What we could see coming for gun control

Loading

 

 

The pressure on Congress following the Parkland shooting is building and building quickly. Donald Trump has called for a ban on “bump stocks”, something I suggested a while back.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he has signed a memo directing the Justice Department to propose regulations to “ban all devices” like the rapid-fire bump stocks involved in last year’s Las Vegas massacre.

Seeking to show action days after a deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Trump spoke during a White House ceremony recognizing bravery by the nation’s public safety officers.

“We must move past clichés and tired debates and focus on evidence based solutions and security measures that actually work,” Trump said.

Trump has also stated that he is open to improving background checks:

President Trump is open to congressional efforts to enhance the federal background check system for gun purchases, the White House said in a statement issued Monday morning, less than a week after the Parkland, Fla., massacre.

“While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the president is supportive of efforts to improve the Federal background check system,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.

I think there will be more, such as:

  • Limiting the purchase of semi-automatic weapons to those 21 years of age and over
  • NICS Background checks for all gun sales
  • Make sure the FBI and local authorities follow through on threats
  • Expanding background checks to include mental illness.

The last one has the potential to be the most effective. It is invasive of privacy, but one can avoid it by not purchasing a weapon. It would depend on the medical community to reach out to the NICS database and do no more initially than submit the name of a person under care who, in particular, is being prescribed SSRI’s, and/or has a history of violence, self-mutilation, restraining orders or threatening. The specific information need not be disclosed initially- the person is only flagged. If the person seeks to obtain a weapon, the flag will come up on the NICS database. At that point, the person may be given the option to challenge the file before a judge, during which time the medical record will be revealed, or abandon the effort to secure a weapon and maintain the secrecy. The choice is left to the applicant.

Any program depends on the system to work and the system depends on the people within it to properly function. We have seen the consequences of failure. Yet we have to make it harder for those who should not have weapons to get them. Doing something will find an agreeable American public.

The thing to be prepared for is the next mass shooting following the implementation of the new rules.

I am also in favor of hardening schools, i.e. training a number of personnel for concealed carry and then making sure it was known that there are people equipped to respond and prevent the kind of horror we saw in Sandy Hook and Parkland. We guard our money with guns. Why not kids?

IRONY ALERT from Newsbusters

Black Panther set box office records on its way to becoming “a watershed in cultural history of African Americans,” wrote The Miami Herald’s Leonard Pitts Jr. Yet, the movie was typical Hollywood – filled with violence, including 163 shootings, while Marvel stars call for gun control. Lupita Nyong’o, who played Black Panther’s love interest Nakia, advocated for gun control in the wake of the Orlando shooting. The actress posted a long message on Instagram, saying “most importantly, we simply need to put down the guns!” Other Marvel Avengers have weighed in as well. Captain America’s Chris Evans has called for “common sense gun reform.” And the Hulk, played by Mark Ruffalo, has criticized conservatives for giving thoughts and prayers, and not actively pushing gun reform.

This hypocrisy is unusually blatant even for the film industry. It doesn’t matter whether the movie is Black Panther, Kingsman: Golden Circle or Gangster Squad. Hollywood promotes violence.

Bonus

Yes, this is Gabby Giffords

 

 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This won’t be enough. Not because it is ineffective, but because Trump did it and the underlying truth that the thing the left is least interested in is public safety.

Of course, getting the human factor to make the rules and regulations work is another story. Though we see time and time again a violent crime committed by someone that should have been stopped by laws in place, it challenges credulity to believe that those are the only cases of huge cracks opening up for criminals to clamor through.

I only hope the RE-banning of bump-stocks an why that is necessary will be advertised as such.

The Democ-Rats will be pushing for more gun control laws they will be pushing for Gun door to door Gun Confiscation some liberal news rags like the New York Pravda and Rolling Stone as well as Time will call for the repeal of the 2nd AMENDMENT and they will parade those Useful Idiots from Florida and use them for Propeganda pourpuses just like Hitler,Stalin and Mao used kids for the propeganda effects and so did Ho Chi Mihn and Pol Pot as well as Obama

Any program depends on the system to work and the system depends on the people within it to properly function. We have seen the consequences of failure. Yet we have to make it harder for those who should not have weapons to get them. Doing something will find an agreeable American public.

