Vegas shooting

[cfbandyman]

Look, I get that there are a massive amount of guns and types of guns out there, so there will be extreme difficulty in legislation. However, it seems logical to me that high caliber weapons that are semi automatic, have large ammunition cartridges/clips, and are simply designed and built to mow down mass amounts of people would be a sensible start. The fact that 59 people are dead and 527 are injured in a very short amount of time would lead me to believe that he wasn't using a bolt action .22 or a 12 gauge shot gun. It doesn't take a ton of logic to imagine the type of weapon that was used to accomplish such carnage, especially after hearing the bursts on the videos. I don't need to know the make and model honestly.

What is you plan on the millions of these are out in the public?
Most are legally not registered nor is there a computer data base of serial numbers from the original sale (congress wouldnt allow it). If you propose legislation the will flood the market witht them prior to the ban (see clinton era) thus driving the price down and putting them in even more unstable peoples hands.

There should be a national weapon registry and every single weapon not tied to a registration should be melted. Seized guns find their way back onto the streets and that's insane.

Yup, everyone should have to register every gun, give a sizable grace period then confiscate and destroy any not voluntarily registered. It's insane that this is not already the case.

And hell I'd even go as far as wave any sort of registration fees for that time period, and maybe even give something like $100/gun tax write-off with like a max of $500/ per household just to incite people to comply.

Maybe even also tax the crap outta ammo that isn't bought and used at gun ranges (and have those gun ranges have to be state and federally licensed to operate) or ammo bought for hunting is exempt from the tax with applicable hunting license (and of course cap on the amount of ammo that can be sold at any time for both personal or hunting uses).

[PowercatPat]

So far (sorry if I missed one) it has been suggested...

1. Make all semi-automatic rifles illegal. This is the only mass shooting I'm aware of where that might have made a significant difference. Most mass shooting situations were or could have been carried out just as effectively with semi-automatic pistols. seems like a pretty dramatic curtailment of gun rights with relatively little impact. It would also be political impossible to ban and confiscate all existing semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 is I think the most popular rifle in the US), and I'm not sure banning future production of them would really make a dent for decades.

Wouldn't a "relatively little impact" be better than nothing? If it prevents just one mass shooting like this from happening again isn't it worth it?

[Phil Titola]

So far (sorry if I missed one) it has been suggested...

1. Make all semi-automatic rifles illegal. This is the only mass shooting I'm aware of where that might have made a significant difference. Most mass shooting situations were or could have been carried out just as effectively with semi-automatic pistols. seems like a pretty dramatic curtailment of gun rights with relatively little impact. It would also be political impossible to ban and confiscate all existing semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 is I think the most popular rifle in the US), and I'm not sure banning future production of them would really make a dent for decades.

Wouldn't a "relatively little impact" be better than nothing? If it prevents just one mass shooting like this from happening again isn't it worth it?

or let's say it never prevented one direct shooting...still taking the supply of guns down and there is zero downside.  "dramatic curtailment of gun rights"...no.  No rights into the type of rifle you can own...when 2A was written, a semi-auto rifle wasn't even dreamed about.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Gun owner here.

AR15 is a range gun for most people. Somewhat useful for home defense. I'd rather grab the .380 with hollow points. If I miss, it's stopping in the wall.

AR15 is really only useful for dropping coyotes. Not really enough power for deer hunting at any longer distance. Waste of power for smaller animals. Too much meat damage.

For hunting, I'll take a scoped bolt action and my 12ga with a couple of chokes. Plus a .22  or 410 for squirrels and rabbits.

With that, the gun enthusiast talking points don't really hold water with me regarding the AR semis. They're militia weapons. Guess that's why the hardcore 2A supporters want to keep them legal.

Would you say that the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people"? Any moreso than other guns?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So far (sorry if I missed one) it has been suggested...

1. Make all semi-automatic rifles illegal. This is the only mass shooting I'm aware of where that might have made a significant difference. Most mass shooting situations were or could have been carried out just as effectively with semi-automatic pistols. seems like a pretty dramatic curtailment of gun rights with relatively little impact. It would also be political impossible to ban and confiscate all existing semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 is I think the most popular rifle in the US), and I'm not sure banning future production of them would really make a dent for decades.

Wouldn't a "relatively little impact" be better than nothing? If it prevents just one mass shooting like this from happening again isn't it worth it?

Outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, which millions of people own and use lawfully, because it might prevent one crazy person was using one for a mass shooting? Seems like that "isn't it worth it to save even one life" kind of argument could apply to all sorts of things we wouldn't consider banning.

[Phil Titola]

So far (sorry if I missed one) it has been suggested...

1. Make all semi-automatic rifles illegal. This is the only mass shooting I'm aware of where that might have made a significant difference. Most mass shooting situations were or could have been carried out just as effectively with semi-automatic pistols. seems like a pretty dramatic curtailment of gun rights with relatively little impact. It would also be political impossible to ban and confiscate all existing semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 is I think the most popular rifle in the US), and I'm not sure banning future production of them would really make a dent for decades.

Wouldn't a "relatively little impact" be better than nothing? If it prevents just one mass shooting like this from happening again isn't it worth it?

Outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, which millions of people own and use lawfully, because it might prevent one crazy person was using one for a mass shooting? Seems like that "isn't it worth it to save even one life" kind of argument could apply to all sorts of things we wouldn't consider banning.

but using that logic we shouldn't have most laws...we don't know that they do anything but "might prevent one crazy person".

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So far (sorry if I missed one) it has been suggested...

1. Make all semi-automatic rifles illegal. This is the only mass shooting I'm aware of where that might have made a significant difference. Most mass shooting situations were or could have been carried out just as effectively with semi-automatic pistols. seems like a pretty dramatic curtailment of gun rights with relatively little impact. It would also be political impossible to ban and confiscate all existing semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 is I think the most popular rifle in the US), and I'm not sure banning future production of them would really make a dent for decades.

Wouldn't a "relatively little impact" be better than nothing? If it prevents just one mass shooting like this from happening again isn't it worth it?

Outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, which millions of people own and use lawfully, because it might prevent one crazy person was using one for a mass shooting? Seems like that "isn't it worth it to save even one life" kind of argument could apply to all sorts of things we wouldn't consider banning.

but using that logic we shouldn't have most laws...we don't know that they do anything but "might prevent one crazy person".

Would the same argument apply to booze, or McDonald's, or cigarettes? Are those any more necessary? Wouldn't banning those save far more lives than an AR-15? My point is that the "isn't it worth it to save one life" argument is very poorly reasoned.

[Phil Titola]

So far (sorry if I missed one) it has been suggested...

1. Make all semi-automatic rifles illegal. This is the only mass shooting I'm aware of where that might have made a significant difference. Most mass shooting situations were or could have been carried out just as effectively with semi-automatic pistols. seems like a pretty dramatic curtailment of gun rights with relatively little impact. It would also be political impossible to ban and confiscate all existing semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 is I think the most popular rifle in the US), and I'm not sure banning future production of them would really make a dent for decades.

Wouldn't a "relatively little impact" be better than nothing? If it prevents just one mass shooting like this from happening again isn't it worth it?

Outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, which millions of people own and use lawfully, because it might prevent one crazy person was using one for a mass shooting? Seems like that "isn't it worth it to save even one life" kind of argument could apply to all sorts of things we wouldn't consider banning.

but using that logic we shouldn't have most laws...we don't know that they do anything but "might prevent one crazy person".

Would the same argument apply to booze, or McDonald's, or cigarettes? Are those any more necessary? Wouldn't banning those save far more lives than an AR-15? My point is that the "isn't it worth it to save one life" argument is very poorly reasoned.

agreed....laws have to have balance and risk/reward factored.  Could be argued booze and cigarettes have more laws/taxes/regulations applied to them than guns (age restriction, tax, etc)...and McDonalds probably should have more.

I'm just wanting to try anything and have 2A enthusiasts give a little bit on this thing...what we are doing isn't work.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Oh, so turns out this guy has already made the same point with greater elaboration. Worth reading.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/266379/

And this guy. http://amp.nationalreview.com/corner/337324/if-it-saves-one-life-charles-c-w-cooke

[catastrophe]

So far (sorry if I missed one) it has been suggested...

1. Make all semi-automatic rifles illegal. This is the only mass shooting I'm aware of where that might have made a significant difference. Most mass shooting situations were or could have been carried out just as effectively with semi-automatic pistols. seems like a pretty dramatic curtailment of gun rights with relatively little impact. It would also be political impossible to ban and confiscate all existing semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 is I think the most popular rifle in the US), and I'm not sure banning future production of them would really make a dent for decades.

