This is the Sig Sauer .223 weapon I believe the shooter in Orlando used. Not an AR15. Not a particularly useful weapon in my view. I don't like the front sight so close to the rear sight. Not very good for accurate shoot at more than short range. At short range, might as well have a weapon with a short range cartridge, like a 9 or 10mm. My Ruger .223 has the rear sight aft of the receiver and the front sight out on the recoil compensator I built for it. This gives you long range sighting ability and the compensator helps stay on target by assisting to keep the muzzle bounce down. Since the .223 cartridge is good for several hundred yards, the weapon is matched up to take advantage of the range while it still can do the same job the Sig Sauer will do. It's no longer, perhaps a tad heavier. Neither are classed as assault rifles.
Out standing Further! Well the gun critics wouldn't necessarily have to do the research, they could fund it with the labor they can do. Still more productive. I sort of like working to eliminate the shooters myself not the weapons. The more good guys we have, proficient in the use of weapons, the better off we will be.
Well I see it a lot like dealing with cancer. Eliminating the shooters is best, that's akin to curing cancer. One day, I hope that's doable. However, as we work on that goal, I think we can also keep those weapons out of the hands of likely killers, like using chemo, not a cure but it keeps a lot of people alive. The black and white viewpoints on both sides of the argument I think are out of whack with reality. We can't eliminate guns, or eliminate violence, or eliminate shooters..... Logic kind of fucks those arguments up. But there are things that can be done to lessen the amount of shooters, and lessen the amounts guns those shooters get ahold of. Both result in fewer lost lives.
What is common sense about bureaucrats putting people on that list with no due process? No proof required! And then there is no due process to get off when you are wrongfully put on the list? Damn man, that defies common sense that you would do that to a fellow citizen.
I think it's really important to remember that a lot of anti-gun stats include suicides in their gun deaths. I don't think that's fair. Taking away guns won't stop people from committing suicide. People jump from high places. They take pills. They step in front of trains. That's not going to stop. If we're going to have a discussion about gun violence, it's important that suicides not be included.
Seriously... how do people not understand this? They rage over discrimination and racial profiling, and yet they're in favor of a list of people with no due process, no verification, and no process for getting removed from the list. They think it's perfectly fine to strip someone of their rights if they're on an arbitrary list that required no warrants, no charges, no jury.... just a decision by some fed that you're potentially a threat. Not only is this a violation of the second amendment, it's also a violation of the 6th amendment as well.
I am an advocate of alerts going to the FBI if a no-fly person tries to buy. That's not too much, doesn't restrict 2nd or 6th. I also want to close the loophole for person to person gun sales without background check. People can still buy at retail, or spend ~ $25 to have a retailer host the sale. Also, not against the 2nd or 6th.
A lot of misstated assertions here. "In use?" If a gun isn't stored, it's in use. When a car is parked, it's not in use. 1/3 as many deaths as cars? All the car safety laws make 50m less cars than guns 3x less safe. By any honest measure, you are 3x more likely to die in a car. How about rifle deaths, including the AR-15 types. Knives killed 5x more people than all the rifles combined. No cries for knife safety and for government to track every knife and everyone who has one? What about the knife show loophole? LOL. There is already instant background checks and the killers are buying their guns legally. If you make a law requiring those planning to kill to declare their intention, do you think they'll comply? The left wing NYTimes writes: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0 The Assault Weapon Myth But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference. It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do. In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.
The problem with person to person background checks is there's no way to enforce it. Most guns aren't registered. It's not like a car where all cars are registered with the government, so transferring one to another person requires paperwork. Many guns are old and don't exist is any database, so how are you going to know if Joe sells his 50 year old hunting rifle to Greg for cash? You're not. It's a nice idea, but once again it's only going to affect the people who care enough to follow the law.
There isn't really any going back from jumping either. With that said, if someone wants to punch their own ticket, that's up to them. Someone who chooses a gun understands the finality of it. Someone who chooses pills might be doing it as a cry for help.