Great point.
Far too many federal employees are unionized and thus protected from being fired for not doing their jobs.
Dylan Roof’s background check sat on a desk un-checked until it was too late, then he was granted a permit.
Obama is to blame for Nikolas Cruz not being “in the system” so as to be prevented from getting gun permits.
Obama wanted “parity” in punishment for the races in schools.
So, rather than expel and call police on bad (Hispanic or black) actors, schools papered over wrong-doer’s actions to protect Whites and Asians from “equal” punishments.
This is why Cruz (identified as Hispanic) had over 25 misconduct acts but was never arrested.
It took bullets in his backpack before they expelled him!
But still no police call.
Political Correctness KILLS.
Was PC behind the fact that Nikolas Cruz’s actions were forwarded to the FBI 3 times but nothing was done?
Or was it mere laziness?
BOTH PC and lazy workers need to go.

Lets Play over react ….the bumpstock was used 1 time ever in history for murder by a nut. So as a reaction the device must be outlawed. Well everyone has heard of rocks what did Cain use? Has anyone used a knife to kill some one, a hammer, a car? The media advertised this device that most gun owners never heard of, You Tube exploded with videos glorifying it, suddenly the libs think its a standard accessory for semi automatic rifles…eeeek!

@kitt: Someone with the resources of Paddock could have used automatic weapons or gotten bump-stocks regardless of legality.

“If the person seeks to obtain a weapon, the flag will come up on the NICS database. At that point, the person may be given the option to challenge the file before a judge,…” ~ So you are proposing that any person in the “medical community” can revoke a persons constitutional rights without adjudication? And then that person has to beg the courts to have it reinstated? How long would that take, years? That violates just about every part of the Constitution. Completely absurd.

@Robert: Something has to be done about mental health issues, especially since liberal rhetoric ratchets up those prone to violence. Of primary concern would be that such a system is not allowed to be weaponized as the left is prone to do. The main defense against that is to keep liberals out of office.

But, don’t worry too much about it. This proposal smacks of reasonableness and liberals will demand much more than that and nothing will be done.

@kitt, #4:

The Nine Worst Arguments Against Gun Control, all of which are put forward on a regular, rotational basis. The Cain and Able, knife/hammer/car analogy is #9 on the list:

9. Guns are tools that can kill, just like knives, and we’re not banning knives are we?

In the wake of the massacre of children in Newtown, Congressman and alleged human being Louie Gohmert said “I refuse to play the game of ‘assault weapon.’* That’s any weapon. It’s a hammer. It’s the machetes. In Rwanda that killed 800,000 people, an article that came out this week, the massive number that are killed with hammers.”

*side note: the term “assault weapon” is one that sounds specific, but really isn’t. If we’re talking about automatic weapons, those are virtually impossible to obtain—although there are attachments that enable semiautomatics to function like automatics, which is what might have happened in Las Vegas. Saying that we should ban all assault weapons isn’t very specific, as all it takes is a modification or two for a gun to slip in and out of that amorphous definition. Those of us in favor of gun control must learn more about guns in order to make more effective arguments.

Las Vegas provided the clearest indication yet of how ridiculous this analogy is. Guns are a special type of tool, because even though they can also be used to murder people, they can’t be used to chop vegetables. Guns have a more specific killing utility than knives, so until machetes can be used to murder people from hundreds of yards away, comparing them to guns is like saying a bicycle is the same thing as a truck. Sure, technically they both could be used to mow down innocent people, but only one makes it easy enough for anyone to do it.

@Greg: The argument against the 2nd amendment was settled in 1791, seems like dredging it up is fruitless, so what proposals do they think are common sense, I am waiting.
How long do you think there will be any other amendments once they are allowed to take 1? They tried to take American guns in 1775 how did that work out for them?
I can chop veggies with a gun, as long as it has a bayonette. I prefer a food processor.

