“A car’s primary purpose is to transport; a gun is designed to maim or kill. Comparing deaths by the two is ridiculous.”
In addition, one needs to pass a written test to get a learners permit and a driving test to get a license. One also needs to have automobile insurance if one owns a car and cars have to be registered in the state in which owner resides.
I would have no problem if gun owners had to meet all those requirements.
Is there any chance those that want to talk about gun rights/gun control can start a separate thread and let this thread be about the jerkwads that were involved in the san bernadino incident. That would be lovely.
Guns, and certain restrictions on them, have to be part of this topic. Farook and Malik didn’t use their SUV to attack a room full of people. They used assault rifles.
The thread does not need to be about how wonderful gun ownership is and how stupid people are for not seeing that.
I’m finding that part kind of interesting. Bizarre – kind of like the aliens in Star Wars – but interesting nonetheless.
Wow, Marian, my hat is off to you. The redundancy seems more snooze-worthy to me.
To the specific extent that gun rights / gun control played into the events in San Bernardino, it is a worthy topic for this thread. The hijacking of this thread onto the overall subject of gun rights / gun control as unrelated to San Bernardino should be taken to a new thread. I have been trying hard not to participate in this wildly off-topic discussion.
There was one thing that was misrepresented a few pages back that illustrates one main reason why the San Bernardino event made no impact on the gun control issue.
A couple posters started using the term “rapid fire” (saw in the media as well) when referring to the gun used by Farook and his wife and I believe Sandy Hook too. And I recall something along the lines of (paraphrased): “People should not be able to legally purchase a rapid fire assault weapon” or something along those lines.
From a legal standpoint, this “rapid fire” viewpoint is 100% wrong when it comes to the guns used in both cases.
So what does this mean? It means that the AR-15s bought in a store can fire no faster or better than a standard 9mm pistol or 45 pistol. It is one bullet per trigger pull. That is it. There is no rapid fire capability built into the civilian guns for purchase.
Therefore, it is totally inaccurate and misleading to say the guns used in CA were “legally purchased rapid fire assault weapons.” They were not rapid-fire when bought (as that is illegal to sell), and they were illegally changed - so, the guns used in the terrorist attack were actually 100% illegal firearms and could not be bought in a store anywhere. (The Sandy Hook gun was not illegally modified and there was nothing rapid fire about it.)
Thus, there is not a gun law, which one can write, that could stop anyone from gun-smithing any gun and making it something totally illegal. That is why they are called criminals - where there is a will, they find a way on the black-market. No law stops people’s illegal intentions; the law only punishes after the fact.
Overall, it is virtually impossible to impact an issue when people realize that the arguments used do not even use accurate information - then the entire argument is essentially ignored. This is what happened here, as usual.
You may want to step back and try to repackage what you’re saying—as it stands, this looks like you’re saying “social norms are for other people”, and that’s getting into sociopathy territory,* you know?
No that is not what happened here. The vast majority of posters in this discussion have demonstrated their awareness that the guns were illegally modified. But if some posters want to try to find a post or 2, if they even exist (a post # would be helpful, out of these 1400+ posts since there is no evidence to support that claim that anyone said “legally purchased rapid fire weapons”, since you can’t even remember where or exactly what you are claiming someone said) seemingly to try to ping off it to lecture about different models of guns (that is off topic, and who cares anyway), to count how many fairies dance on the head of a pin, or to again insult the readers/posters here by falsely/inaccurately claiming “that is what happened here, as usual” (it isn’t, unless one’s vision is very myopic and focus on guns is all-encompassing), that is what has no place in this thread. That is what happened here, as usual. Please, take it elsewhere.
That said, the fact that assault weapons that can be purchased legally (though this purchaser is being charged with buying them illegally) can be modified to function in an illegal way does provide justification for the need for greater control over these assault weapons. They are used to kill and maim. That is disgusting.
The strongly held belief that laws against owning illegal guns don’t work is simply untrue.
We have not seen the kind of fully automated weapons that are under tight federal restrictions irt sales to civilians as the weapon of choice in any of the mass shootings we’re talking about. These guns are not “finding a way” onto the black market and into the hands of the mentally disturbed, disaffected youth, or jihadist terrorists as is the case with semi-automatic assault rifles. The federal ban on automatic weapons is working.
And jym has already made the point: the fact that ARs can be illegally modified for larger magazines or automatic fire by someone who wants to kill as many people as possible in the time they have is the reason they should be taken off the market. That and the ammunition they use, also designed to kill and maim enemy combatants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/new-york-times-assault-weapons-ban_b_8738774.html
Well, maybe so, because nobody said that anywhere here… except you, in this quote from your post, and me, in response (to use your words). A quick search of the thread reveals this. Not seeing that it is helpful to make up stuff no one said just to argue against it.
Unless it applies to keeping assault rifles cheap and legal.
Not sure what to take away from that blurb… that handguns aren’t as deadly? That deer, varmints, and humans share the common trait of a circulatory system? That if Chicago police coordinated enforcing their gun ban, with improved communications, handguns wouldn’t kill more of their citizens than long guns do?
Stringing together words like “automatic” & “military” kind of miss the point. Or maybe the points eludes the author: That the military has a specified caliber, that a citizen can purchase doesn’t mean squat. That a handgun round might be a little less lethal than a high-velocity rifle round kind of skips over the concept of concealeability. That, rather than telling people they can’t buy a non-prettied up .223, they might should have frowned on media glorification of criminality.
Or, of course, vetted our immigrants a little more vigorously.
Again with the misdirection.
The issue in this thread is not gun control versus gun rights and American-as-cherry pie gun violence in general.
It’s about terrorists and mass killers and the cheap weapons they have available and which ones they want and tend to choose so they can kill as many people as quickly as possible.
Could they do the same with an easily concealed hangun? Well maybe. Let’s take away the choice of assault rifles and see. What do we have to lose?
Again with the misdirection.
Farook and Marquez were citizens. Born here. Not to mention Lanza (born here) and Holmes (born here.)
The last was a nod to the thread topic… shouldn’t we wonder whether Farook was completed by his immigrant wife? The one who participated? Doesn’t seem misdirection, from that standpoint.
As to the other, just commenting on what you posted as germane, jazzymom.
Count me out. I’ve seen enough motivated regulatory mission creep in my lifetime, I’d just rather not. Personal feeling is, there won’t be any reduction in the shooting incidents nor a statistical difference in the results. Another feel good, foot in the door, “we’ll have to take further steps since reality continues to disappoint us”, project.
Yesterday, an American man attacked a stranger in a downtown Toronto area that was packed with Christmas shoppers. He had a machete. He was immediately tackled by two security guards and held until police arrived. The victim is in stable condition in the hospital. Thank heavens he didn’t have a gun, of any sort.
Thank you, NBA.
The weapons used in San Bernardino fire ammunition that penetrates cars, bullet proof vests, doors, etc. No civilian needs access to a weapon such as this.
Deer sometimes wear bulletproof vests. It’s true.