Assault Weapons

[piezoe]

Many of the shooters did not legally possess firearms. That makes them criminals. If you look at the vast preponderance of murders by firearm (and we're talking 80-90% each year, if not higher) it is done by criminals. People with criminal records. Felons. Gang members.

I was thinking in terms of these mass shootings not criminal acts involving guns in general. wrong? I thought the current pressure was on these so-called assault rifles with big magazines. I don't think most of the criminal stuff, robbing the local gas station, involves those kinds of guns, does it?

The argument is how to get them out of the hands of those that commit the crimes.

So this kind of thinking is leading us into an NRA type of argument: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So guns are not bad; it's people that are bad. All we need to do is identify the bad people and keep them from getting a gun! Am i right about this. Is that basically the argument you are putting forth?

I understand how you were perplexed over the story about my dad, and wondering, WTF. What I was trying to get at, unsuccessfully, was that we tend to worry about a lot of things that are such low probability that it's silly to worry about them, for example an intruder coming into your home brandishing a fully loaded assault rifle. Where I failed was in not making the connection between low probability events that are not worth worrying about and those that are, by pointing out that if in some bizarre scenario a mouse chewed my dad's heating tape in two, and as a result his heavily insured condo burned to the ground, we would not be talking about twenty innocent kids having been slaughtered.

The probability of a Sandy Hook is very small, but the consequences are so horrific that it would make sense to make it almost impossible to ever occur again.

So I don't see this as a problem of "How do you get the guns out of the hands of criminals, because as the NRA folks know, you can't reliably do that without violating our second Amendment, because you can't reliably identify would be criminals.

I see this as a different kind of problem, one of how do you make the probability of another Sandy Hook as small as possible. You do it by combining universal background checks with a ban on the sale of certain types of firearms, and making their ownership illegal. It's unlikely you'll get them all, but you will substantially reduce they probability of a another Sandy Hook, because the probability of any particular gun being fired is directly related to the probability of it being available.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I was thinking in terms of these mass shootings not criminal acts involving guns in general. wrong? I thought the current pressure was on these so-called assault rifles with big magazines. I don't think most of the criminal stuff, robbing the local gas station, involves those kinds of guns, does it?

Didn't you mention the Canada gun laws and pistols? Because that represents the bulk of the homicides. AR15s are a tiny percentage of gun homicides. Unless you suddenly don't care about any homicides but those.

So this kind of thinking is leading us into an NRA type of argument: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So guns are not bad; it's people that are bad. All we need to do is identify the bad people and keep them from getting a gun! Am i right about this. Is that basically the argument you are putting forth?

I don't think I said anything like that. But people are the ones pulling the trigger. No, my argument has been pretty consistent. I'd be happy to give up my guns if you get the bad guys to surrender theirs. I keep asking how you're going to do that. In fact, that's really all I've been asking about.

I see this as a different kind of problem, one of how do you make the probability of another Sandy Hook as small as possible. You do it by combining universal background checks with a ban on the sale of certain types of firearms, and making their ownership illegal. It's unlikely you'll get them all, but you will substantially reduce they probability of a another Sandy Hook, because the probability of any particular gun being fired is directly related to the probability of it being available.

So, if I understand, you're talking about preventing the sale of these guns. OK. But how do you get the millions on the street off the street?

 

[piezoe]

I'd be happy to give up my guns if you get the bad guys to surrender theirs. I keep asking how you're going to do that. In fact, that's really all I've been asking about.

That's the NRA line. Because they know that the only way we identify criminals is by their crime. We do confiscate guns from criminals. It happens everyday. \So are you ready to give up your guns? No, of course you won't follow through. Because you know as well as the NRA knows, we can't identify a criminal until after they commit a crime!

So if you want to get serious about gun control, you'll have to go beyond this. In other words, with your current nonsensical position you have made yourself part of the problem.

Instead, we must adopt a different approach. We can not eliminate guns, and why should we want to? Gun ownership is an inalienable right! And we can't identify criminals before they commit a crime.

Just two things that we could do, however, would have a substantial impact on the number and severity of senseless mass murders. 1) Eliminate the sale and legal ownership of semiautomatic guns with large magazines. 2) Require that all other semi-automatics be registered and that it be illegal, with significant penalties, to transfer ownership of a semiautomatic gun to another person without the seller registering the sale; thus making it incumbent on the seller, not the buyer, to register the sale. And if a gun, after its ownership is transferred, is used to commit a crime, and the seller is identified and found not to have registered the sale, the seller will bear the same responsibility for the crime as the one committing it. That would, I promise you, assure that all transfers of ownership of semiautomatics be properly registered!