@kitt, #9:

The Second Amendment guarantees a right; it doesn’t confer an absolute license. This is the same with each guaranteed right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of Religion is not a license to set up a religion involving human sacrifice or abusively disciplinary child raising practices; Freedom of Speech and the Press is not a license to display or publish child pornography; Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures doesn’t mean they can’t check your person or baggage for a bomb when you’re about to board an aircraft; the prohibition of Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments doesn’t mean you can’t set bail high enough to keep someone like Nikolas Cruz or a serial killer in custody while awaiting trial; etc.

The Founders enshrined the standards and principles which are the basis of our laws. These standards aren’t stand-alone absolutes, requiring no interpretation when you get down to the particulars of their application in the real world. The real world is complicated. It isn’t perfect or ideal. The Founders realized it wouldn’t forever be 1791. They knew unforeseen disagreements about interpretation would invariably arise. This is why they also established a Supreme Court.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean your twitchy, paranoid next door neighbor has an inviolable right to sit on his front porch with a loaded M60 machine gun and an open box of hand grenades. It doesn’t mean you can carry a loaded pistol on a commercial airliner. It does not confer absolute license.

I’m for stricter laws if they work. We need reform that works. And I agree, mental illness checks have the potential to be effective, but I would include a mental evaluation as a step in gun ownership. Many mental illnesses arise years after a person has owned a gun, and a mental illness history may not catch that. You never know when a person’s circumstances change, when that person spirals into depression.

Aside from that, the Parkland shooting showed us that our system failed, not that our gun laws currently in place are weak. Even the New York Times states that Cruz “showed every red flag”, but nothing was done. He posted comments about how he wanted to be a “professional school shooter” and nothing was done. There is a high possibility that had he been apprehended, this could have been avoided.

On a side note, I came across this interesting piece on The Washington Post (of all places): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.3693394ab668

@Greg:

*side note: the term “assault weapon” is one that sounds specific, but really isn’t.

No, it isn’t specific, and that is by design. First, the very term “assault weapon” is selected not only out of ignorance but also to elicit emotion. It is dishonest and misleading and reveals the dishonest nature of the left’s intentions. Second, it does not describe any weapon we are discussing since an assault weapon is fully automatic capable, so there is no such weapon on the market. More dishonestly.

Guns have a more specific killing utility than knives, so until machetes can be used to murder people from hundreds of yards away, comparing them to guns is like saying a bicycle is the same thing as a truck.

I guess the same mentality that believes a gun is only for killing also thinks every “How do you do?” leads to sex. More dishonesty… and abject ignorance.

The Second Amendment guarantees a right; it doesn’t confer an absolute license.

You said it: GUARANTEES. 2nd Amendment supporters have given up a lot to satisfy any reasonable concerns any REASONABLE person might have about gun ownership. There has been enough infringement on that which shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms was enshrined because it was illegal to use them criminally. The founders were smart enough to know that the arms did not commit the crimes; PEOPLE did. Back in the day, logic was used as a basis to make intelligent decisions; today, not so much.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean your twitchy, paranoid next door neighbor has an inviolable right to sit on his front porch with a loaded M60 machine gun and an open box of hand grenades.

What, exactly, is the harm there? Unless someone pulls the trigger, there is no harm, no damage. It is the PERSON that is the risk, not the weapon. Until you liberals get that concept into your minds instead of bans, confiscations and disarmament you are going to continue to impede any actual solutions.

Mr. Schumer just asked for another $300 million to be wasted down the Russian collusion rabbit hole. Wouldn’t that money be better used to protect our schools and children? Can’t you liberals set aside your fantasy dream of shoving Trump out of office for the sake of protecting children?

@Greg:

The Second Amendment guarantees a right; it doesn’t confer an absolute license.

Yes it does, It is the ONLY amendment with a qualifier SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
The only amendment the left seems to like is the 5th.
Rights are not granted by the government they are endowed , we grant their rights, the constitution was to limit the powers the government can exercise over citizens.
We only lose our rights by trial, not the opinion of those to ignorant to know this isn’t a democracy. Without the 2nd amendment we cant protect the others. I dont know where you got such an insane interpretation of the constitution, some 3rd world educator perhaps. Your education on weapons is worse, the mindless parroting of the morons of media is disgusting.
You still havent parroted what the left wants, whats common sense.

