School shooting Florida

[Bob001]

Are you suggesting that the USA operates some sort of apartheid system where citizens are graded, and treated differently as a result of that grade? Most civilised countries try to treat all of their citizens equally. Is this what is meant by "American exceptionalism"?

The poster is simply wrong. Citizens by birth or naturalization are treated identically under the law, except that persons who are not "natural born" can't grow up to be President, and even that's a matter of dispute. Non-citizens who are legal residents can also buy firearms.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms

 

[Dave Rogers]

You're not making any sense.

Yet strangely everyone who wants to understand me succeeds.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave said that I was keen on taking away all AR-15s which is something I never said.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were the only one allowed to do that.

Dave

 

[Nessie]

Btw. is there anyone here who thinks the US gun law is fine as it is and that no change is required ? Because IMHO that's what's going to change: nothing.

I have not seen anyone either. The numerous different laws for each state would be fine if each state had a system where a gun can only be bought after a thorough background check and the vast majority of guns were possessed by suitable people.

Ensuring only suitable people have the guns is why the rest of the western world does not have the same problems the USA has. Only in the USA was/is it easy for criminals, angry people, nuts and youths to get a gun. Nowhere else has that issue.

Combine that with the sheer number of guns in the USA and the perfect disaster has been created.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes it would. Why is that a bad thing?

It basically means you want to ban all semi-auto rifles that use detachable magazines.

And then we'd have to wonder why such a ban does not include rifles with fixed high cap magazines, such as a Marlin 60 or 39A.

You can't reload them fast, but you can still spray a classroom with 14 to 26 bullets without stopping.

What about common lever actions with side loading gates that can be topped up on the fly? Essentially, you can fire an unlimited number of rounds without stopping, because you can quickly top up the magazine without even lowering the rifle.

Same for shotguns with tube magazines. They can be topped up on the fly.

To me, once you justify taking the 10/22 away from me, you are justifying taking all firearms away from me.

A crazy person can shoot a lot of people quickly with most firearms.

 

[Meadmaker]

It basically means you want to ban all semi-auto rifles that use detachable magazines.

And then we'd have to wonder why such a ban does not include rifles with fixed high cap magazines, such as a Marlin 60 or 39A.

You can't reload them fast, but you can still spray a classroom with 14 to 26 bullets without stopping.

What about common lever actions with side loading gates that can be topped up on the fly? Essentially, you can fire an unlimited number of rounds without stopping, because you can quickly top up the magazine without even lowering the rifle.

Same for shotguns with tube magazines. They can be topped up on the fly.

To me, once you justify taking the 10/22 away from me, you are justifying taking all firearms away from me.

A crazy person can shoot a lot of people quickly with most firearms.

First, I don't think anyone is actually talking about "taking away" existing guns. I think what's at issue is being able to acquire new ones, and possibly restrictions on use. (i.e. concealed carries, trigger locks, etc........)

I don't know how to say exactly which guns ought to be banned and which ones should not. That's up to congressional staffers listening to expert testimony. I just know that I don't want individuals to own guns capable of sending lots of bullets into the air very quickly. It's up to someone else to provide a reasonable definition of "lots" and "very quickly".

What it comes down to is that there is generally recognized a right of self defense, and the Supreme Court has held that a complete ban on handguns is outside the bounds of the second amendment. However, a complete right to own any firearm is not protected by the second amendment. Now it's just a matter of figuring out where to draw the line. Could a person make a reasonable case that they need a tube loaded shotgun as a self defense weapon in some scenario that could reasonably happen to people who aren't drug dealers? Then the justices will say that the government can't forbid you from having them.

 

[3point14]

It basically means you want to ban all semi-auto rifles that use detachable magazines.

And then we'd have to wonder why such a ban does not include rifles with fixed high cap magazines, such as a Marlin 60 or 39A.

You can't reload them fast, but you can still spray a classroom with 14 to 26 bullets without stopping.

What about common lever actions with side loading gates that can be topped up on the fly? Essentially, you can fire an unlimited number of rounds without stopping, because you can quickly top up the magazine without even lowering the rifle.

Same for shotguns with tube magazines. They can be topped up on the fly.

To me, once you justify taking the 10/22 away from me, you are justifying taking all firearms away from me.

A crazy person can shoot a lot of people quickly with most firearms.

That attitude makes any control impossible, I think.

 

[William Parcher]

First, I don't think anyone is actually talking about "taking away" existing guns.

There certainly are people talking about that.

Additionally, it probably would have been the way to stop Cruz.

 

[Amazer]

Since banning AR-15s by name would be discriminatory, the ban would have to be based on capability, so they'd all be banned too.

Dave

Keep it simple and just ban any gun that isn't single shot, muzzle loading.

Example here https://youtu.be/LORVfnFtcH0

Should keep the gun huggers happy because they can still have their arms...

 

[Thermal]

Well since many people in US don't believe it's problem of guns, many people like guns, and some even like NRA, I suspect many children would have similar opinions.

The school declared a memorial event at 10 AM for the Parkland victims, and had speakers attend. Apparently, some students saw this as another Us v Them thing and came out in their colors. My daughter estimated the counter protestors were about 60 out of maybe 500 in attendance. Just seems odd that students wouldn't put the partisan junk aside during a memorial service. I hope it was due to immaturity and not actual lack of empathy.

