Freedom of speech?

[momckee]

4A - I don't agree that guns don't kill people, that is their purpose, to kill or to wound, otherwise there wouldn't be this huge gun industry. People do get killed when run over or knocked down by a car but cars are not manufactured for that purpose. I just can't get my head around everyone, or not everyone, wanting a gun, how often is that gun used to protect its owner or does it stay in the lock box in the house just in case or gets carelessly stored and some youngster gets in and shoots it accidentally. It's all very well saying that you can't restrict gun ownership because you are taking someone's constitutional right away to own one, but heavens alive, the constitution didn't come down from the mountains in tablet form, it can be amended. Apparently at the moment you can't take away a person's right to have a gun even if they are mentally unstable unless vetted by a judge so even if you know someone is totally round the bend there is little that can be done about preventing them from having a firearm unless you can get a Judge to say they are unfit to own one. If I have that wrong please correct it, but that is my understanding of a US citizen's constitutional right to own a firearm and I think there are a lot of crazies out there.

As you can tell I am really disturbed about this, just seeing those kids running out of the school and then hearing that 17 people died is just heartbreaking, just the way all the other mass shootings have been.

[Dan M.]

I think part of the trouble is the reluctance to go out on a limb, morally and legally, and say and further more prove that someone is mentally disturbed enough to be denied possession of firearms. I don't think anybody in the country is against keeping guns away from crazy people. I'm certainly not. But that all takes time and money and the mental health system is overloaded with the cases they have as it is. Donald Trump talks about draining the Washington swamp, but the mental health swamp in this country is immensely more vast and frightening, and groups like the ACLU are ready to defend against people being categorized in such a way that would possibly lead to them losing any of their rights or freedoms, even if you leave guns out of the picture.

Don't misread me, I'm not saying that there aren't things that might help. Enforcing laws that require better record keeping and reporting of people with mental health issues for starters. Universal background checks sound great (I'm not against them) and a national standard met by all states might help, but if somebody is under the radar, like the guy in Vegas, that won't stop them either, and it's too late when we find out he's a problem.

30 years ago, there were shooting clubs in high schools, kids brought their rifles to school to shoot at school ranges or to go hunting after school got out, and nobody thought anything of it. Guns were easy to get back then, much easier than now in most states. Nowhere in the US is it easier to get guns now than it was 30 years ago. What has changed in 30 years that we now have these types of shootings so frequently?

A mandatory US gun buyback like England or Australia would lead to civil war. There are gun owners (not me) who would protect their guns as vehemently as the South tried to protect their rights to keep slavery. It might come to that though. I hope not.

Oh, and that 18 school shooting in 2018 number is cobbled together like Frankenstein's monster, a bunch of parts and pieces that don't belong together. It includes stuff like a somebody committing suicide in a school parking lot at 2 in the morning, etc. If you Google it you can find out the breakdown of shooting that make up that number of 18 so far this year.

[momckee]

Thanks Dan, for your input, better I should just be an observer and try to stay calm!

[4AMNTN]

Yes. Ur right Dan. There are ?30k violent gun deaths a year & ?20k of those are suicides.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan M.]

Thanks Dan, for your input, better I should just be an observer and try to stay calm!

Mo, by all means, please speak your mind. I'm not trying to come against your concerns at all. Sorry if it came off that way.

[momckee]

Didn't take it that way Dan, just that I get emotional when I know parents have lost children, its agonizing!

[Dan M.]

Didn't take it that way Dan, just that I get emotional when I know parents have lost children, its agonizing!

It is indeed.

[Style]

Mo - For what it's worth, I agree with your initial post 100%. The recent shooting was very close to the area in which we live here in South Florida. While registered with "No party affiliation", I lean Democrat for most things though not all (have voted both ways). Not sure I see the purpose of guns other than to kill, especially automatic weapons. Countries with much much stricter gun laws have way less incidents than the US. The 18 incidents in the initial 1 1/2 months in the US equals the 18 incidents in the rest of the world during those months! IMO, automatic guns should be available to military and police only.

On another note, I'm don't see the sport in hunting so guns in general don't float my boat...

[YB]

I think I'm with Style on this one. When the US constitution was drawn up some 220+ years ago if anyone had a gun it would be a single shot or six-shooter at best. The type of weapon that can fire dozens of rounds per minute had not been invented then.

