The 2nd Amendment, Gun Control, and Mass Murder

I think there are some bright folks that post on this site, & it would be interesting to see some of the opinions and comments, without the ridiculing and name-calling.

What do you think? Should there be a “ban” on legal purchase of an AR15 bushmaster style rifle with high-capacity magazines? Who should be able to define what kind of weapon a civilian should have the right to own? Does the government need to more strictly control/inventory the “arms” civilians bear?

I’m in the No, Nobody, and Hell No camp for all “small arms” type weapons.

1. no ban on any current firearms/magazines, including AR15s. Although I find the reasons for owning an AR15 type firearm ridiculous and nobody is going to change my mind about that. A boat anchor is much more useful.

2. Nobody.

3. No they shouldnt inventory or control civilian arms other than to keep convicted felons and mentally unstable folks from possessing them.

I'm out if you take your first sentence literally.

No ban on those weapons. I don't own one, but wouldn't think anything different of somebody who does. I'm not sure a 30 round clip is needed, but it's not my place to decide.

BuzzH said:

1. no ban on any current firearms/magazines, including AR15s. Although I find the reasons for owning an AR15 type firearm ridiculous and nobody is going to change my mind about that. A boat anchor is much more useful.

2. Nobody.

3. No they shouldnt inventory or control civilian arms other than to keep convicted felons and mentally unstable folks from possessing them.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this post.

Greenhorn hit on the head. Except for those unfit to own any firearm, you should be able to poses what you want. If that is a single shot shotgun, or an AR15 with a 100 round drum, it shouldn't matter.

I agree with Buzz on the NCIS check, though criminals don't often abide by the rules.

Seems like nobody above really can detail a reason for wanting an AR-15. If there is no "good purpose" to own one, and, they happen to be the preferred weapon for "mass murders", then maybe we need to look at how they are owned/sold/used.

I don't think much of society cares about criminals killing criminals (which is much of this nation's murder rate), but when you start killing kids in classrooms, movie theaters, and shopping malls, then it seems logical that the device used (that nobody above really thinks has any practical use) may need restrictions of some sort.

Perhaps magazine capacity, more extensive background checks, more extensive provenance on subsequent sales. MaybE an annual tax of $2000 per rifle per year to fund WayNe LaPierres armed guards in every school.

I don't own an assault rifle and I'm not paranoid. What are the murder numbers in the US with assault rifles not obtained illegally? There's terrible gun crime in the US, but carving up the 2nd Amendment isn't the answer. It isn't about hunting/recreation, but the right to protect yourself individually, and as a group against potential tyranny. Ponder some body count estimates from the last century, primarily mass murder by "policemen and soldiers." Science might agree that as a species, we haven't evolved much since then. We're blessed to live when/where we do, but it would be foolish to think things can't/won't change for the much worse at some point.

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000

Click to expand...

My guess is there's roughly 100,000,000 dead victims above that would have preferred that they and all their friends, relatives and neighbors had AR-15, a truckload of 30 round magazines, and maybe even suppressors, bayonets, folding stocks, etc.

The German weapons act didn't turn out well for quite a few people.

I don't think a handful of nut jobs killing people should have any effect on gun laws.They will find a weapon no matter what if they are hell bend on killing people.I think the above posts says it all about more restrictive gun laws.I don't feel a need to own such weapons but I'm not going to tell anyone else what they can or can't own.I think using these shooting to promote tougher gun laws is a joke,and won't fix a thing.
No
Nobody
No

More government regulation is rarely an answer to an issue. I don't personally own an AR though I'm very familiar with them, just don't see their usefulness for the manners in which I choose to recreate. The government already regulates small arms to the extent that automatic weapons are illegal. Moving beyond that line to include certain semi-automatic weapons is an intrusion into individual rights that should be taken much more seriously than its being thrown around in Washington. If politicians are in the mood to actually get something done, they should start with a dam budget.

Does something need to be done? Yes.

Regulating small arms would not do much to solve the actual problem while affecting the largest number of individuals who won't benefit from the regulation. However, an assault weapons ban is probably the easiest band aid the government can put on the problem to feel as though they've accomplished something. As seen with the previous ban though, nothing would be solved.

Addressing mental health issues to include preventing weapon ownership would do more to target the issue we need to address while affecting fewer individuals than an assault weapons ban. Though this may be an actual solution, it would involve a lot of government meddling into people's private lives, something most aren't fond of unless the government is handing over a check.

