Excellent point, but it will go way over the heads of most of the posters on here. You will hear such as "patato-potato" "clip or magazine" "too much trouble spelling it out" etc. They will criticize others and then chastise them on being corrected themselves. You can't win with the ignorant on a subject, when they are not prepared to discuss the subject civilly. Even some of us agree with each other and argue "semantics." Instead of addressing the reason/cause of the assault or how to prevent one gun owner in 150 million from going on a rampage, they would rather punish ALL gun owners with their ignorance. To stop a gun fight, get rid of the guns. To stop a DUI, get rid of the booze or automobile. To stop bad language, outlaw the terms.



The example you provided is of (I believe) a Ruger 10/22 rifle that is one of the most popular 22 cal rifles on the market. For around a hundred bucks or so, one can convert it to the one shown after your first example. The second one is commonly mistaken by the ignorant as an assault weapon because it has black plastic on it and it looks threatening(?). You can purchase a 50 round "magazine" that will fit either one and exchangeable. Both will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

From what I have read, the shooter at the school did NOT have an AR-15, but an AR-15 look alike. I can't confirm that, but it is possible. The type of gun does not make a difference because all guns are dangerous. Some on here insist that they do not wish to ban "all guns" just the "assault weapons" like the ones used in the mass shooting. They don't even know what they are talking about, yet they insist that "assault weapons" are dangerous.

The perpetrator left plenty of warning of what he was going to do. He was ignored. I got that from what I read in the news, so I can't confirm the source. However, he was known to have a "temper" and to "mutilate himself." He used social media and threatened to "shoot up a school." He was said to have been "bullied and to be a bully." Could these details be warning signs?

Please3 explain this rationale.

Guns make us safe. More gun make us safer, Gun free zones are worthless because makes it easier to kill us.

Trump will be there, so it is too hard to keep him safe unless we ban guns. What could be safer for Trump than a room full of ardent supporters packing?

The hypocrisy is blatant. Everyday in every way we are told we need more guns to make us safer, but Trump needs more guns to keep him safer from his own supporters?

Excellent post! And one that many (millions) gun owners empathize with.

What type of guns should the government ALLOW to have? I want an M1 Tank. It's just a car with a built in gun. If I can't have that, why can't I have a fully automatic weapon, like an old school m50?

Please, tell me so I can understand why I can have what I want when the constitution says my right to be armed shall not be restricted. It sure seems like it is being restricted.

Sorry, I have been told to stop repeating myself. All I do is respond to the same posts by different people. It's almost like so many watch the same shows - them come here and repeat what they have been told - almost word for word. You know when a detective is investigating a case, and she hears exactly the same story for multiple people - it raises a flag.

You're sort of making the original poster's point. A room full of people with guns means you've got something to worry about. A room full of people without guns, means you have a lot less to worry about. The NRA tries to spin it the other way round.

For me, I'd much rather be in a store or school or a church (not that you could drag me into one of those) full of people without guns.

excellent post, because everyone knows that evil gun jumped off the rack on it's own & single handedly took down innocent kids. never mind the wacko carrying the gun, or the various posts he made of himself with the weapons, with a tag line ;kids be afraid 2day, or the red flags that showed up in his social media posts. nope, it was all the gun's fault

I'm sorry that no one has answered your question to your satisfaction. Please allow me to answer the question that you probably already know the answer to. You CAN own a M1 tank and/or a fully automatic weapon. Google is your friend. If you apply for a federal permit and undergo a background check and pay a substantial fee, you can own the tank and/or the fully automatic weapon. And you can even call it an "assault weapon" if it pleases you. There you, you're welcome. :icon_wink::)

it's the exact opposite where we are. half the neighborhood is ex military or ex police. i'd say a GOOD number are armed properly. good guys with guns always makes me feel safer

See it is hard to solve something when you are looking in the wrong places. Mental health is a red herring being pushed by the parties with a vested interest. I can post links to dozens of studies by top psychologists in the world (but I wont because I have been given a vacation for posting too many links - spamming they called it). And they all come to the same conclusion - summarized by this:

Are All Mass Shooters Mentally Ill?

Here is the link, but I know most wont bother to read it, since it might disturb peoples world view. If you are interested in truth and not propaganda as so many claim - the take a look.

"They discovered that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness. They also found that mass shooters in the United States were more likely to have legal histories, use recreational drugs, abuse alcohol, and have histories of non-psychotic psychiatric or neurologic symptoms."

Let me repeat that, 8% of mass shooters have mental health problems associated with the shooting.

According to John Hopkins Medicine , 26% of Americans 18 and older have some form of diagnosable mental health.

