Assault Weapons

[Al Agnew]

It's funny that the executive actions Obama said he was planning on doing (which, of course, do not include any bans on guns, ammo, and high capacity clips because bans are not allowed under executive actions) were immediately condemned by the NRA, even though a couple of them were proposed by the NRA.

Look, I know that a semi-auto rifle that looks like a military style weapon is no more lethal than a semi-auto hunting rifle or shotgun, with the exception that semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns usually don't come with high capacity magazines. I know that so-called assault rifles are seldom used in crimes, and that a couple of semi-auto handguns could be nearly as lethal (only reason they wouldn't be as lethal is because it's more difficult to shoot a handgun accurately). There are only a couple of possible reasons to ban them. One is that they do have the capability of high capacity magazines, and indeed are designed for high capacity magazines, as jd pointed out. Two really is the looks, in a backhanded sort of way. The evil nutjobs who perpetrate some of these mass shootings are usually enamored with military style weapons, and think they are the height of "coolness". Question...would they be as likely to go off the deep end and actually go murder a pile of people if the only weapons available to them were hunting style rifles and shotguns? Maybe not. Although, they'd probably still think semi-auto handguns were cool enough.

Another question...is it important enough to restrict the rights of law-abiding people to own military style semi-auto rifles, given that a ban on them would do a very limited amount of good, and with the number of them already in circulation, a ban by itself wouldn't come close to guaranteeing you could keep one out of the hands of somebody bent on using it to kill a bunch of people? In other words, does the limited possible good justify the curtailment of rights?

In my opinion, these are the questions that should be asked both by the gun rights people and the gun control people. Not simplistic notions like "more guns equals more violence" and not "The second amendment guarantees my right to own any gun I wish, period." More guns doesn't automatically equate to more violence, and gun rights are not unlimited. Whenever the second amendment folks start spouting the idea that the second amendment was put there to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government, that automatically makes just about everybody else consider them to be nutjobs, even though that WAS at least part of the original intent of the second amendment. Modern day reality makes that an impractical idea that smacks of radicalism. You may in the end win or lose that argument in the Supreme Court, but you don't win in the court of public opinion.

And that's the court that the gun rights people should be concentrating on right now. Not knee jerk reactions to political posturing. Not going out and buying all the guns and ammo you can afford. Not advocating arming everybody in sight. Instead, calmly explaining why bans will not work, or at most will have little benefit. And coming up with things you can agree with reasonable people on the other side, and ideas of your own for what can be done to limit mass shootings OR make them a little less lethal.

In fact, the NRA HAS advocated some things that might help. But far too many of the gun rights people are their own worst enemies.

Gun bans ain't gonna make it through Congress. It's in a few of the states where gun rights will be curtailed, if at all. Save the ire you're directing at Obama for fighting the battles in the states.

My own suggestion...make gun education mandatory in public schools, including education on the various types of guns, gun safety, and graphic pictures of the destruction that bullets can do to the human body. In that way, you counteract the video game notion that you can solve all your problems with a cool looking gun.

[Quillback]

I just wish that at least once somebody would open fire on conspiracy theorists. They serve no purpose.

Background check? No big deal. If you have nothing to hide that is. It obviously doesn't fix all the problems but its something.

How does it solve any problems? That kid in the Newtown shootings used his mom's weapons, she could have had a hundred background checks and it would not have stopped him. But maybe a background check should include interviewing your family and include a mental health check. Anyone in the household fails the mental health check and no guns for you.

[Quillback]

Quill ill step back for a second and say this. I am far more afraid of a Person with a auto-shoty with an extended tube and 00 buckshot than I am a guy with an AR. In close quarters that shotty will due far more.

Yeah but you're a rational person. The nuts that commit these mass shootings don't use shotguns. I think the whole purpose of these legaslative proposals is to decrease the number and frequency of mass shootings. I don't see how purchasing a shotgun should require a background check. Or what it will do to reduce mass shootings. And for the record I don't have anything to hide from a background check. I don't own an assault rifle either, got to shoot an M-16 all I wanted on Uncle Sam's dime, it got boring after a while, I don't get a thrill out of shooting firearms, but I like to hunt and if I need to go to the range to zero in a rifle then I do it, but it's just a process to go through, I don't find it to be fun.

[Feathers and Fins]

Quill the three guns used in Aurora were, GLOCK22 PISTOL, MP15 That only got 30 rnds of its 100 round drum out and a 870 Tactical shotgun. I disagree with you on the purpose, I strongly beleive the purpose is to slowly disarm people, it is no secret what many of the politicians behind these gun laws have said in the past and that is pretty much a complete ban on guns. Look up some of the quotes by these politicians

People keep using "ASSAULT RIFLE" as the term of what needs to be banned. These are purely on looks of a weapon. A look is bad? really since when? My last build was a 6.5 grendel as mentioned before this is becoming one of the most popular hunting rilfes, The 6.5 round has some serious whoopass at even 800yards I have dropped a deer stone dead at 753yrds with it it is by no means a wounding or crippling round. The popularity of the AR Platform is the many things you can do with it. and its reliability. Do sportsmen need 30 round magz? No as they are illegal for hunting, but they are used in compitition shoots ( a legal use of the gun ) I dont go out and blast off 30 rounds for the sake of doing it but i know some people who do, ( wish i could afford to run trough a case that fast ).