If they want to meddle further into individuals private lives and rights they should maybe force parenting classes onto half the population too. We've got young children spending hours and hours a day playing the most violent and desensitizing video games you could imagine. One of them turns their daily fantasy life into reality at a school and guns are the problem?!!

I guess to answer the questions asked I'd say:

1. No

2. The government does and should to a point, but no further than they already do.

3. No, but maybe they should be a little more active in preventing certain people from owning weapons. How they should do this I'm not yet sure.

I guess tHis thread actually needs a 4th question.


"Is there a problem in the US with too many innocent kids/shoppers/movie goers being gunned down Brian assault weapons?"

No
No Body
NO

I don’t own any of the “assault weapons” or never felt the need to…… but that could be changing.

I understand why some people feel the need of ownership.
For some people it simply because they can or to prove they can, they feel it is their right.

For some it is the fear of being in the same situation as the picture above- the fall of democracy.

Probably a small percent ownership is because they think they are “fun” to shoot and cool to have with no idea of what is going on in the world around them.

There are two types of people in this thing we call a society.(besides the "mentally ill")
1. People that live in denial- ( simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether)
2. People that face the truth to the reality of their unpleasant future and be prepared.

There is a difference in a paranoia based fear and a reality based fear.

“Alexander Tyler wrote in 1770, six years before the birth of this nation that, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse (bounty, gifts, donations, generous giving, etc.) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship.”

mixedbag said:

I think using these shooting to promote tougher gun laws is a joke,and won't fix a thing.

Click to expand...

It will only benefit the leader of this country and his followers.............

No ban, No one, No.

Purchased an AR during the lull between frenzies. 2-30 rd'rs and a 20 mag & have about 800 rounds of 5.56.Knew nothing about them and didn't particularly like em but bought it because it was a good price for what it was and the optics it carried, however, I think it is fun to shoot and definitely constitutes a defensive deterrent God forbid it necessary.

No, Nobody,No. As for Black Rifles, alot of them have been bought way before any of the Murders for just adding to our collection. We like to go to the range and shoot them just as alot of people shoot skeet. Whay should a person pay a special tax for part of a gun collection he has, I paid taxes when I bought it. Should we have longer waiting periods, I don't think that would help as Adam killed his mother to obtain his and the Columbine killer used an older girl to obtain theirs if I remember correctly.
All I would ask of those in Office is to get over the Cry from the Left and Right and do something they rarely do in Washington and use their Heads to think and not to put out re-election videos meant to get them the emotional vote. John

Regarding the on-going debate;
There is a push to define firearms in terms of “need”.
“I don’t see why hunters need a 30 round magazine“. “You don’t need a rifle that will pierce body armor to defend yourself“.
It is a very dangerous thing to let the government define what anyone “needs”. Imagine if you applied the same standard to the 1st amendment, or any other amendment ? Why does the news media need to report on the national debt, why does a criminal need a lawyer, after all, he’s guilty isn’t he ? Why do you need so much wilderness area ?
The 2nd amendment is a right, not a need. It was put in the bill or rights not to insure hunters guns, not to insure defense against thugs or rapists. It was put there, carved in stone if you will, to insure that the general population would be a force of it’s own, representing the will of the people. Not that the people could ever defeat the standing army, but that it would be too costly in terms of blood and money for the government to ever try to defeat it’s own people.

So what can we do ?
I think the answer lies in better mental health services, and better background checks. Mental health pretty much speaks for it self. We as a nation need to task the AMA with producing a set of standards to identify those who are so unstable as to represent a threat to society, and flag them in such a way that they will be prevented from acquiring firearms, explosives or whatever else they could use to cause extensive damage.

Regarding background checks, we need to improve the “instant” background system. States must be required to keep records computerized and available, under threat of loosing federal dollars. The system must be required to purge , keeping no permanent records. The system must be instance, because rights delayed are rights denied.
In order to accomplish all of this, I believe the basis for all firearm laws needs to be federal, and all states should be required to abide by it.

One idea that I think has merit is to put the requirement of background checks on the buyer, not the seller.
Anyone, for whatever reason could instigate a background check on themselves, and be given clearance and a number that is good for a month ot two, then go to a store to purchase a firearm, and give the seller that number. The seller uses the system to confirm the number, comparing it the the buyers identification, and complete the sale.