Repeat that - 8% of shooters are mentally ill, 26% of the general population are mentally ill. Hmm.

So, there is an interesting anomaly here - MORE people that are NOT mass murders have some form of mental illness than the mass shooter. The shooters would seem to be "healthier". (that would be a false comparison, for those paying attention - since there are very few shooters so the sample size is very small.)

Mental Health Disorder Statistics | Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to other sources, 20% of the worlds population has mental health issues.

So, PLEASE, since you claim mental health explains mass shootings and school murders, PLEASE explain why the US is the ONLY country experiencing regular school shooting. Great Britain hasn't had one since 1996 with they banned most guns. Coincidence?

PLEASE explain WHY there are not MORE shootings since the general population has 3 times as much mental illness as the shooter population?

There, Did I repeat it enough times?

I won't wait for an answer, since EVERY single person I have asked, failed to respond with an answer. Typically if they answer at all they just deflect with "things are different here - yeah they are different. We have 400 million guns on circulation. And in this particular case virtually no requirements to buy a gun except a government ID, be 18, and breathing. (Oh and a pocket full of money)

Just because he was a minor 2 days before he bought guns they don't look at his past history. Lots and lots of minors are already criminals. Just because they turn 18 doesn't make them new saints. Don't blame the gun, blame the law that doesn't look at the history of this crazy punk kid.

As an earlier poster pointed out, the Secret Service does not seem to see it that way. It may be one thing if you know everyone, although that begs the question - why would someone feel the need to carry a gun around in their own neighborhood?

i read the article posted, very interesting, but allow me to question the report. in sandy hook, columbine & parkland--they all had some sort of emotional disturbance. these are the shootings that come to mind right away. thoughts?

for protection & safety purposes mainly, also for sport/target practice

Actually, no. I did not "make" the original poster's point. There are exceptions to almost any situation. I am sure that most everyone in an NRA meeting feels secure knowing others are carrying. Our government via the SS has a different outlook on the situation. Protection of the asset is a different matter entirely. Ask them for their reasoning or RULES.

Personally, I have no problem with CCW individuals carrying in a church. In the past few years, there have been several church shootings. One was stopped by a man (NRA member?) with a gun. I understand some folks are in great fear of guns and worry that they may go off by themselves and harm humans. Those folks probably should not have a gun, or should take a gun safety course just to know how they work. It says a lot about someone that had to let everyone know that they would not ever be seen in a church. There's more threat of being zapped by the Holy Spirit in church than being shot in one by a gun totin' miscreant. :clap2::):pray:

not sure if you guys saw the recent news report re: a 70yr old female, who was forced to use her gun to take down a home intruder. thank God she was able to defend herself & partner, lest they may be the ones being buried

It would help if you took your own advice. See, you left out a little detail. The tank (M1's are not for sale) must be neutered and make street legal first. Meaning no weapon systems, barrel concreted, and all tactical equipment removed.

So, I will go with that, you are okay with the government requiring the tank be neutered, so you would not mind if they require all guns to be disabled and cripple. Barrels filled.

I know (you have said multiple times) tight you are MUCH smarter than the rest of us. If so, try finding the truth, and not just enough of the truth to support your own misconceptions, the the rest of the story.

Oh, and I will save you the trouble of replying that I didn't say I wanted to it work, I just said I wanted to own it.

Well, I said I wanted it so I would be equally armed as the governments military, since the argument I was responding to was that the 2nd was there to allow us to take back our government from rogue actors. Kind of hard to take back the government with AR15s (toys) and M1 Tanks that are crippled (can't even use it with tracks - so no off road fighting - I am sure the rogue government will help by only fighting on paved hiways.

I guess I could drive it around and run over bad guys... but then it isn't really a gun is it.

As to the fully automatic weapon -

For example, a private citizen can lawfully own a machine gun only if:

* the possessor isn’t a “prohibited person,”
* the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
* their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features).

"For example, someone can lawfully possess a machine gun made this morning if it is in connection with their duties as a government or law enforcement official, or if they have their Federal Firearms License (FFL) and have either made or possess the machine gun for possible sale to government/law enforcement personnel."

In 1934, the National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed which restricted machine gun possession, among other types of firearms.

Remember, though, if you want to possess these modern machine guns, you must be a government employee possessing the machine gun in connection with your official duties OR you must get your Federal Firearms License (FFL) and become an SOT.

As an FFL, you must also pay a special yearly tax to become a Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT) – this allows you to purchase and sell NFA firearms (including machine guns) without paying a tax per item/transaction.

The machine guns can be banned outright based on function (because they are machine guns) or they can be banned/partially-banned based on features.