If those laws were passed, in a few years there would be practically no unregistered semiautomatics and the number of illegal, large magazine, semiautomatics would be minuscule. And because it would become extremely difficult to get your hands on a large magazine semi-automatic, the number of mass killings facilitated with these guns, would very significantly decline. Yet no one such as yourself would be barred from owning a semiautomatic gun.

There is no logical reason for anyone to oppose such legislation, once one considers what is to be gained. Yet it would be opposed.

 

[piezoe]

Didn't you mention the Canada gun laws and pistols? Because that represents the bulk of the homicides. AR15s are a tiny percentage of gun homicides. Unless you suddenly don't care about any homicides but those.

I would prefer, and I think it's one of the very most sensible gun laws anywhere, that we just adopted Canada's law word for word. But I understand that's not where we are now, and there is no reasonable probability that that will happen soon. So if I harped on that it would be a diversion, just as your mentioning homicides is a diversion. That's not where we are. Let me state plainly what the current thrust of gun legislation is. It's aimed at reducing the probability of mass shooting and making background checks universal and closing the gun show loophole. This is where the debate needs to focus, because otherwise we are engaging in diversion tactics as a means of simply letting the whole issue die a natural death from exhaustion.

Lets stop using the word criminals. There are millions of criminals according to definition, and only a tiny fraction of those crimes had anything to do with guns, and a vanishingly small number of those incidents involved semi-automatics with large magazines, which is where the focus needs to be right now, simply because that's where there is a chance to get some meaningful reform legislation passed and that where some of the most horrendus crimes are coming from! Let's talk about what can be done to get people from efficiently and easily killing large numbers of other people using guns. We could drift off into a discussion of all the ways that can be dreamed up to create havoc and kill lots of people. Let's not.

I don't think I said anything like that. But people are the ones pulling the trigger. No, my argument has been pretty consistent. I'd be happy to give up my guns if you get the bad guys to surrender theirs. I keep asking how you're going to do that. In fact, that's really all I've been asking about.

Again, this argument of yours is a diversion. Let's stay focused. Everyone knows we can not efficiently identify a person who would commit a crime in the future using a gun. So if you want to be part of the solution you have to drop this nonsensical argument. Otherwise society is going to move on without your input.

 

[gwb-trading]

 

[Buy1Sell2]

View attachment 258628

It's a very good tool.

 

[murray t turtle]

View attachment 258628

%%
Good tool good trends;
everybody should have plenty.
I saw an ad for something like that, 50 round maga.......,.......That 50 round pistol will never make America great again . Only God + guns can do that that
I subscribe to NRA American hunter Maga zine/ LIFE ; + get NRA American rifleman + related maga zines from gun dealers.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Senator John Kennedy Humiliates ATF Director Nominee with Painfully Simple Question

https://trendingpolitics.com/senato...-nominee-with-painfully-simple-question-knab/

“I got 35 seconds left, define it for me, would you please, sir. What’s an assault weapon?” Sen. John Kennedy asked Chipman.

“There’s no way I could define an assault weapon,” Chipman said.

“I’ll give you one definition that ATF currently uses,” Chipman continued, although Kennedy wanted his personal definition.

“I’m done, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think I’m gonna get an answer,” Kennedy said.

 

[murray t turtle]

Senator John Kennedy Humiliates ATF Director Nominee with Painfully Simple Question

https://trendingpolitics.com/senato...-nominee-with-painfully-simple-question-knab/

“I got 35 seconds left, define it for me, would you please, sir. What’s an assault weapon?” Sen. John Kennedy asked Chipman.

“There’s no way I could define an assault weapon,” Chipman said.

“I’ll give you one definition that ATF currently uses,” Chipman continued, although Kennedy wanted his personal definition.

“I’m done, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think I’m gonna get an answer,” Kennedy said.

%%
Most of the media\God haters\gunhaters\NRA haters/constitution haters; an assault weapon is most any rifle they dont like.
Come to find out another reason some crooks hate the NRA = NRA helps train armed forces/police..................................................................................................
Murray NRA LIFE

 

[Snarkhund]

That is the problem, the left is simply unable to supply a concise description of what an assault rifle is so all decisions to ban will be arbitrary and capricious.

Most of us will just ignore all the yammering and any EO's or legislation that erode the constitution.

Rifles comprise 2% of violent crimes and handguns 68% but rifles can be associated with persons of white extraction so lets punish them. That is the current state of logic in the United States.

They are basically going to ban all semi-automatic carbines. Its laughable because of how many of them are out there. Do they realize how many people purchased their guns at Florida gun shows back when it was unregulated? Good luck tracking those...