|
jlf1961 -> RE: Guns (1/29/2013 7:33:15 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nosathro
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
So wishing to stop mass murder is extremist......Fucking laughable
There is something distinctly bizarre about people who style themselves as righteous for supporting laws that will do nothing to solve the problem.
K.
And you seem to be labouring under the impression mass murders are not a valid point........how sad.
Okay, lets look at mass murders in the US.
Columbine, not a single weapon qualified under the assault weapon ban then in effect was used.
Virginia Tech, arguably the highest number of victims, both wounded and killed, no assault weapon used, just handguns, and those hand guns are not in the current ban.
Now from a source that is arguably anti gun there are some documented facts to consider.
[image]http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/final_weapons2.png[/image]
Source.
Notice anything about the weapons used in the majority of mass killings?
Most of those handguns are not covered under the proposed ban.
Now I will agree to something, most gun owners have no need for an AR based weapon, or even an AK styled weapon.
For home defense, a long arm of any type is more of a hindrance than an asset. Especially when you consider that you cannot use deadly force until the person you constitute as a threat is inside the home. In close quarters, a pistol is the far more effective, and logical choice.
Now, the average hunter, from the stats I have been able to find, uses a lever action, bolt action or a limited capacity semi automatic rifle.
Fundamentally, the AR based rifle is unique in its versatility and has a wide range of configurations.
What are the non homicide related uses, as I have pointed out, dealing various problematic wildlife. The AR can be configured for ease of use in a wide range of wildlife habitat, unlike any other rifle design.
So there is the rub.
Granted, some bright individual at in the employ of a gun manufacture might come up with an equally versatile but the odds are it will fall under the ban.
The US has already put restrictions on fully automatic rifles and sub machine guns, requiring an NFA form, transfer fee and other procedures before you can purchase one, and you cannot purchase an automatic weapon manufactured after 1984.
Instead of a ban, what about purchase restrictions based on intended use?
With the intended use being verifiable, and going so far as to set residence restrictions, such as no sales to people in an urban environment.
That would limit the purchases, and control who buys these weapons.
The majority of doomsday preppers prefer a 22 semi automatic and a shotgun, and agreeably those people are just a bit on the paranoid side of the gun owner group, but a specific configuration of the AR could be set up for them, that would probably be less than one percent of sales.
I am sure such suggestions would be considered blasphemy by the NRA and others, but it does address the legitimate use of the AR design in non military settings.
Would this be just as good as a ban?
Does it really matter what type of gun is used, AR-15 or Glock...people are DEAD, it seem that is a concept that some here can't understand. You also should have the chart were the majority got their guns legally....not the back alley, shaddy thing you think happens.
Okay, your statement clarifies your opinion on the issue, you want a complete ban on all guns.
So I can assume that you wish the second amendment to be repealed?
And what about the homicides where guns were not the weapon of choice?
Lets look at something else while we are at it, bulk sales of ammonia nitrate fertilizer is indeed regulated, since it is a main ingredient in the making of explosives.
Timothy McVeigh did not buy the fertilizer he used in making his bomb in bulk, he purchased small numbers of 50 pound bags at various places until he got enough. Yet an individual can do the same thing today and not trip any red flags for the authorities.
Nitro methane racing fuel is not regulated, that was his other ingredient.
Finally he stole the commercial explosives to trigger his bomb. I have been told that he could have done it just as easy with a black powder charge, but I have not taken the time to verify that, so I am not claiming it as fact.
Your statement "people are DEAD" is not just limited to gun related killings.
A point that you and others do not seem to grasp, you are concentrating your efforts on only a part of the over all problem.
To be honest, if I were to initiate a mass killing, I would not target children, personal code you could say, and I would not target the random group of people on the street or in a mall, no point in it really unless your whole objective is just to kill, I would go for the maximum body count in the most concentrated location possible. Since it would be a TOS violation to detail the weapon used, I wont.
There are six types of killers in the world if you do not count military personnel, A killer driven by passion, a betrayed spouse or lover is a good example, the serial killer, usually sociopath or psychotic, with a past of violent or bizarre behavior, there is the revenge killer, there is the killer that is trying to cover up a crime, and the spree or mass killer, whose motivations may range from anger, to making a political statement to being mentally unbalanced and had reached a snapping point.
With most murders you have motive, then you have the mass or spree killers, where motive may not be apparent. Yes the weapon used is brought into question, with good reason, I will not deny that, and sometimes to the point of ignoring the more obvious questions, such as why, what caused the person to commit the crimes, and could it have been prevented.
I have seen ONE and only one idea dealing with the last point, a proposed executive order to make it mandatory for mental health professionals to report patients that have the potential for violent acts, and I have seen people not involved in the pro or anti gun debate screaming about that being a violation of a person's privacy.
But your statements makes me believe that in your opinion it is all or nothing, no compromise.
|
|
|
|