No, it isn’t specific, and that is by design. First, the very term “assault weapon” is selected not only out of ignorance but also to elicit emotion. It is dishonest and misleading and reveals the dishonest nature of the left’s intentions. Second, it does not describe any weapon we are discussing since an assault weapon is fully automatic capable, so there is no such weapon on the market. More dishonestly.

The writer of the article is acknowledging that the commonly used term “assault weapon” is too vague to have a legal meaning. He clearly explains why—without a political admixture of leftist conspiracy theory blather. “Assault weapon” has long been a generic term for a military-style rifle that retains many military-style features and specifications. It’s any rifle intended for a civilian market that’s based on a military weapon originally designed as a killing tool intended for use on a battlefield. If the author was attempting to promote deceptive terminology, he wouldn’t have bothered with an explanation.

Civilian models of M16s, Kalashnikovs, ACRs, etc are recognizably military designs. “Assault weapon” is a good generic term for them. People know what you’re talking about. They look like they belong on a battlefield, and retain features that belong on a battlefield.

I guess the same mentality that believes a gun is only for killing also thinks every “How do you do?” leads to sex. More dishonesty… and abject ignorance.

There’s nothing ignorant or dishonest about his observation. It’s entirely accurate and makes good sense:

Guns have a more specific killing utility than knives, so until machetes can be used to murder people from hundreds of yards away, comparing them to guns is like saying a bicycle is the same thing as a truck. Sure, technically they both could be used to mow down innocent people, but only one makes it easy enough for anyone to do it.

@kitt, #13:

Yes it does, It is the ONLY amendment with a qualifier SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It has been infringed—as you’re wanting to use the word—the moment rational people decide there should be any restrictions of any kind at all on firearms. The moment you decide a ticket holder cannot carry a loaded machine gun into a football stadium, you have infringed on the absolute right—at least in the sense that you’re using the word infringed.

Clearly a guiding ideal is being expressed in the Second Amendment, not an absolute, totally inviolable individual right. Interpreting it as absolute would lead to disaster.

@Greg: When a fully automatic rifle was proposed to Hitler, he didn’t like the idea. Those pushing for the manufacture of the weapon decided to use propaganda against Hitler; they told him it was an “assault rifle”. With the cool sounding name, Hitler loved it and approved it. Thus the Sturmgewehr 44 was born, the worlds first “assault rifle”.

Now, when the left was in the process of choosing a “generic term” they wanted the public to be afraid of, I wonder why they didn’t choose “semiautomatic rifle”? Why not “autoloading rifle”? Well, because none of that sounds FRIGHTENING. None of those evoke the level of fear and dread the left wanted to fuel their emotional arguments against gun ownership. It’s all in the name and the name is propaganda.

A semiautomatic rifle is not a “military style” weapon. By that reasoning, so is a single shot or a bolt action rifle for they have all been military weapons. The US used the only semiautomatic rifle during World War II. After that, semiautomatic or fully automatic capable rifles were the norm. So, “military style” is also propaganda, making room for the argument that only the military needs military style weaponry. It’s not being generic; it’s being misleading and dishonest.

They look like they belong on a battlefield, and retain features that belong on a battlefield.

The 1965 Mustang LOOKED like a sports car. But, underneath the sheet metal, it was a Falcon. Nothing but a Falcon. Looks has nothing to do with it. A person driving a Falcon could kill just as many people as someone driving a Mustang. The problem in perception is YOURS, not the gun owner.

Guns have a more specific killing utility than knives, so until machetes can be used to murder people from hundreds of yards away, comparing them to guns is like saying a bicycle is the same thing as a truck.

But mass killers aren’t killing from hundreds of yards away (except from the gross exception of Las Vegas); they are wading right in among the victims at a range that a machete would be just about as effective. 99.999% of gun buyers and owners only perceive their guns as a defensive weapon; otherwise it is sporting equipment. What you wish to achieve is to deny the 99.999% of the public that defensive capability because you don’t have the will to detect and stop the .001% due to political correctness, incompetence or laziness.

