Enough

[easyrider16]

And talk about a wildly impractical plan. How many schools are there in the U.S.? If you put one retired military person at each school, how many tens of thousands of people does that require? You think all those people are just going to do this for free? Maybe you want to start a new branch of the military just to defend schools from psychos?

I have a better idea. How about we ban the assault rifles that make these mass shootings possible? Oh, right, the gun nuts won't let us, and they're one of the Republican's biggest voting blocks.

[XtremeJibber2001]

And talk about a wildly impractical plan. How many schools are there in the U.S.? If you put one retired military person at each school, how many tens of thousands of people does that require? You think all those people are just going to do this for free? Maybe you want to start a new branch of the military just to defend schools from psychos?

I have a better idea. How about we ban the assault rifles that make these mass shootings possible? Oh, right, the gun nuts won't let us, and they're one of the Republican's biggest voting blocks.

There are 130,930 public and private K-12 schools in the US. Lets not forget there were armed guards at the Buffalo Tops as well as Uvalde Elementary.

Reintroducing the Assault Weapon ban makes complete sense. I've emptied a 30 round clip of 223 from an AR-15 ... no one 'needs' one of these weapons.

[easyrider16]

I also have some experience firing AR-type weapons. They are a lot of fun to shoot. There is no practical purpose for a civilian to have one apart from recreation. These are weapons on par with rocket launchers and tanks. They are weapons of war, not a means of self-defense. This fantasy of common citizens needing to keep such weapons in their homes to resist an oppressive government is as dangerous as it is foolish.

This one kid at Uvalde had an entire police force outgunned with one AR-15. Had he been armed with a pistol instead, it's quite likely police would have taken him down without having to call a tac team.

[Bubba]

I have to chime in here. The problem isn't the kind of gun, although that obviously has a direct impact on the outcome. The problem is the few people, psychos if you will, who purchase them for evil purposes. That being said, the solution isn't to ban the weapon (rightfully described by easyrider as "fun to shoot") but, rather, to make it far harder to purchase one legally. Full background checks without any loopholes, a waiting period of at least several days so that a complete background check can be conducted, a minimum age for purchase, and a ban on private resale where the seller would be liable for any harm caused by the buyer. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute so, while I'm sure such rules would be challenged, I'm not sure they're legally unsupportable. Politically, of course, is a separate issue.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I have to chime in here. The problem isn't the kind of gun, although that obviously has a direct impact on the outcome. The problem is the few people, psychos if you will, who purchase them for evil purposes. That being said, the solution isn't to ban the weapon (rightfully described by easyrider as "fun to shoot") but, rather, to make it far harder to purchase one legally. Full background checks without any loopholes, a waiting period of at least several days so that a complete background check can be conducted, a minimum age for purchase, and a ban on private resale where the seller would be liable for any harm caused by the buyer. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute so, while I'm sure such rules would be challenged, I'm not sure they're legally unsupportable. Politically, of course, is a separate issue.

I'd be in favor of this, too. It's not all or nothing from my end. Unfortunately, I don't think even the most modest of regulations will be supported by Republicans.

[daytripper]

I have to chime in here. The problem isn't the kind of gun, although that obviously has a direct impact on the outcome. The problem is the few people, psychos if you will, who purchase them for evil purposes. That being said, the solution isn't to ban the weapon (rightfully described by easyrider as "fun to shoot") but, rather, to make it far harder to purchase one legally. Full background checks without any loopholes, a waiting period of at least several days so that a complete background check can be conducted, a minimum age for purchase, and a ban on private resale where the seller would be liable for any harm caused by the buyer. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute so, while I'm sure such rules would be challenged, I'm not sure they're legally unsupportable. Politically, of course, is a separate issue.

I'd be in favor of this, too. It's not all or nothing from my end. Unfortunately, I don't think even the most modest of regulations will be supported by Republicans.

That all sounds good to me. I would be ok with banning large capacity (over 16 rounds) magazines as well.