Left wing Daily Beast article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...f-defense-expert-paxton-quigley-says-yes.html “Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the U.S. There are 207,754 victims of sexual assault each year. Eighty percent are under the age of 30,” she says, citing statistics from the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, or RAINN. “That’s a lot of women walking around who are targets. They’re talking on their cellphones or texting, totally unaware of what’s going on. It’s part of the reason why people get themselves into trouble.” It’s also why, she argues, women need a handgun. “There just aren’t many good weapons to protect yourself other than a handgun. If you want to stop an attacker, you have to think about the best means of stopping an attacker.” She adds, “It would be nice to live in a world of utopia, but that’s not the case. I’m a liberal. I’m pro-choice. I’ve never voted for a Republican. I just believe guns protect women.” And what if the rapist also has a gun? “Then you better shoot first,” Quigley says. “If you feel that you can’t use the gun, don’t own it. You have to be ready to stop the attacker. Don’t hesitate. If you want to have a handgun, you have to be trained—I’m not just talking a course for an hour or two, but an all-day course at least. Then go to the range afterward and practice.”
I disagree. If the car is parked, it's waiting to be used to take you from point A to point B. If a gun isn't in use, especially if it isn't even on a person, then it poses no risk as it's just a paperweight. They are the same thing in that regard. I'll put it this way, if tomorrow, everyone stopped driving, would there be any more car deaths? If tomorrow, everyone stopped shooting guns, would there be any deaths? Nope, because both aren't in use. I'm not a proponent of the Assault weapons are worse than other guns philosophy. Perhaps, there is a little something to high-capacity mags, but that's not much. In my mind, and I haven't done the research on it, but it seems that semi-auto handguns would be the most dangerous as they are easy to use, easy to conceal. I'm not looking to ban them either, just make sure that we have measures in place to keep people who shouldn't have them from buying them. And measures to inform the FBI when possible threats to America buy guns.
I have bought and sold guns from person to person and I would not do so if it were illegal. I am not someone whom society needs to keep guns away from, but perhaps the person I sold to was. (in my case I know they weren't as I would only sell to someone with a carry license.) Point is, most gun owners abide the laws of our land, and that will continue. That means, if registration is required, and person to person becomes illegal, that gun market will dry up fairly quickly leaving ongoing sales to mostly be amongst people who shouldn't own guns. They will be paying more, buying less, and it will become much easier for the police to hone in on those illegal sales. This isn't a static world we live in.
I think you are missing the point where owning a gun is a right and driving cars are a privilege. But, as a society, we should learn from our mistakes. There have been more drug related overdoses from prescription medication "heavily regulated by the government" than gun deaths per year.
No, I'm disputing the assertion that cars are more deadly than guns. Cars are so heavily used that the original assertion is based on a false equivalency. And we need to look at our drug laws. I had an old friend die last week from an overdose leaving her 12 and 15 year old children motherless. But one fix doesn't fit all. Should stabbing someone in the neck be illegal? yes, but according to your one size fits all logic, having anti-stabbing laws cause the neck stabbings in the first place.
If your car is in the garage with gas in the tank, is it in use? Does that parked car pose a threat if nobody gets in and turns the key. The gun in the safe is likewise ready for use, but not in use. So when someone is carrying the loaded gun, concealed, or hunting or whatever, I would agree that the gun is in use as it has immediate capability of action just as if someone got in that car, turned on the engine but just idled.
These analogies with regards to the danger of vehicles to prove points about guns is full of logical fallacies. It may be difficult to admit that ones argument is not driving the point home, but now that you are aware of it please try another means of making your point. I really want to respect the views of everyone here and learn as much as I can from differing viewpoints, but the transportation causes more deaths argument is faulty and pointless to debate.
NB3> Slowly yet steadily, the National Enquirer format is replacing accurate unbiased news coverage. "Like an infection across the Nation" -(Sharp edge 1980's band.... Reflex-1983). When January 21st, 2017 comes there will be a media plague.