In has been infringed—as you’re wanting to use the word—the moment rational people decide there should be any restrictions of any kind at all on firearms.

That is right, a fact you leftist anti-gun zealots fail to appreciate. We REALIZE it (something you won’t realize or admit about dangerous criminal illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities). We’ve done our part. Now, no more. Instead of asking more of gun owners, DEMAND more of those with a job to do keeping the public safe with the laws they have.

There are some idiots who are calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment proving liberals have a mental disorder called STUPIDITY

A semiautomatic rifle is not a “military style” weapon.

“Assault weapon” generally refers to a firearm that’s based on an existing military design. The lack of selective fire capability doesn’t mean the civilian model isn’t still a military-style design. The semiautomatic civilian model is still capable of a high rate of fire and will accept high capacity magazines. A simple bump fire device will allow a rate of fire approximating that of the fully automatic version.

The legal definition of “assault weapon” may not be sufficiently precise for regulatory purposes, but people generally know what’s being referred to. They’re not hard to identify on sight. They’re not what most people would associate with a hunting rifle, unless you’ve declared war on the deer.

@Greg:

“Assault weapon” generally refers to a firearm that’s based on an existing military design.

Yes, I am aware of this. It is, in fact, the point I am arguing. That is what you “refer” to, but you are referring to a fallacy. Being in reality nothing more than a semiautomatic rifle, it is not, in any sense, a “military style” weapon. LOOKING deadly is not deadly. Though it looks like it can fire full auto, it cannot and, thus is not military style hardware or an assault weapon.

An AR-15 is not an assault weapon nor military hardware; it merely looks a lot like one.

The legal definition of “assault weapon” may not be sufficiently precise for regulatory purposes, but people generally know what’s being referred to.

I am well aware that, especially in the case of gun control, being precise of language is the LAST thing the left wants. Precisely my point. By your own definition, ANYTHING can be classified as an assault weapon, which is PRECISELY the deception and dishonesty I am saying will, if pursued, hole any meaningful changes below the waterline.

No, generally people do not generally know what “assault weapon” is generally referring to, especially when Democrats and liberal blather-heads continue to refer to “automatic weapons”. What it does is either lead us off into debating the non-existing problems or endlessly debating what weapon we are referring to. Again, cloudiness and ambiguity is the goal, not resolution.

They’re not hard to identify on sight. They’re not what most people would associate with a hunting rifle, unless you’ve declared war on the deer.

What they look like is not the concern. What they DO is all that should be the concern (unless banning as wide a range of rifles is the goal) and a semiautomatic rifle is a semiautomatic rifle is a semiautomatic rifle… no matter what it looks like. All of that, again, is merely chafe to confuse and confound the actual issue.

Also there needs to be punishment for government agents who fail in their responsibilities. So far it seems one sided.

Simply putting a trained armed person in every school, because when seconds count the police are only minutes away and in the case of Vegas an hour.
The little devil was done with the carnage in 6 minutes. The AR style has been with us for 70 years its not a recent invention. Hollywood has glamorized it and stereotyped it.

@Bill… Deplorable Me, #20:

In Vietnam, the M16 was almost always used in semiautomatic. Full automatic fire accomplished nothing but rapidly burning through your ammunition. Post-Vietnam, the full-auto selection option was eliminated and replaced with a 3-shot burst option . The civilian AR15 really isn’t much different from the post-Vietnam military weapon. I’m not sure how useful 3-shot bursts would actually be—or how useful full-auto ever was—in modern day combat situations. As far as I’m concerned, a civilian AR15 is a military weapon.

Appearance matters for marketing purposes. What does the military appearance of an “assault weapon” say about the psychology of the weapon’s target market?

@Greg:

Appearance matters for marketing purposes. What does the military appearance of an “assault weapon” say about the psychology of the weapon’s target market?

That the liberal gun grabbing crocodile tear hollywood brain deads cant make a movie without glorifying the very things they rail against, sex and guns. They market these guns more effectively than all ads by the NRA, or gun makers combined.