Wouldn't a "relatively little impact" be better than nothing? If it prevents just one mass shooting like this from happening again isn't it worth it?

Outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, which millions of people own and use lawfully, because it might prevent one crazy person was using one for a mass shooting? Seems like that "isn't it worth it to save even one life" kind of argument could apply to all sorts of things we wouldn't consider banning.

but using that logic we shouldn't have most laws...we don't know that they do anything but "might prevent one crazy person".

Would the same argument apply to booze, or McDonald's, or cigarettes? Are those any more necessary? Wouldn't banning those save far more lives than an AR-15? My point is that the "isn't it worth it to save one life" argument is very poorly reasoned.

The same argument doesn't apply at all because some crazy person cannot force you to consume any of those other things like they can force you to consume bullets.

That is, unless they had a gun to your head.

[catastrophe]

Would you say that the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people"? Any moreso than other guns?

Just take the L. I'm pretty sure when they were designing the AR15 to market and sell to soldiers in Vietnam they weren't looking into Coyote shooting applications.

[MakeItRain]

Look, I get that there are a massive amount of guns and types of guns out there, so there will be extreme difficulty in legislation. However, it seems logical to me that high caliber weapons that are semi automatic, have large ammunition cartridges/clips, and are simply designed and built to mow down mass amounts of people would be a sensible start. The fact that 59 people are dead and 527 are injured in a very short amount of time would lead me to believe that he wasn't using a bolt action .22 or a 12 gauge shot gun. It doesn't take a ton of logic to imagine the type of weapon that was used to accomplish such carnage, especially after hearing the bursts on the videos. I don't need to know the make and model honestly.

What is you plan on the millions of these are out in the public?
Most are legally not registered nor is there a computer data base of serial numbers from the original sale (congress wouldnt allow it). If you propose legislation the will flood the market witht them prior to the ban (see clinton era) thus driving the price down and putting them in even more unstable peoples hands.

There should be a national weapon registry and every single weapon not tied to a registration should be melted. Seized guns find their way back onto the streets and that's insane.

Yup, everyone should have to register every gun, give a sizable grace period then confiscate and destroy any not voluntarily registered. It's insane that this is not already the case.

As an owner of 2 different caliber AR platform rifles and several hand guns this should absolutely be acceptable to any gun owner.

Every one of my weapons is registered except for an old .410 that was my great, great grandfather's.

Under my law you'd be able to register that antique under your license. In addition to melting down all non registered firearm, I would work with gun people, non-NRA, to develop legislation that states how many of each type of weapon you would be allowed to possess, you can't have unlimited registered weapons.

You would not be able to sell your firearm without a license to sell.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Would you say that the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people"? Any moreso than other guns?

Just take the L. I'm pretty sure when they were designing the AR15 to market and sell to soldiers in Vietnam they weren't looking into Coyote shooting applications.

Lol ok bub. You still haven't answered why the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people" and more than any other gun. You keep pointing to... marketing or something?

[MakeItRain]

Look, I get that there are a massive amount of guns and types of guns out there, so there will be extreme difficulty in legislation. However, it seems logical to me that high caliber weapons that are semi automatic, have large ammunition cartridges/clips, and are simply designed and built to mow down mass amounts of people would be a sensible start. The fact that 59 people are dead and 527 are injured in a very short amount of time would lead me to believe that he wasn't using a bolt action .22 or a 12 gauge shot gun. It doesn't take a ton of logic to imagine the type of weapon that was used to accomplish such carnage, especially after hearing the bursts on the videos. I don't need to know the make and model honestly.

What is you plan on the millions of these are out in the public?
Most are legally not registered nor is there a computer data base of serial numbers from the original sale (congress wouldnt allow it). If you propose legislation the will flood the market witht them prior to the ban (see clinton era) thus driving the price down and putting them in even more unstable peoples hands.

There should be a national weapon registry and every single weapon not tied to a registration should be melted. Seized guns find their way back onto the streets and that's insane.

They are actually sold by police departments to raise $$.

Huge issue in Chicago, I will find it but there's an insane amount of firearms that have been involved in multiple murders.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So far (sorry if I missed one) it has been suggested...