[Bubba]

I have to chime in here. The problem isn't the kind of gun, although that obviously has a direct impact on the outcome. The problem is the few people, psychos if you will, who purchase them for evil purposes. That being said, the solution isn't to ban the weapon (rightfully described by easyrider as "fun to shoot") but, rather, to make it far harder to purchase one legally. Full background checks without any loopholes, a waiting period of at least several days so that a complete background check can be conducted, a minimum age for purchase, and a ban on private resale where the seller would be liable for any harm caused by the buyer. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute so, while I'm sure such rules would be challenged, I'm not sure they're legally unsupportable. Politically, of course, is a separate issue.

I'd be in favor of this, too. It's not all or nothing from my end. Unfortunately, I don't think even the most modest of regulations will be supported by Republicans.

That all sounds good to me. I would be ok with banning large capacity (over 16 rounds) magazines as well.

Banning large capacity magazines would be useless as they can be made today at home by 3D printers.

[Mister Moose]

And talk about a wildly impractical plan. How many schools are there in the U.S.? If you put one retired military person at each school, how many tens of thousands of people does that require? You think all those people are just going to do this for free? Maybe you want to start a new branch of the military just to defend schools from psychos?

I have a better idea. How about we ban the assault rifles that make these mass shootings possible? Oh, right, the gun nuts won't let us, and they're one of the Republican's biggest voting blocks.

Banning "assault rifles" will only shift the shootings to the next platform down. No one plans an 'assault weapon" vendetta. They plan mass shootings at soft targets with whatever weapon(s) they can get their hands on..

Face reality. Guns are out there. For some reason, there is a copycat mentality and the number of shootings is higher than it used to be. We had semi automatic guns for decades, this is a relatively recent problem. If you want to make schools safer, harden the schools. Absorb the cost. Otherwise you'll be looking at the next shooting with some new laws that didn't prevent it.

There are 130,930 public and private K-12 schools in the US. Lets not forget there were armed guards at the Buffalo Tops as well as Uvalde Elementary.

Reintroducing the Assault Weapon ban makes complete sense. I've emptied a 30 round clip of 223 from an AR-15 ... no one 'needs' one of these weapons.

Which just goes to illustrate there is no perfect solution. We have never been able to prevent crime of any kind, only reduce it. Eliminate 30 rounds magazines and you just get shooters with multiple 10 round magazines. And most will practice switching magazines, rendering the 30 round prohibition of minimal value.

I also have some experience firing AR-type weapons. They are a lot of fun to shoot. There is no practical purpose for a civilian to have one apart from recreation. These are weapons on par with rocket launchers and tanks. They are weapons of war, not a means of self-defense. This fantasy of common citizens needing to keep such weapons in their homes to resist an oppressive government is as dangerous as it is foolish.

This one kid at Uvalde had an entire police force outgunned with one AR-15. Had he been armed with a pistol instead, it's quite likely police would have taken him down without having to call a tac team.

Semi automatic is semi automatic. Equating a rifle to a tank stretches credulity. The fact is weapons for self defense are lethal. You can't reduce lethality without reducing self defense. Furthermore, any modern gun will inflict many casualties in the few minutes it takes the police to arrive.

My Dad's .45 military sidearm shoots just as fast as an AR, and the bullet does far more damage.

I have to chime in here. The problem isn't the kind of gun, although that obviously has a direct impact on the outcome. The problem is the few people, psychos if you will, who purchase them for evil purposes. That being said, the solution isn't to ban the weapon (rightfully described by easyrider as "fun to shoot") but, rather, to make it far harder to purchase one legally. Full background checks without any loopholes, a waiting period of at least several days so that a complete background check can be conducted, a minimum age for purchase, and a ban on private resale where the seller would be liable for any harm caused by the buyer. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute so, while I'm sure such rules would be challenged, I'm not sure they're legally unsupportable. Politically, of course, is a separate issue.

None of those provisions will stop a determined shooter. Columbine was planned well in advance. Sandy Hook involved no purchase.

I'd be in favor of this, too. It's not all or nothing from my end. Unfortunately, I don't think even the most modest of regulations will be supported by Republicans.