@Greg:

In Vietnam, the M16 was almost always used in semiautomatic. Full automatic fire accomplished nothing but rapidly burning through your ammunition.

It HAS full auto selection, doesn’t it? If there was no use for it, it damn sure would not be made that way; an M-16 is far and away more expensive than an AR-15.

The civilian AR15 really isn’t much different from the post-Vietnam military weapon.

It’s vastly different. It is semiautomatic. That is as different as night and day. You can add night vision, a flashlight, a scope, a foregrip… all the accessories to make it look like it belongs to SEAL Team 6, but it isn’t the same… it is still just a semiautomatic rifle. It’s “scary look” is exactly the same in someone’s hands as it is leaning up against the wall; a look will hurt no one.

Appearance matters for marketing purposes. What does the military appearance of an “assault weapon” say about the psychology of the weapon’s target market?

First, it says they want something that works well, tried and true. Second, it says they want something that looks impressive… just like their clothes, their car or their hair. Regardless, despite the popular quip, looks DON’T kill. PEOPLE kill and if it isn’t with an AR, it’s with a shotgun, handgun, machete, bomb or truck.

Saw a Facebook post yesterday of a little kid that posed with a fake rifle. Someone added a caption on the photo about school shooting and the kid was suspended from school. It was later determined that it was not the kid in the photo that added the caption, but someone else and that was what the discussion centered on. However, what was missed was that this kid was immolating some rap star. Now, where did THAT culture come from? Who can stop that? THERE’S a “scary look” for you that looks like something it isn’t… why doesn’t the left address THAT? The rap culture is the most violent, vile, misogynistic, racist culture there is (even worse than what the left propagates) yet liberals celebrate the stars, invite them to the White House, campaign with them and used them as spokespersons. Well, the answer is alarmingly simple; because that has nothing to do with the GOAL, which is disarmament.

Doesn’t the right to life and self-defense supersede aggression?
Why would someone want to prevent someone else from defending themselves against aggression?
Remove aggressive behavior from the equation, and there is no need for self-defense.
As long as aggression remains a component of human behavior, so remains the need for self-defense.
Better to have defense and not need it than to need defense and not have it.

@David:

Why would someone want to prevent someone else from defending themselves against aggression?

Well, that would depend heavily on what aggression one was defending against. It is, I believe, the goal of the left to remove the capability of the citizens to defend against the aggression from their government. Now, the US government is designed to NOT be aggressive against its citizens but, as we have seen recently, that attitude can change with administration.

Remove aggressive behavior from the equation, and there is no need for self-defense.

I can be open to disarmament when all that aggressive behavior is eliminated. A really good clue as to the absence of such aggression will be when celebrities fire their security teams, knock down their walls and subject themselves to the same hazards as we common folk do.

@Bill… Deplorable Me: The musket was a weapon of war, the AR was a weapon of war, weapons advance, some humans mind dont seem to. I cant have a nuclear weapon, I love America but the last admin allows those that chant death to America have them and test ICBMs. Strange they want to take away ARs but nuclear war heads not so much.
You wont find the antique AK, AR or musket on this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps#Tactical_Rifles_and_carbines

A message from States United To Prevent Gun Violence calls for an update to our antiquated gun laws. Here’s a quick presentation of one of their central arguments.

@Greg:

Appearance matters for marketing purposes. What does the military appearance of an “assault weapon” say about the psychology of the weapon’s target market?

What does it say about the psychology of the gun control crowd that an ‘assault weapon’ is defined more by its ‘appearance’ than it’s functionality?

IE, a Colt AR-15 (a .223 semi-auto rifle capable of using a high capacity magazine) is classed as an one because of a black plastic stock, but a Ruger mini-14 (a .223 semi-auto rifle capable of using a high capacity magazine) is not as it has a wooden stock.

If the left wants to ‘have a conversation’ about ‘common-sense’ gun control (hint, they really don’t), first they need to find their common sense.

@Jay: They need to, simply, stop lying and, based on what we’ve seen the past couple of days, that ain’t happening.

@Jay, #30:

What does it say about the psychology of the gun control crowd that an ‘assault weapon’ is defined more by its ‘appearance’ than it’s functionality?