And a summary:

How to Purchase a Machine Gun as an Individual:

* Confirm that they are lawful to possess in your state

* Find a currently registered machine gun made before 1986 either at a gun shop or a private individual. You can search locally or online (but out-of-state online sales of all firearms must go to your local gun shop).

* Purchase the machine gun as an individual or through a trust – but, no, you can’t take it home yet! Trusts were popular to avoid certain requirements (fingerprints, law enforcement approval, etc.) but ATF changed the rules last year. Previously, your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) approval was required, but the ATF changed the rules last year to only require notification. Also, members of a trust could obtain new NFA firearms without fingerprints/photos but now every lawful possessor is required to submit them each time. These rule changes removed much of the reason to get a trust.

* Fill out an ATF Form 4 application to transfer an NFA firearm. This application will include a $200 check for your tax, your fingerprints, a passport-style photograph, and information about you and the firearm.

* Wait 9-12 months for the ATF to approve and return your paperwork.

* Take your machine-gun home and enjoy!

Since you are okay with those restrictions, I suggest we let them apply to ALL guns. How about that.

And you of course left out cruise missiles and F35 fighters. Which I would be facing when trying to take back my country. So, cherry picking, doesn't work.

My point stands.

excellent thread with many thoughtful posts :ho:

Maybe that neighborhood is in Chicago.

Not quite sure who you were addressing this to, but I'll toss in my 2 cents. IMO, there is one (and only one) reason why someone commits any sort of violent crime - because they are mentally unstable.

Why not, as a start, require anyone who wants to buy a gun to prove they are mentally stable. 99.9% would pass and go on their way with their shiny new killing machine. The .1 failures are just out of luck.

We don't seem to have any issues adding more and more restrictions to people's right to vote, this does not seem to add that much of a burden to the vast majority gun owner wannabes

If you can get past the NYTs paywall there is an interesting article on Chicago gun violence. Here is a snippet from fact checking of Trump and Cruz at the NRA convention

The three cities with the highest gun homicide rates — Jackson, Miss.; Gary, Ind.; and St. Louis — had rates double that of Chicago’s or more. All are in states with more permissive gun laws than Illinois.

Chicago’s reputation for having the strictest gun control measures in the country is outdated. Mr. Cruz cited the city’s handgun ban — without noting that the Supreme Court nullified the ban in 2010. An appeals court also struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois in 2012, and the state began allowing possession of concealed guns in 2013 as part of the court decision.

Today, Illinois has tougher restrictions than most states, but it does not lead the pack, ranking No. 6

Here's my thought on carrying in your own neighborhood. One day, my spouse was out in the yard (previous state) and a coyote started harassing her. My weapons were not available at the time, so I ran at the animal shouting at it. It retreated slowly, barking and growling as it went. After that, I made sure that I always had a weapon handy. My thought is that it is better to have protection and not need it than to need it and not have it. If you do not habitually carry your weapon all the time, who's to say when you might suddenly need it? A crazed animal, a drug influenced neighbor, an out of control domestic resulting in a frustrated gun wielding citizen....who knows? Since most or at least half my family are trained in weapons handling and have CCW, I often ask them when they take trips on their motorcycles or even in their autos, if they are carrying. It's good to remind them and gives me peace of mind that they at least have some tool for self defense. A gun against a carjacking is a great equalizer. There was one instance in Texas where a CCW lady left her gun in her truck when she had dinner with her parents in a diner that had a sign posted prohibiting guns inside. The place was held up and someone was murdered in the process (I think one or both her parents were victims?). She said later that all she could do was glance out the window and wonder why she didn't have her protection which was just a few feet away. If I have my wallet in my pocket, I have my CCW with me also. Not that I am afraid, but I am prepared to protect my family and anyone else that might need assistance in my vicinity. The school shooting demonstrates the old saying that "when seconds count, a COP is minutes away." or something like that.

Best Coyote Deterrents & Repellents: Protecting Your Dog From Coyotes!

We had coyotes a few years ago here and some neighbors did walk their dogs while armed with guns but there are better options against coyotes.

I answered your question and you preferred to be facetious. Ok.

I knew an old Gunny in the Marines that once said to us, "don't come complaining to me about a problem unless you also have a solution." Of course, when I say "old" he was probably in his 30's or 40's...:1rotfl:
Bad people are the problem and good people are the solution.
Guns are not the problem, only the weapon of choice for the bad people. Guns are also the possible choice of good people as a solution to bad people using a gun to perpetrate bad things. If you don't like guns (not you specifically) then solve the people problem before they resort to acting on their malicious intent.