Yup, that's the answer. Put all the Republicans in the same box, and make them the fall guy. The impression I get is that those 2nd amendment supporters that object to "the most modest of regulations" object on the basis of the effectivity of the proposed law vs the increased regulation of law abiding gun owners and the unintended negative consequences of a proposed "solution".

I'm fine with an increased age for a more lethal type of weapon, I'm ok with improvements in background checks (which are over hyped), I'm ok with waiting periods if an in-danger battered spouse (et al) is also addressed, I'm ok with private sales being subject to the same rules. Just recognize none of this will fix the problem, it will only discourage or delay the impulse shooter that does not already have access to firearms.

The 2 other measures to add to the reduction in incidents is

Eliminate the motivation from those seeking blazing glory-fame. Take away the fame.
Harden the obvious recurrent soft targets until this pattern fades away.

Red flag laws are also an idea, but they are incomplete. After a short cooling off period, the burden to prove the need to continue the confiscation should be on the State, not the accused. This is a lack of due process action, and the financial disadvantage to defend against it should not be borne by the accused.

[daytripper]

I have to chime in here. The problem isn't the kind of gun, although that obviously has a direct impact on the outcome. The problem is the few people, psychos if you will, who purchase them for evil purposes. That being said, the solution isn't to ban the weapon (rightfully described by easyrider as "fun to shoot") but, rather, to make it far harder to purchase one legally. Full background checks without any loopholes, a waiting period of at least several days so that a complete background check can be conducted, a minimum age for purchase, and a ban on private resale where the seller would be liable for any harm caused by the buyer. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute so, while I'm sure such rules would be challenged, I'm not sure they're legally unsupportable. Politically, of course, is a separate issue.

I'd be in favor of this, too. It's not all or nothing from my end. Unfortunately, I don't think even the most modest of regulations will be supported by Republicans.

That all sounds good to me. I would be ok with banning large capacity (over 16 rounds) magazines as well.

Banning large capacity magazines would be useless as they can be made today at home by 3D printers.

Ghost guns can be made with 3d printers too, so with that logic I guess all gun laws are useless.

[easyrider16]

Banning "assault rifles" will only shift the shootings to the next platform down.

That is precisely the point. As I said earlier, if the Uvalde gunman had a pistol or hunting rifle instead of an AR-15, police would have had a far easier time in taking him down.

Semi automatic is semi automatic. Equating a rifle to a tank stretches credulity. The fact is weapons for self defense are lethal. You can't reduce lethality without reducing self defense. Furthermore, any modern gun will inflict many casualties in the few minutes it takes the police to arrive.

My Dad's .45 military sidearm shoots just as fast as an AR, and the bullet does far more damage.

That is simply not true. Objectively, it is far easier to acquire and hit multiple targets with an AR-15 than it is with a .45 pistol. An AR-15 is easier to aim, easer to fire repeatedly with less loss of accuracy, and can shoot a lot more bullets before having to be reloaded. An AR-15 is also more powerful because even though the bullet is smaller, it is fired at a higher rate of speed. As a result, a lot of police body armor is useless against an AR-15 rifle at close range, but can be effective against a .45 caliber pistol. Also, the .223 ammunition an AR-15 shoots causes a LOT more damage than .45 ammo because the smaller bullet fired at a higher speed tends to tumble when it hits flesh, causing massive damage, whereas the .45 typically punctures straight through.

As to bubba's point, I think it's a step in the right direction to impose liability and restrict access. As to the 2nd Amendment, we had an assault rifle ban for many years and it was upheld as being Constitutional, so that is not an issue. If it were up to me, I would make AR-15s (and other assault rifles) only available at ranges with special permits. You can go there, shoot up all the targets you want, but the gun has to stay there, locked up. And impose strict liability on the establishment for any damage done with those weapons so they make sure to keep them locked up tight and under control.

[Mister Moose]

Banning "assault rifles" will only shift the shootings to the next platform down.

That is precisely the point. As I said earlier, if the Uvalde gunman had a pistol or hunting rifle instead of an AR-15, police would have had a far easier time in taking him down.