We’ve all recently seen their functionality demonstrated in San Bernardino, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Las Vegas, and Parkland, Florida. Their functionality is a big part of what defines them. They do seem to be the go-to tool of choice of for people wanting to maximize their body count. Or do you think this is all pure coincidence?

Five out of five mass casualty events… It may be more accurate and useful to profile the firearm functionality than to identify the potential shooter.

No more useless or obscure hidden gun control, none nil zip. If you are old enough to die for your country and vote you are old enough to own any friggin gun you can afford.
Any changes to the second amendment need to be put up as such rewrite the constitution, get 2/3rd in both houses and a presidential signature.
We have to draw the line and stop letting them destroy the constitution piece meal.
Mental health crap is just that, a back door to chip away at our rights.
We have lost privacy, we have lost our health care choice. What more are we going to let them steal from us, just because the brainless rights haters on TV say so.?

@Greg:

They do seem to be the go-to tool of choice of for people wanting to maximize their body count. Or do you think this is all pure coincidence?

So because they are the choice of some nuts, they must be the best piece of equipment? Now, THAT makes sense.

Basically, you are recommended something be banned because it looks cool. I want to see that legislation. No doubt Pelosi can make it sound rational.

Any .22 rifle would be just as deadly. More cruel, in fact, as the small .22 bullet does terrific damage when it enters the body. Instead of penetrating straight through, it just enters, finds a gooshy spot (like around organs) and just bounces around, doing a LOT of damage. So, ban AR-15’s. Then you can proceed to other semiautomatics. Then, when the people intent on making a name for themselves by killing innocent people turn to the ubiquitous .22 plinking rifle, what are you going to do? Well, I’ll tell you what you WON’T do. You won’t look back and wish you had entertained actual solutions instead of simply pursuing gun bans.

Unless, of course, the actual aim is to ban guns instead of protecting public safety.

@Greg:

We’ve all recently seen their functionality demonstrated…Their functionality is a big part of what defines them…

Thus proving my point that despite the functionality being all but identical between the AR-15 and the Mini-14, the gun-grabbers completely ignore the actual functionality of the weapons and focus strictly on the appearance.

Also proving that common sense is an oxymoron.

Murder is against the law.
That’s the sum total of all necessary gun control.
Anything else is infringement on the 2nd Amendment, which is an intentional restriction on the government.
All the people clamoring for more gun control should be focusing their efforts instead on reinstituting a morality in society that would instill in all citizens the respect for self and others that enables respect for the law.

@Bill… Deplorable Me:

Any .22 rifle would be just as deadly.

The Remington .223 is a higher velocity round and strikes more energetically than a .22 rifle round. They were designed to allow the M16 to meet military specifications—among other things, to be supersonic at 500 yards, to penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards, and to inflict wounds equal to those of an M1 carbine. The AR15 is the civilian version of that weapon. They chamber the same ammunition as the military firearm.

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

@Greg: What you say is true, but it is a medical fact that the .22 bullet will do more internal damage. The point being, you can ban (as if the safety of the public was the concern) whatever you want, but criminals with evil intent are going to adjust and improvise. IF public safety were the concern, you would be paying more attention to detection and prevention rather than trying to deny the criminals the means to carry out their crimes.

Rudy Guiliani implemented “stop and frisk” which was extremely successful in reducing crime. However, now the left has banned the practice as it “violates rights”. So, obviously, the left does not mind violating rights as long as it serves their political needs and do not mind protecting rights even when it endangers public safety. The left doesn’t think people should be stopped and frisked, violating their right to privacy, but it is OK to illegally spy on innocent US citizens.

Re Image # 1-
I thought a weapon not in use was to be pointedup.

@garrett H.: 1. Always assume its loaded
2. Make sure muzzle is pointed in safe direction, the guys foot is in danger
3. Keep your finger off the trigger and the safety on
4. Never hand off a loaded firearm
5. Check voter registration card Democrats are not mentally stable enough to have a firearm.

https://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/studyGuide/Firearm-Carrying-Positions/

@Robert: Plus the cost would be higher than the average American could afford.