all the time and background checks don't prevent the child from killing himself in a walmart when he gets ahold o' the s'posed secured weapon in mom's handbag. worse, most gun deaths which is intentional is resulting from impulsive action. is not just the clinical insane and/or felons who act stoopid for a quarter hour. you are most likely to be shot and killed by somebody you know as 'posed to a rando stranger trying to take your stuff. 

nevertheless, gotta start with being self honest. accept the reality o' some kinda body count. recognize how the protection o' the particular liberty in question is gonna result in dead americans. one reason our cops act as if every american is armed is hostile is 'cause statistically there is more than one gun per american. hundreds o' deaths in school shooting over the past decades is a tragedy. tens o' thousands o' firearms suicides yearly is a statistic. etc. so own it. as a society we can't act shocked every time ameircans die in a firearm tragedy. the deaths are anything but unpredictable. 

is not difficult to come up with ways to prevent firearms deaths. problem is there is no way to get americans to accept the genuine effective solutions, which is fine just so long as people would be honest 'bout the costs and their willingness to accept the predictable body count. you won't get any significant percentage o' democrats to agree to a serious ban on handgun ownership. instead folks will argue over relative minor restrictions such as background checks and waiting periods. 

firearms are lethal and they are designed to be lethal. act surprised we got so many die in firearm incidents is national level obtuse.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 20, 2021 by Gromnir

[LadyCrimson]

There is no way to tell (far as I know) who may purchase a gun and then 1, 2, 4, 10 years later suddenly "snap" for some reason.

Background checks and psychological evaluation upon purchase is fine, but does not address all the weaponry already out there, illegally purchased or stolen guns, kids/other family getting their parents stuff, and all that jazz.  And because you never know if or when someone will "suddenly" mentally deteriorate, such a psychological evaluation, imo, would need to be repeated as a requirement to maintain gun ownership - and ofc even then it wouldn't "catch" most cases in time, at least imo. 

Because of this, I think the main long term solution would be ... people, and attitudes.  That is, we need to be rid of the stigma and secrecy of mental health concerns so people aren't afraid/ashamed to talk to others and/or seek counseling (or fear of being fired, or something), we need to have more lower cost options for such, and we need to have more awareness in the general public. 

There is also, of course, the economic stress factor - the more the masses feel disenfranchised, "not economically viable", hopeless, live in fear of debt and/or debt is ever increasing while personal financial goals/dreams ever further away,  the more people who might not have actually quite reached a breaking point, may reach their breaking point. So to speak.

It all adds up.  It is not, imo, just about "gun control".  People want fast answers and results, tho ... I just don't think there are any.

[Guard Dog]

@Gromnir if it were just you and I deciding the future of gun ownership in this country I would make that compromise with you right now. I would give up handguns completely IF that is the end of it. No more reasonable restrictions. No more common sense measures. Leave the rifles and shotguns alone. And just to sweeten the deal we can keep all restrictions on fully automatic weapons and armor piercing munitions in place. I own eight handguns. Two are antiques and not fireable. I’d be the first one to hand the other six over if that is the end of the discussion about gun control in this country.

too bad you and I are not in charge because if that will never happen. Neither side will ever give.

[ComradeYellow]

1 hour ago, LadyCrimson said:

It all adds up.  It is not, imo, just about "gun control".  People want fast answers and results, tho ... I just don't think there are any.

Not to mention political actualities/implementations are very slow.

Even if a group of people brainstormed the perfect solution, it could take a loooong time if ever to see proper legislation.