1. Make all semi-automatic rifles illegal. This is the only mass shooting I'm aware of where that might have made a significant difference. Most mass shooting situations were or could have been carried out just as effectively with semi-automatic pistols. seems like a pretty dramatic curtailment of gun rights with relatively little impact. It would also be political impossible to ban and confiscate all existing semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 is I think the most popular rifle in the US), and I'm not sure banning future production of them would really make a dent for decades.

Wouldn't a "relatively little impact" be better than nothing? If it prevents just one mass shooting like this from happening again isn't it worth it?

Outlaw all semi-automatic rifles, which millions of people own and use lawfully, because it might prevent one crazy person was using one for a mass shooting? Seems like that "isn't it worth it to save even one life" kind of argument could apply to all sorts of things we wouldn't consider banning.

but using that logic we shouldn't have most laws...we don't know that they do anything but "might prevent one crazy person".

Would the same argument apply to booze, or McDonald's, or cigarettes? Are those any more necessary? Wouldn't banning those save far more lives than an AR-15? My point is that the "isn't it worth it to save one life" argument is very poorly reasoned.

The same argument doesn't apply at all because some crazy person cannot force you to consume any of those other things like they can force you to consume bullets.

That is, unless they had a gun to your head.

Really? So how about drunk driving?

[Dugout DickStone]

Who is comparing cigs and guns my god

[catastrophe]

Would you say that the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people"? Any moreso than other guns?

Just take the L. I'm pretty sure when they were designing the AR15 to market and sell to soldiers in Vietnam they weren't looking into Coyote shooting applications.

Lol ok bub. You still haven't answered why the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people" and more than any other gun. You keep pointing to... marketing or something?

KSUW: "you can't prove shoes are purely designed for walking in because I can wear them on my hands"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Would you say that the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people"? Any moreso than other guns?

Just take the L. I'm pretty sure when they were designing the AR15 to market and sell to soldiers in Vietnam they weren't looking into Coyote shooting applications.

Lol ok bub. You still haven't answered why the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people" and more than any other gun. You keep pointing to... marketing or something?

KSUW: "you can't prove shoes are purely designed for walking in because I can wear them on my hands"

You're making my point for me, dumbass. Guns = shoes. AR-15 = specific kind of shoe. I asked you what's so special about the AR-15's design that makes it purely for killing people, any more so than other guns, and you can't answer (because it isn't).

[SdK]

Why are some of you engaging with KSU?

[catastrophe]

The same argument doesn't apply at all because some crazy person cannot force you to consume any of those other things like they can force you to consume bullets.

That is, unless they had a gun to your head.

Really? So how about drunk driving?
[/quote]

This is my favorite argument because everyone who makes it would absolutely hate to have guns regulated like cars.

[catastrophe]

Why are some of you engaging with KSU?

Target practice.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Nobody reasonable should be against registration of guns. The registration should include forensics to make murders easier to solve.

I don't really agree with limits on the number of guns you can own. I don't think anyone should be able to get a silencer, a fully automatic gun, or a tool to make the gun fire faster. That said, I don't think these guns are causing any major problems in the US and certainly won't lose sleep if they don't get banned.

Also, you should have to pass a target practice test to get a license and eye exams every few years after to keep it.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The same argument doesn't apply at all because some crazy person cannot force you to consume any of those other things like they can force you to consume bullets.

That is, unless they had a gun to your head.

Really? So how about drunk driving?

This is my favorite argument because everyone who makes it would absolutely hate to have guns regulated like cars.
[/quote]

Really hard to keep liberals focused. When I asked about drunk driving, that was in relation to alcohol. Not the car. Try to follow along.

[Phil Titola]

Honestly though these are wasted words. Kids died in their school room to this nonsense and we did nothing but we're told it was "too soon to talk about it".

[LickNeckey]

Would you say that the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people"? Any moreso than other guns?

Just take the L. I'm pretty sure when they were designing the AR15 to market and sell to soldiers in Vietnam they weren't looking into Coyote shooting applications.

Lol ok bub. You still haven't answered why the AR-15 is designed "purely to kill people" and more than any other gun. You keep pointing to... marketing or something?

I would suggest that since Eugene Stoner developed it specifically as an adaptation of the AR-10 in a .223 caliber at the request of the US military specifically to meet minimum depth of penetration requirements put forth by the Army would be the explanation you are looking for here.