Explain why it's an easier time, and where the situation is likely to have evolved to by the time the police arrive. And then explain why this is allowed by 2A.

Semi automatic is semi automatic. Equating a rifle to a tank stretches credulity. The fact is weapons for self defense are lethal. You can't reduce lethality without reducing self defense. Furthermore, any modern gun will inflict many casualties in the few minutes it takes the police to arrive.

My Dad's .45 military sidearm shoots just as fast as an AR, and the bullet does far more damage.

That is simply not true. Objectively, it is far easier to acquire and hit multiple targets with an AR-15 than it is with a .45 pistol. An AR-15 is easier to aim, easer to fire repeatedly with less loss of accuracy, and can shoot a lot more bullets before having to be reloaded. An AR-15 is also more powerful because even though the bullet is smaller, it is fired at a higher rate of speed. As a result, a lot of police body armor is useless against an AR-15 rifle at close range, but can be effective against a .45 caliber pistol. Also, the .223 ammunition an AR-15 shoots causes a LOT more damage than .45 ammo because the smaller bullet fired at a higher speed tends to tumble when it hits flesh, causing massive damage, whereas the .45 typically punctures straight through.

Why do pistols even exist if a rifle is so superior?

What difference does reload time (magazine size) make in a soft target mass shooting event before the police get there?

Are there pistols that shoot 223 rounds?

Are there situations where the .45 round is more lethal than the 223 round?

The differences in muzzle energy vs tumbling bullets aside, you dodged the more important question - how is reducing lethality consistent with the 2A, when the 2A protects your right to exert lethality? (please leave the absurd tank comparison behind)

As to bubba's point, I think it's a step in the right direction to impose liability and restrict access. As to the 2nd Amendment, we had an assault rifle ban for many years and it was upheld as being Constitutional, so that is not an issue.

Of course it's an issue. History has plenty of examples of Supreme Court decisions that were later deemed unconstitutional or deficient in some other way. You'll need to argue the merits, not quote a prior expired decision.

[easyrider16]

I'm not really interested in engaging in an extended ballistics discussion. You can do your own research to determine if the facts I have cited are true or not. If they are true, I think it's fairly obvious why it's harder for police to engage someone with an AR-15 rather than a pistol. Just look at Uvalde. Police responded initially very quickly, then were pinned down and injured by rifle fire and forced to call in a tactical team. If that were a .45 pistol, it would have been a completely different engagement. As to the time before police arrive, again I think it's fairly obvious that slower reloading gives victims more time to escape or take cover, and a less deadly gunshot wound gives the victims a better chance at survival.

As to the 2A, The Supreme Court has already ruled that an assault weapons ban is constitutional. The idea is that 2A isn't absolute and reasonable restrictions on guns is consistent with the Constitution. I would encourage you to look up the decision, which was written by Judge Scalia, one of the most conservative judges to ever serve on the bench.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint, Moose. I flat out disagree. Ban assault rifles (like the were in the 90s), raise the age to buy a firearm, and implement UBC. Wait a few years and then lets reassess.

[easyrider16]

Two more thoughts on the 2A. First, Supreme Court decisions never expire. They remain the law of the land until overturned by a subsequent decision, which happens very rarely. Scalia's decision on this issue is the current law of the land.

Second, I think people forget that the framers of the Constitution never intended the bill of rights to apply to the states - these were originally drafted as restrictions on the Federal government alone. The bill of rights was not applied to the states until the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and the Supreme Court later decided the due process clause of that amendment meant certain parts of the Bill of Rights now applied to the states as well. I think the 2A should be viewed in that light.

When you read the actual text of 2A, and consider the historical context, it seems to me that the point of the 2A was to prevent the Federal government from disarming the states or taking away their right to form state militias. I think today's right wing has reinterpreted the 2A to mean something very different from this original intent. I also think it was a mistake to incorporate 2A rights into the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Individual states should have free reign to regulate guns however they see fit (consistent with their own constitutions, of course).

See here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorpo ... ocedurally

[Bubba]

Texas politicians search for solutions after another mass shooting. Experts say we’ve already found them.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/06 ... un-policy/