Banning any weapon is kneejerk, this is pure politics, Why is it not National news when someone goes out and drinks and then drives and kills 7 people in an accident? We have so many gun laws now more laws will not help. Look at these criminals and tell me what law would have prevented it? Short of a complete ban on all guns which wont happen what new law could be added?

Now I have always said I would like to see people buying guns for the first time to have to take a Concealed Carry Class or Hunter Education Class, but that is more of a safety issue so they at least have training in firearms for everyone. After you get it when you go to buy a new gun you have to show proof of one of those two certifications. BUT THAT WOULDNT HAVE STOPPED any of these shootings.

I have said I support closing the gunshow loophole as its simple enough to have a Leo at them and have them do the same check you would get in a gun store.

BUT THAT WOULDNT HAVE STOPPED any of these shootings

People say they want mentally ill not to be able to get guns, But how are we going to do that, who will decide who is mentally ill and then what do we do with these people, lock them up in a looney bin? After all if they are to dangerous to own a gun it would stand to reason they are to dangerous to be in society, can you see where that will go?

Politicians dont think things through one bit problem with lots of people including the NRA who I support because they are the ones voicing for protection of the right to bear arms even if i dont always agree with them. I have said it before but We will continue to have mass-murders there are just sick people out there and they will act with some way to kill people.

I in my heart think the Media makes it 100 times worse by publishing the Highscore list and making these sick people out to be heros and famous to other sick people which fuels the fire in other sicko's. I also think Americans need to understand there are sick people and they will do horrible things and stop blaming whatever weapon or tool they use. I hate to say it but if we see someone drive and kill people most of us shrug it off anymore, it barely is news.

[Justin Spencer]

There is no logical arguement for having high capacity magazines. It may not help anything (but it ain't gonna hurt), but it is often argued that it only takes a few seconds to change the magazine, so why is that such an inconvenience for you on the shooting range. If you shoot 30 shots as quickly as you can your accuracy is going to suffer anyway.

I will repeat that I don't think we need to worry about any weapon ban with this congress (unless the general public really starts making a stink). If the vast majority does support this then isn't that what democracy is all about (as long as it is within the constitutional wiggle room and holds up in the supreme court).

For me if we closed the gunshow loophole, had background checks that meant something, and made personal gun transactions have to go through a registering process (just have owner and buyer go to a gun store, give the store owner 10 bucks and he can go through the process just like it was a new gun). These seem resonable to me without infringing on any law abiding citizens right to bear arms.

The other things can be taken up by the states and if the laws of that state make you feel unsafe then move.

[Feathers and Fins]

I'll give you a logical reason for one!

I want a few I am a legal gun owner I have never committed a crime that would bar me from owning a gun and i like shooting in timed contest where the High Caps aid in my time the compititions ae based on accuracy and speed. There is no reason I as a law abiding person should be penalized for the actions of the criminals or criminaly insane.

Justin that is an arguement I cannot argue with, I have high caps yes but havent put a shell in them in years as when i use the evil black guns for hunting or target shooting i use lower capacity mags as the 30 rnd mags suck for bench resting. But I cannot and nor should our goverment tell law abiding people they cant have something because a criminal might use it. Its like saying the goverment should mandate a law all cars must have a breathilizer in them because some people drink and drive and kill people.

[Justin Spencer]

But I cannot and nor should our goverment tell law abiding people they cant have something because a criminal might use it.

Pipe bombs, grenades, plastic explosives, hand grenades, potato cannons ...

[Feathers and Fins]

Pipe bombs, grenades, plastic explosives, hand grenades, potato cannons ...

And except for the last one ( it may actually be legal as well in cewrtain states i havent looked ) I can own with the proper licensing/ permits.

[Wayne SW/MO]

The nuts that commit these mass shootings don't use shotguns.

The perpetrators at Columbine carried shotguns also. Their first choice was to use explosives and they experimented with them. Had they not had access to guns they may have had the patience to get working bombs.

It's all about the mental state, it's all about the mental state, etc, etc etc.

[Jason R.]

I hate to weigh in on politics, but I'll go against my better judgment- Just an anecdotal point. Criminals do not follow laws. Take this guy-

Dr. Randeep Mann- this guy had 98 grenades... in Russelville, AR. I knew this guys daughter- she went to my high-school There are lots of laws against the stuff he had- and guess what? He blew a guy up. Think he cared about the laws against owning 98 grenades? Who says the next shooter won't get his "assault weapon" from the same guy that sold Dr. Mann his grenades? This guy was a doctor- background check wouldn't have stopped him. Plus I'm not sure if grenade stores run background checks...