What law would've prevented this?

[Allan]

Summary and quotes please. Otherwise, if it's so cut and dried...why isnt it being implemented here? Please give details.

If you're not going to educate yourself on what other countries are doing that works you can't post on the subject with even a modicum of authority. You are arguing that something won't work in the US, without knowing a single thing about it. Your claim that cars are more dangerous than in the past, a fact that's demonstrably false, shows a complete lack of awareness of even the comparisons you're using.

Your ad hominins directed to others on this thread clearly shows you're sinking in a quagmire of ignorance on multiple related subjects.

See ya.

 

[Lursa]

If you're not going to educate yourself on what other countries are doing that works you can't post on the subject with even a modicum of authority. You are arguing that something won't work in the US, without knowing a single thing about it. Your claim that cars are more dangerous than in the past, a fact that's demonstrably false, shows a complete lack of awareness of even the comparisons you're using.

Your ad hominins directed to others on this thread clearly shows you're sinking in a quagmire of ignorance on multiple related subjects.

See ya.

I already know. I'm asking you to now explain how that can be implemented here. I showed you that all it takes to commit such mass shootings is a single hunting rifle and perhaps an additional magazine. What laws are you recommending for the US that will reduce us to LESS than a single hunting rifle? Let's see?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

A revolver is a semi-automatic weapon, just so you know.

Im not gonna get into a 2nd Amendment argument but it does not say you have the right to bear some arms.

LOL. A revolver is not a semiautomatic.
A revolver is a revolver.

 

[Antiwar]

Sure they try but 100% of all crimes committed were not deterred by laws.

Understand what? 100% of all crime ever committed was 100% not deterred by laws?

I don't understand why you don't understand that.

The question seems as absurd as ever.

Getting back to the OP, I suggest that the question be phrased a tad differently. We have at present a lethal shooting occurring roughly every 15 minutes of every hour of every day in the year. These, roughly 100 per day, are incontrovertible evidence that our existing laws and their degree of enforcement are not capable of reducing this level of loss of life.

What is needed above all else is a good data base of gunshot deaths, including information on the law(s) and enforcement in effect and the circumstances involved. Then, and only then, can we ask the question, "What changes in our laws and their degree of enforcement will produce a significant decrease in the annual number of lives lost to firearms?" and provide an answer.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n un-shot.

Excellent comment. Thank you.

 

[trouble13]

yes on the revolver remark

Now is the time to be quite specific on the 2nd amendment as in bringing it up 2021 NOW! Rather than leaving it to interpretation.

The NRA is not the "family style organization" it once was maybe 70 years ago. It has become an organization that uses fraud to soak its' members and pay a few high dollar salaries to a few wingnuts. Not to mention throw money at political campaigns ==== right wingers again looking for ways to get around campaign regulations.

It has nothing to do with the NRA. Its up to what the SCOTUS decides are reasonable restrictions are a right that was written not to be infringed upon.

 

[trouble13]

LOL. A revolver is not a semiautomatic.
A revolver is a revolver.

I looked it up and stand corrected. Revolver are a different classification because it does not use a magazine.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I looked it up and stand corrected. Revolver are a different classification because it does not use a magazine.

Well OK, just dont let it happen again.
Seriously though: I always like a guy/gal that can learn something and admit a mistake and move on.

 

[trouble13]

Well OK, just dont let it happen again.
Seriously though: I always like a guy/gal that can learn something and admit a mistake and move on.

Yes boss

P.S. You have the makings of being a good wife

 

[CLAX1911]

Says the guy who aligns with those that attacked the capitol.

You're the guy who aligned with those who attacked Minneapolis Portland and several other cities for months. Killed 30 people, and is promoting a man who posed for a photograph in front of dead children

Excellent comment. Thank you.

Again what laws will prevent crime is the question. No loss prevent crime 100% of crime is already illegal.

The question seems more absurd now than ever.

 

[Court Jester]

Two things you propose will do absolutely nothing, and two other things you propose are not constitutional.

I don't know why you people won't get any knowledge on the subject.

Because the left uses these to drive a false narrative and gin up votes. But it usually backfires on them, most Americans are not anywhere near wanting to scrap the bill of rights.

 

[CLAX1911]

Because the left uses these to drive a false narrative and gin up votes. But it usually backfires on them, most Americans are not anywhere near wanting to scrap the bill of rights.

I wonder if it's more of a wag the dog situation.

 

[aociswundumho]

Using reasonable means of transportation falls within a normal, acceptable risk of daily western human life. Possibly being murdered with a gun does not.