[Gromnir]

58 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

@Gromnir if it were just you and I deciding the future of gun ownership in this country I would make that compromise with you right now. I would give up handguns completely IF that is the end of it. No more reasonable restrictions. No more common sense measures. Leave the rifles and shotguns alone. And just to sweeten the deal we can keep all restrictions on fully automatic weapons and armor piercing munitions in place. I own eight handguns. Two are antiques and not fireable. I’d be the first one to hand the other six over if that is the end of the discussion about gun control in this country.

too bad you and I are not in charge because if that will never happen. Neither side will ever give.

to characterize public policy efforts as analogous to terrorist demands or a hostage situation is what should be obvious wrong with the no compromise position o' so many 2nd amendment purists... who as we indicated earlier is comical misguided 'bout what is 2nd amendment purity. can't give an inch today, 'cause tomorrow they will demand more. y'know, every time the uppity naacp asked for more accountability and more access, the establishment responded similar. if we desegregate schools, the next thing you know, people o' color will be demanding equal access to public swimming pools and consumer credit. and then they will be making laws which force private business owners to hire a minimum % of minority employees. and then they will take businesses from white owners to make certain there are enough business owners with the right skin color.

imagine a parade of horrible is so 1840s and 1920s, 1950s, 1970s, etc...

am also gonna observe how reality intrudes on gd notions and undermines him when and where he least expects, or remembers.

las vegas shooter? recall gd reaction to video... more specific to the audio from the video? gd opined how obvious the shooter were using auto weapons, so the weapons used in the mass killing event were already prohibited by law. reasonable. reasonable and wrong. bump stocks, which am admitting to having only being tangential aware, made gd wrong 'bout gun laws and the vegas shooter.

firearms is increasing moldable and tech changes the rules o' the game faster than new laws may be properly debated in Congress or state legislatures. expect any compromise or reasonable law in 2021 ends the debate forever is a tad myopic, no?

but you are correct in one sense. no matter what gun laws is passed, as soon as the inevitable next mass shooting event happens, there will be a cry for more regulation no matter how much regulation current exists. so what? deal with it. am agreeing people will react and even overreact. no argument. now what? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

10 hours ago, Gromnir said:

to characterize public policy efforts as analogous to terrorist demands or a hostage situation is what should be obvious wrong with the no compromise position o' so many 2nd amendment purists... who as we indicated earlier is comical misguided 'bout what is 2nd amendment purity. can't give an inch today, 'cause tomorrow they will demand more. y'know, every time the uppity naacp asked for more accountability and more access, the establishment responded similar. if we desegregate schools, the next thing you know, people o' color will be demanding equal access to public swimming pools and consumer credit. and then they will be making laws which force private business owners to hire a minimum % of minority employees. and then they will take businesses from white owners to make certain there are enough business owners with the right skin color.

imagine a parade of horrible is so 1840s and 1920s, 1950s, 1970s, etc...

am also gonna observe how reality intrudes on gd notions and undermines him when and where he least expects, or remembers.

las vegas shooter? recall gd reaction to video... more specific to the audio from the video? gd opined how obvious the shooter were using auto weapons, so the weapons used in the mass killing event were already prohibited by law. reasonable. reasonable and wrong. bump stocks, which am admitting to having only being tangential aware, made gd wrong 'bout gun laws and the vegas shooter.

firearms is increasing moldable and tech changes the rules o' the game faster than new laws may be properly debated in Congress or state legislatures. expect any compromise or reasonable law in 2021 ends the debate forever is a tad myopic, no?

but you are correct in one sense. no matter what gun laws is passed, as soon as the inevitable next mass shooting event happens, there will be a cry for more regulation no matter how much regulation current exists. so what? deal with it. am agreeing people will react and even overreact. no argument. now what? 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah I was definitely wrong about that rifle in the Las Vegas shooting. But in my own defense I had never heard of bump stocks because I do not own an AR 15 and have no interest in ever owning one. The .223/5.56mm is, in my own estimation, a useless round to me. The .22LR and .17 HMR are perfect rounds for target shooting, pest control, and small game hunting. For large game anything under 30 caliber is ineffective and inhumane. The .223/5.56 mm has a projectile that weighs  just 55-68gr.  In an AR 15 it has a muzzle velocity of 3200 ft./s. Full jacket ammunition is illegal but because of the low bullet mass and the speed it is traveling inside of 300 yards the bullet is going too fast to expand after striking a target. The short answer that round is only good for one thing: killing people. That’s not something I have any use for. Don’t use them and would not. But that’s me. As far as bump stocks go, I have no problem at all with banning them. It is already illegal to modify a firearm to operate in full auto. Any accessory that does that for you it’s a no-brainer to ban.