 

[Thermal]

Why don't you just come out a say "black people?" We can all hear those dog whistles loud and clear

Oh, you're Poe-ing. You had me going there for a bit.

 

[LTC8K6]

What do we do about Senators who say things like this, which demonstrates no knowledge whatsoever of the subject:

The first is getting military-style assault weapons such as the AR-15 off the streets.

These weapons fire much faster than typical hunting rifles. They fire rounds that are also deadlier than those fired from a hunting rifle. A Parkland radiologist noted that an AR-15 round may leave an exit wound “the size of an orange.” These weapons are designed to kill people, not animals.

Our current bill would ban 205 weapons by name, and any other weapons that accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. The 1994 ban required two additional characteristics, a loophole that gun manufacturers exploited. We'd close that loophole.

Importantly, the bill also bans high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The shooter at the grade school in Newtown, Conn., for example, used 30-round magazines.

High-capacity magazines also lead to deadlier mass shootings. While law enforcement might be able to respond to mass shootings in a matter of minutes, a matter of minutes is all it takes to fire hundreds of rounds.

Much of it is false, and the rest makes no sense.

Hunting rifles fire just as fast, and generally are far more powerful than an AR-15.

10 round magazines would have changed nothing in any of the mass shootings.

A matter of minutes is all it takes to fire hundreds of rounds from almost any firearm, except a muzzle loader.

If you want to ban firearms, just say so.

Stop spouting nonsense and falsehoods, and learn about the subject if you are going to vote on it.

This is one of the things that makes me resist any gun control and frustrates me no end. The people who want to take my firearms away appear to know absolutely nothing about them. And they appear to never have bothered to learn, because they have been saying the same things for decades.

Thus they propose arbitrary laws and restrictions that make no sense to me, and cause me to believe they just want to ban all firearms.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...cans-wrong-dianne-feinstein-column/420144002/

 

[Giz]

This is one of the things that makes me resist any gun control and frustrates me no end. The people who want to take my firearms away appear to know absolutely nothing about them. And they appear to never have bothered to learn, because they have been saying the same things for decades.

Thus they propose arbitrary laws and restrictions that make no sense to me, and cause me to believe they just want to ban all firearms.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...cans-wrong-dianne-feinstein-column/420144002/

This.

Ignorance is not a virtue.

 

[johnny karate]

Why don't you just come out a say "black people?" We can all hear those dog whistles loud and clear

I see what you did there. Sick burn, bro.

But of course, the reason why criminals, the mentally ill, and drug addicts should not have access to guns is patently obvious to anyone with sense enough to not believe conspiracy theories.

On the other hand, your argument that foreigners and poor people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns has no basis in reality outside of bigotry and xenophobia.

OK, your turn to tell us why non-citizens should have the right to bear arms.

It’s weird that you keep pretending that you didn’t make the claims that you very clearly made and continue to act as if we’re having an entirely different discussion.

 

[Meadmaker]

There certainly are people talking about that.

Additionally, it probably would have been the way to stop Cruz.

Well, sure. Some people talk about all sorts of things. Let me revise.

No one who is to be taken seriously is proposing legislation that would confiscate existing, legally acquired, weapons. Like the last assault weapons ban, the "ban" is related to the sale and/or manufacture of new weapons. Get your AR-15s now, while supplies last. Some people are talking about temporarily removing guns from possession of people deemed dangerous, or permanent removal from people convicted of crimes, but that's it.

And before we get bogged down into nitpicking on exactly what people are proposing, right now, there's no real legislation even being discussed. Right now, there are a few baby steps like the ones passed last week in Florida, and a whole lot of talk. Meanwhile, politicians are sticking their fingers up to see which way the wind is blowing. What they hear from the crowds will determine how they vote, or in some cases, they might vote their conscience anyway, and hope for the best at the polls. In other words, we're a long way from any action or any specifics.

However, I cannot see any legislation passing in the United States that would generally confiscate existing, legally acquired, weapons, regardless of capability.

 

[Dr.Sid]

However, I cannot see any legislation passing in the United States that would generally confiscate existing, legally acquired, weapons, regardless of capability.

It did pass in Australia. Not confiscation, but buyback. Why not US ? I mean sure, it will cost billions. But maybe it's time to pay them ?

 

[LTC8K6]

It did pass in Australia. Not confiscation, but buyback. Why not US ? I mean sure, it will cost billions. But maybe it's time to pay them ?

The US government sells semi-auto military firearms to civilians through the CMP.

http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/

Seems odd to sell them and confiscate/buy them back at the same time.

 

[Giz]

It did pass in Australia. Not confiscation, but buyback. Why not US ? I mean sure, it will cost billions. But maybe it's time to pay them ?

What happened in Australia was clearly confiscation. It was compensated but as the guns were becoming illegal it wasn't an optional participation buyback like we sometimes see in the US.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.guns.com/2018/03/14/bolt...stralian-officials-as-its-too-assaulty-video/

Australia bans some guns because of how they look...

Which is what would happen here.

If we took an AR-15, removed the gas system, and added a handle to the bolt, making it a manually operated bolt action rifle, it would undoubtedly fall under any assault weapons ban simply because it looks like an AR-15.

 

[MikeG]

Don't worry, I worked it out.