If every non-LEO gun disappeared tomorrow vs every car, the latter would bring our society to a halt. The former would have virtually no effect/positive effect on our country.

I find it interesting that you made an exception for law enforcement officers. If you believe cops are morally superior to the rest of us, then it makes sense that only cops should be allowed to own and carry firearms.

Let's see what you've written about cops over the last few days:

As we see *repeatedly*, the problem is most cops are garbage.

His training is to reflexively shoot dark skinned people.

Yeah, I dunno where “executed on the spot” comes from in our Constitution.

Unless the new claim is handcuffs caused Floyd’s death. Which, hey, anything but the big white cop sitting on his neck.

Weird, can’t seem to find his conviction anywhere or when we made cops jury/executioners on such things.

CNN reporting that the cop shouted “taser” before firing and used a gun instead. Did...did this ****ing moron accidentally grab a gun when they meant to grab a taser?

When did we all get the memo that we now live in a police state in which the cops can just shoot you based on whatever criteria they decide?

That Black people should stop being murdered by cops?

I think it's reasonable to assume that you don't believe cops are morally superior to the rest of us, so why did you make an exception for police?

 

[CLAX1911]

I find it interesting that you made an exception for law enforcement officers. If you believe cops are morally superior to the rest of us, then it makes sense that only cops should be allowed to own and carry firearms.

Let's see what you've written about cops over the last few days:

As we see *repeatedly*, the problem is most cops are garbage.

His training is to reflexively shoot dark skinned people.

Yeah, I dunno where “executed on the spot” comes from in our Constitution.

Unless the new claim is handcuffs caused Floyd’s death. Which, hey, anything but the big white cop sitting on his neck.

Weird, can’t seem to find his conviction anywhere or when we made cops jury/executioners on such things.

CNN reporting that the cop shouted “taser” before firing and used a gun instead. Did...did this ****ing moron accidentally grab a gun when they meant to grab a taser?

When did we all get the memo that we now live in a police state in which the cops can just shoot you based on whatever criteria they decide?

That Black people should stop being murdered by cops?

I think it's reasonable to assume that you don't believe cops are morally superior to the rest of us, so why did you make an exception for police?

Send ironic somebody who calls themselves Aunt antifa supports a police state.

But these are the pretzels we make when defending the illogical.

 

[TurtleDude]

Right, and there is a ban in place just in case. Because there are limitations and restrictions, no? I say that a legal case can be made to satisfy 2a while narrowing the list of legal weapons made available to the public.



Yeah, it really is.



No, I understand. I qualified with an M16 and .45 in the Army. I know what they can do. The part I'll never understand is how a person can pull the trigger on another human being.

Your fantasy of warding off a band of attackers launching a multi-pronged assault on your house for some reason, along with your delusions of an armed standoff with the gov't are ludicrous.

I have so perhaps I should educate you. and if civilian police have them, so should other civilians. I don't see public servants' lives as more important than the lives of other civilians.

 

[TurtleDude]

But we’ve established guns have no value. Cars do.

Shall we compare what cars bring to the economy vs guns? Are you sure you’ve given this comp a lot of thought and research?

no, we have not: you made that claim which suggests that your opinions have no value. Guns certainly do

 

[TurtleDude]

I find it interesting that you made an exception for law enforcement officers. If you believe cops are morally superior to the rest of us, then it makes sense that only cops should be allowed to own and carry firearms.

Let's see what you've written about cops over the last few days:

As we see *repeatedly*, the problem is most cops are garbage.

His training is to reflexively shoot dark skinned people.

Yeah, I dunno where “executed on the spot” comes from in our Constitution.

Unless the new claim is handcuffs caused Floyd’s death. Which, hey, anything but the big white cop sitting on his neck.

Weird, can’t seem to find his conviction anywhere or when we made cops jury/executioners on such things.

CNN reporting that the cop shouted “taser” before firing and used a gun instead. Did...did this ****ing moron accidentally grab a gun when they meant to grab a taser?

When did we all get the memo that we now live in a police state in which the cops can just shoot you based on whatever criteria they decide?

That Black people should stop being murdered by cops?

I think it's reasonable to assume that you don't believe cops are morally superior to the rest of us, so why did you make an exception for police?

I have said it for decades: the people who most want police to have a total monopoly on civilian firepower are the people most likely to damn the police when they shoot someone.