A-con said:

I think the answer lies in better mental health services, and better background checks. Mental health pretty much speaks for it self. We as a nation need to task the AMA with producing a set of standards to identify those who are so unstable as to represent a threat to society, and flag them in such a way that they will be prevented from acquiring firearms, explosives or whatever else they could use to cause extensive damage.

Click to expand...

If you are concerned about gun rights, this is a far more dangerous path to choose. I'm sure a significant number of people here wouldn't qualify in a lot of people's minds because someone with similar "problems" killed someone in the past. It is also going to keep more "nuts" on the street. Would you seek help if it meant the government was going to take away your guns? One in four Americans have some sort of mental disorder. I expect this is much more than have 100 round clips.

Regarding the "right," I'm sorry but just because a weapon (or accessory) is out there doesn't mean you have the right to own it. A line has to be drawn somewhere between nukes and muzzleloaders and limiting the amount of damage that can be done by the inevitable idiot by limiting clips to 10 rounds is reasonable. If you want to go down like Scarface then simply get a bleeping permit for a fully automatic.

rg

Your taking my comments in the broadest possible sense. If I were to read you post under the same standards, you seem to be advocating for access to firearms by the criminally insane ?

The devil is always in the details.

RobG said:

If you are concerned about gun rights, this is a far more dangerous path to choose. I'm sure a significant number of people here wouldn't qualify in a lot of people's minds because someone with similar "problems" killed someone in the past. It is also going to keep more "nuts" on the street. Would you seek help if it meant the government was going to take away your guns? One in four Americans have some sort of mental disorder. I expect this is much more than have 100 round clips.



rg

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly! Where do we draw the line on who should and shouldn't own/posses a firearm in regards to mental health.

As RobG said one in four people have had or have some sort of mental illness. That means that at least 3 people that posted to this thread so far are/have been/or could be affected by MI. Does that mean they should not be allowed to posses a gun?

Mental illness can be manifested in many ways. IMO most would agree schizophrenia would be a disqualifier to own a gun. On the other hand depression is form of mental illness. Does that mean if you find out your wife has been sleeping with your best friend and you go into a nasty slump the first thing you should do is march your hunting rifle down to the police station? Pretty easy to argue that a person having gone thru that and in that state of mind might not need to have a gun. Where do we draw the line?

I dont know the answers but I certainly can see where this is every bit as scary as outlawing a specific firearm type or clip size.

Jose, as many of us have pointed out repeatedly, None of the mass murders committed were with assault weapons!!!!!!!!! The AR-15 style rifle and shotguns, along with the AK 47s that are possessed by the majority of owners aren't assault weapons. They are no more an assault weapon than a Remington 740, Browning Bar, or Winchester XS3. They are all semi-automatic weapons, and not a single one of them is capable of fully automatic fire, which a true assault weapon is capable of. Just because you don't like AR style weapons, isn't a valid reason for them to be banned (although being the liberal that you are, it's easy for you to place blame where none actually exists). I'd be willing to bet that I could take my Remington 597 and 4 or 5 of the 10 shot magazines, and shoot just as many, or more people in the same 20 minute time span that Lanza had in Newtown, so are you going to suggest that all similar style .22 rifles also be banned, especially if you don't happen to own or desire to own such a rifle? In actuality, a true assault weapon, such as an M-16, M-4, or even a Thompson sub-machine gun with a 50 round drum magazine would be a much more difficult weapon to control and murder 20 kids with. The recoil reduces the accuracy in the hands of anyone other than a highly trained individual. To classify a Bushmaster in the same category as those weapons is plain malarkey, and the use of emotion to create animosity towards an ever growing segment of the shooting and hunting gun owners in this country. BTW, a 30 round magazine could just as easily be replaced by taking a couple of 10 round magazines and taping them together with duct tape and simply releasing and reinserting. Tape enough of them together and an entire battery of magazines could produce 100's of quickly loaded rounds. As a matter of fact, there is a company that manufactures a device that couples magazines in tandem. As one is released, the shooter just slips the next one into the magazine well.........I suppose you would support a ban on that as well.

Ok, Greeny started this for Yes, No, Why. Let's stick with that, we're kinda slipping here. John