The US constitution has been amended numerous times (more than 20) since its inception and maybe its time for another amendment outlawing automatic weapons. The most people you can kill or injure with a six-shooter is six, the weapons available now are much more deadly. I accept that even a change in the laws would not make it impossible for the more unscrupulous ones to obtain an automatic weapon but surely it would be more difficult for them?

[Dan M.]

FWIW, the rifle used in the FL shooting wasn't an automatic rifle. Those have been very strictly regulated since the 1930s. The AR-15 fires one shot per one trigger squeeze, just like a revolver. The magazine capacity is obviously way larger than a six shot revolver and that's at least one thing that might come of this--a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds, although we have that ban here in CA and the terrorist couple that committed the San Bernardino shooting weren't noticeably slowed by it.

[4AMNTN]

That’s the thing. You can regulate & ban all u want. The bad guys will ALWAYS have what they want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[YB]

Thanks, Dan

Proper facts from the man on the spot. I get my info from the media and they, believe it or not, sometimes embellish the truth to suit their own agenda!

Whilst not disagreeing Fours, as I understand it many of the shootings are not committed by the "bad guys" but by someone who is disturbed. The "bad guys", those intent on criminal pursuits (or terrorists) will always know how to get hold of weapons but the temporary disturbed (often teen or early 20's) won't have those kind of contacts and so less guns around would perhaps make it more difficult for them.

No easy answer though

[Style]

FWIW, the rifle used in the FL shooting wasn't an automatic rifle. Those have been very strictly regulated since the 1930s. The AR-15 fires one shot per one trigger squeeze, just like a revolver. The magazine capacity is obviously way larger than a six shot revolver and that's at least one thing that might come of this--a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds, although we have that ban here in CA and the terrorist couple that committed the San Bernardino shooting weren't noticeably slowed by it.

Dan - Technically, you are correct (forgive my ignorance as it relates to guns). The AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun with which the user needs to pull the trigger to fire each shot (as you mentioned). "The AR was designed for speedy reloading in combat situations, and it can fire dozens of rounds in seconds."

I should have stated that semi-automatic and automatic guns should not be available to anyone other than the military and police.

An honest question -- can someone tell me if there is another purpose for an automatic or semi-automatic gun other than killing mass amounts of people? If not, get them the f*ck off the market...

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I disagree with the "bad guys will always get what they want" argument. Some of those guys certainly will get what they want, but if it stops just one, it would be more than worth it.

[4AMNTN]

If it helps just one ... so totally agree! I also agree there is no reason for a gun with a massive firing capability. I do know there a people that like to collect guns - that would never use a gun for a crazy purpose -. As there are people out there that want a car that has 1000hp. A car that goes 0-60 in 2 sec. We sell those, hell even have SHOWS for them... they shouldn't exist.
I do agree with having an armed person in the schools. WE'VE let it come to this, how that's possible -that's the question: what happened to get us here. It didn't start in the last 13 months.

[Dan M.]

I completely agree it needs be impossible for mentally disturbed people to possess or have access to firearms of any kind. Short of a national mandatory order to turn in all semi-automatic firearms, I don't see how it would be possible to ensure that no person who is legally barred from obtaining such a weapon from getting one. If such a national mandate was ordered, there would literally be a civil war. Not as big as THE Civil War, but it would happen. If you recall what happened in Waco, TX a while back with David Koresh and his followers, multiply that scenario by a couple hundred. There enough people, not crazy people either, who are determined to keep their guns, to make that happen. I would not be among them.

As far as the benefit of semi-automatic function, the main benefit is a faster next shot, whether you're shooting game (yes semi-autos, including AR-15s and a number of popular semi-auto shotguns) are used for hunting all the time, especially in the western US where the landscape tends to be less forested) or people. Obviously that's a perfect application for warfare and SWAT purposes, but interestingly enough, the AR-15 hasn't been used for war, at least not by the United States military. It's a civilian variant of the M16 and M4 rifles, which ARE capable of automatic fire. It may be used in guerilla warfare in other countries, but military requirements being what they are, infantry soldiers need automatic rifles, so it's not used.

Regarding semi-autos only being used by police and military, if they ever end up being banned for civilian use, I think that semi-auto pistols should be looked at very carefully in regard to use by the police. As it stands, there should be some retraining, IMO, of use of firearms by police departments. They are trained to shoot to stop the threat. That means continue shooting until the threat is immobilized. That's why you see reports of dozens, maybe hundreds of rounds, being fired in police shootings.