 

[CLAX1911]

Right, and there is a ban in place just in case. Because there are limitations and restrictions, no?

well yeah they emit radiation. Rifles don't so they aren't really even close to the same catagory

I say that a legal case can be made to satisfy 2a while narrowing the list of legal weapons made available to the public.

Well sure you have to have a special permit for explosives that already exists.

But a specific gun, not the caliber, the action or anything relevant doesn't make sense.

No, I understand. I qualified with an M16 and .45 in the Army. I know what they can do. The part I'll never understand is how a person can pull the trigger on another human being.

The only instance for me would be to save my life or someone around me. I wouldn't hesitate.

I don't have a disregard for human life.

 

[Schism]

I have so perhaps I should educate you. and if civilian police have them, so should other civilians. I don't see public servants' lives as more important than the lives of other civilians.

You're within your rights to present an emotional argument; it has nothing to do with 2A. I believe a valid legal argument can be made in favor of establishing the parameters more clearly and defining the minimum requirements of fulfilling 2a. I don't believe the answer is "with no restriction to any weapon imaginable". Banning semi-autos leaves you with plenty of firepower.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're within your rights to present an emotional argument; it has nothing to do with 2A. I believe a valid legal argument can be made in favor of establishing the parameters more clearly and defining the minimum requirements of fulfilling 2a. I don't believe the answer is "with no restriction to any weapon imaginable". Banning semi-autos leaves you with plenty of firepower.

the emotional arguments come from the anti gunners when they try to pretend us owning guns=interfering with the safety or lives of children, etc. it is moronic to claim that banning semi autos does not interfere with our rights because the government doesn't have any power to do so under the constitution. Your stupid line drawing is just that and it is obvious that if you think the government can ban semi autos, you really believe they can ban just about anything else. And you have yet to fashion a credible argument why semi autos should be banned

 

[CLAX1911]

You're within your rights to present an emotional argument; it has nothing to do with 2A. I believe a valid legal argument can be made in favor of establishing the parameters more clearly and defining the minimum requirements of fulfilling 2a. I don't believe the answer is "with no restriction to any weapon imaginable". Banning semi-autos leaves you with plenty of firepower.

The minimum requirements are very well established. You have to be 18, years of age for a long gun and 21 years of age for a pistol.

Restrictions on style of fire arms is strictly person opinion.

 

[CLAX1911]

the emotional arguments come from the anti gunners when they try to pretend us owning guns=interfering with the safety or lives of children, etc. it is moronic to claim that banning semi autos does not interfere with our rights because the government doesn't have any power to do so under the constitution. Your stupid line drawing is just that and it is obvious that if you think the government can ban semi autos, you really believe they can ban just about anything else. And you have yet to fashion a credible argument why semi autos should be banned

The line drawing is arbitrary and based on aesthetics.

 

[TurtleDude]

The line drawing is arbitrary and based on aesthetics.

It is designed to eventually ban everything. there is no rational reason to treat semi automatics differently from revolvers or pump action firearms

 

[CLAX1911]

It is designed to eventually ban everything. there is no rational reason to treat semi automatics differently from revolvers or pump action firearms

Yeah I see it as nothing more than a foot in the door.

Ban the scary looking ones because they look scary. Next week revolvers kind of look scary... So on.

 

[Schism]

the emotional arguments come from the anti gunners when they try to pretend us owning guns=interfering with the safety or lives of children, etc. it is moronic to claim that banning semi autos does not interfere with our rights because the government doesn't have any power to do so under the constitution. Your stupid line drawing is just that and it is obvious that if you think the government can ban semi autos, you really believe they can ban just about anything else. And you have yet to fashion a credible argument why semi autos should be banned

The US bans all sorts of things all the time, and sometimes cases wind their way through the courts.

I believe a legal argument can be made that you do not have a right to own either fully-auto or semi-automatic weapons.

Yes, the line can be moved. restricted. confined. registered. ID's. ownership transfers like a car title. ...and STILL fulfill 2a.

 

[CLAX1911]

The US bans all sorts of things all the time, and sometimes cases wind their way through the courts.

Often times it's stupid or based on some emotional reason.

I believe a legal argument can be made that you do not have a right to own either fully-auto or semi-automatic weapons.

Doubt effectively

Yes, the line can be moved. restricted. confined. registered. ID's. ownership transfers like a car title. ...and STILL fulfill 2a.

But if you just don't nothing will likely happen to you. It's not like a car in that you don't sit inside of it and serve it around so it's very unlikely you'll get caught.

So there is no incentive to obey and plenty incentive not to.