Yes, there are OTHER options for coyotes, and that was just an example. I love animals so I would hesitate to use a firearm on an animal unless it was a matter of hunting for food or absolute defense. Same with people as far as absolute defense.....not hunger...:1rotfl:

You made two very good points. Why not prove they are mentally stable? Who decides and wouldn't they be able to fool the person making the judgement?

You mentioned "more and more" restrictions on voting. What restrictions? The Constitution states that ONLY American citizens may vote in national elections. Is providing proof of citizenship and identification a restriction? But, we do not need to go off subject, right?

I believe that a half way decent background check is a form of proving a person is mentally stable, IF done properly. However, as many know of the gov's background check for a security clearance, background investigations are very expensive and can cost as much as $20K or more. Even then, some sneak through.

Noticed that the Uvalde mass murderer had an obscene amount of ammunition on him. Without bullets any rifle is just a club.

Many gun enthusiasts I know reload their spent cartridges. Instead Of Buying New Ammunition, These Gun Enthusiasts Recycle | Texas Standard

Your wrong about "nothing will change". It is changing and for the worse. Vote them out!

Locking school doors could be asking for more trouble. What if a fire starts? Nut jobs are saying "harden the schools and have one entrance and one exit". What happens if there is a fire?

One problem is, somebody may be mentally stable today (if that can even be determined) but after some crisis in the future, they become unstable. And they already own a gun capable of killing 10s of people very quickly.

Perhaps there really are multiple sides to this problem that need to be addressed and one of them is the destructive capability of the weapons people are allowed to own.

The safest school in America
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcpsnrxHdCc

This is how it is done!

Great city Chicago you get the casualty report in the morning with the days weather

I think you have done a good job of demonstrating the lack of insight of our mental health experts have on human behavior

Great idea! And a good investment. $400K is reasonable for protecting children.

The shooter at Robb Elementry did NOT shoot or kill anyone when he was 17 years old or younger. It was only when he turned 18 and magically could buy MAN-KILLING guns that HE turned into a mass murderer.
..........That is the logic that I base MY OPINION on - that to solve the mass murder problem - you have to do SOMETHING about the GUNS problem. The US is awash in excessive GUNS, which has led to excessive GUN violence. Excessive as compared to other countries. And if this GUN problem is not solved, then more GUNS will be purchased and that will equal MORE MASS MURDERS.

The Secret Service is there to protect whoever they're charged with protecting. If the threat is removed (no firearms allowed) then they don't need the Secret Service there. If they need the Secret Service there, it's because it's that presumption of safety doesn't exist.

If everyone was allowed to carry at the Convention, they wouldn't need the secret service, would they?

Because ALL OF THOSE GOOD GUYS would be protecting each other from that one bad guy.

But if the secret service is needed afterall, then the above sentence is untrue.

What happens if it's someone who is IN the building creating the problem? Remember - guns don't kill people. Could be some kid got into the archery equipment and is shooting folks with a crossbow. Could be they got ahold of exacto knives from the arts department and is throwing them at random students. Could be some kid got into the janitor closet and is spraying everyone in the hallway with bleach.

Excellent video, thanks for showing it. We are becoming immune to this strange new world we live it, but the cost is a drop in the bucket and should be installed in all public places. There is more than enough money in this country for this type of protection. Maybe some of our millionaire politicians would like to chip in :icon_wink:

So, you are saying that if we limit the amount of guns owned to say one gun per person, we will eliminate mass killing? How about one rifle and one pistol per person? Is that too much? Maybe one 22 cal and one 30 cal rifle and maybe one 9mm and one 38cal pistol? Then since the more cars on the road, the more accidents that happen, we will allow only one car per household? Or maybe one car and one motorcycle?



Just a point about ages of shooters: Statista says:
"Between 1970 and June 16, 2020, 175 school shootings were perpetrated by 17-year-olds. 16-year-olds perpetrated the second highest number of school shootings, with 163 shootings." Just adding to your age related statement. I don't think that age is that relevant to mental health. Although, I haven't heard much in respect to senior citizens perpetrating mass murders in public schools. Of course, I really haven't researched that age group.

Good idea about the last suggestion.....:coolsmiley:

The irony is lost on some of you.

Regardless of which entity is doing the actual ordering of the ban -

The ban is imposed on a forum where a guy is going to speak about his opinion that there should be no bans. And he'll be able to make this statement, from the safety of the only people who are allowed to not abide by that ban, because their job is to protect him personally.

I'm not for banning guns. I'm pro 2A. I'm also pro-non-hypocrisy. The guy who is going to speak, should not be there at all, if the rules are applying ONLY to his personal taxpayer-provided bodyguards.