At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time I disagree with you completely that the ultimate aims of political leaders it’s not complete prohibition and confiscation. Far too many, Democrats one and all, have stated that is their exact goal. Every “reasonable restriction“ leads to another and another and another. If you value the Second Amendment at some point you have to say no. Better to do so right from the get go. That’s not to say there cannot be compromise. Certainly there can and should be. But until the political opposition acknowledges what the Supreme Court has already held that the right to own a firearm is both individual and Incorporated how can there be compromise? That said there’s no reason why background check legislation can’t go through. But in my opinion it’s a solution in search of a problem. I have bought many firearms and had to have a background check for each and everyone of them. Actually that’s not entirely accurate, because I have a concealed carry permit I get to skip that part. But the permit comes with a very extensive background check that gets renewed every three years.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

bump stocks catching you off guard were the point, you didn't know, and neither did many lawmakers. the tech is constant changing and even today is increasing difficult to make laws which adequate encompass the range o' real world possibilities.

a handgun used in a mass shooting

even if you is ok with the ruger being a handgun, there will be tech which catches you off guard in the future, so is not reasonable to suggest agreed limits circa 2021 should be the end. 

...

am not sure how to advance the no compromise point. you will not consider admitted reasonable limits today because you are certain that democrats will, at some point in the future, demand the unreasonable. by definition you are being unreasonable. you don't see it or are ok with being unreasonable.

*shrug*

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Hurlshort]

The whole debate around the AR-15 is a little crazy. This is the weapon that has seemed to consistently show up in mass shootings time and time again. Gun activists love to argue that it is not really an assault rifle. But you know what? It looks like one. So you get all sorts of crazy people gravitating towards it because it looks scary and not like something you'd go deer hunting with. Which should be a giant red flag right there. Honestly I have no problem with hunters, sport clay shooters, pistol range shooters, or even those looking to defend their homes. It's the clowns that dress up in military garb and think they are GI Joe that scare me.

[Gromnir]

Just now, Hurlsnot said:

The whole debate around the AR-15 is a little crazy. This is the weapon that has seemed to consistently show up in mass shootings time and time again. Gun activists love to argue that it is not really an assault rifle. But you know what? It looks like one. So you get all sorts of crazy people gravitating towards it because it looks scary and not like something you'd go deer hunting with. Which should be a giant red flag right there. Honestly I have no problem with hunters, sport clay shooters, pistol range shooters, or even those looking to defend their homes. It's the clowns that dress up in military garb and think they are GI Joe that scare me.

it is difficult to write a meaningful law which prohibits scary looking guns which will appeal to the worst instincts o' people who might eventual consider a mass shooting.

perhaps require all firearms to be painted pink and adorned with a care bears motif? 

HA! Good Fun!

[ComradeYellow]

3 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

The whole debate around the AR-15 is a little crazy. This is the weapon that has seemed to consistently show up in mass shootings time and time again. Gun activists love to argue that it is not really an assault rifle. But you know what? It looks like one. So you get all sorts of crazy people gravitating towards it because it looks scary and not like something you'd go deer hunting with. Which should be a giant red flag right there. Honestly I have no problem with hunters, sport clay shooters, pistol range shooters, or even those looking to defend their homes. It's the clowns that dress up in military garb and think they are GI Joe that scare me.

Have you actually fired a modern AR model?  A 5 year old could wield one, it's strange because it looks and feels like a toy, but it isn't!

And yes, AR guns are the standard issue infantry small arm of the U.S. so naturally most of these shootings will occur with them.