[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Woodbear

Why would we hold the manufacturer of an inanimate object liable? Did the weapon load itself? Did it discharge itself? Did it aim itself at the victim?

Do we hold GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or Dodge liable for their contribution to drunk driving deaths? NO.......why, because they were not the responsible party.

A legal item manufacturer should NEVER be held responsible for its item being used by an individual in an illegal manner.

That particular boat sailed in 2005.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime." (Wikipedia)

[fcgiii]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

It would be an interesting beginning conversation. I think we have to step back for a moment and recognize that when firearms were removed from public ownership, did the murders stop? In other words, if you take away people's guns, are they then murdering people with knives, hammers, etc.

Murder per capita would be a good variable to look at. If someone murders my child or my spouse I am not concerned with the tool or instrument they used to kill my loved one. If someone stabs my daughter, strangles my daughter, or shoots her with a semi-automatic rifle, the funeral and burial are all the same. The seat is still empty at the table on Thanksgiving. That is why I focus on the evil heart that would take another's life.

The national conversation is about mass shootings right now although they make up 0.2% of the murders, meaning that 99.8% of murders will still occur even if we managed to eliminate mass shootings. The next level of the national conversation is AR style rifles, yet we know that 75-85% of mass shootings are done with handguns. If we break that down to real numbers it looks like this: 45,000 people in the US are killed by firearms. 54% of those were suicide. My opinion on suicide is that if a person is committed to kill themselves they will still do it. We now have 22,500 murders by firearms. I've read 70-80% of the murders are gang and drug related. I don't think most of us are in gangs. We are not left with 5,625 actual murders by firearms. That is consistent with the FBI figure of 6,000. As noted by EveryTown, 0.2% are mass shootings. That means each year 120 people are murdered as a result of mass shootings. 75% are done with handguns. That leaves us with 30 people being murdered each year during a mass shooting with an AR style rifle.

Every statistic above is horriic. But which number is most important? The media would have us to believe that the 30 people killed on average each year with an AR style rifle is the most important. Removing all AR styled rifles will save 30 people per year but what about the other 45,000? Do we not address that? How can I help you sleep at night without you infringing on my Constitutional Rights?

What is the goal then, really? Being murdered by a firearm isn't even in the top ten for cause of death in our country.

We can put things into perspective as well. 3,000,000 people die every year from medical mistakes/errors. You are 133 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than a thug with a gun. 91,800 people died last year from opioid overdose. You are 4 times more likely to die of an opioid overdose that being shot by a thug.

We can look at the mortality schedules at the CDC website. Being murdered doesn't even make their list of the top 10 ways to die. Heart disease is #1. Maybe we should ban bacon. Wow, that would be a bummer!

ETA: Sorry for the long post. While we are talking about per capita, it would also be prudent to look at the major cities that drive our murder rates.

Excellent post in a very useful and informative discussion

[NoMo50]

Originally Posted by Jacob85

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?

Your knowledge of firearms appears to be quite limited. Virtually all firearms only fire one round at a time. Only one projectile can travel down the barrel at a time. An exception would be a shotgun, where multiple pellets are discharged with each round fired.

I suspect your concern lies with the rate of fire of a particular weapon. Mass shootings involving fully automatic weapons, i.e., machine guns, are about as rare as lottery winners. A semi automatic weapon fires one round with each pull of the trigger. A fully automatic weapon will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held back, but still sends rounds down the barrel one at a time. Again, it is the rate of fire.

So...if the argument is that we should only allow firearms that fire more slowly, should that be revolvers? There are a great many proficient shooters who can fire a revolver every bit as fast as any semi automatic weapon. Is the desire to ban the AR platform rifles because they accept 30-round, or more, magazines? Are you familiar with the concept of reloading? If magazines were limited to 5 rounds, would a committed shooter not just carry more magazines? The Glock 19 is a very popular semi automatic pistol, used by law enforcement and private citizens alike. Each magazine holds 19 rounds of 9mm ammunition. A person could easily carry 10 extra magazines, providing over 200 rounds. In addition, this pistol can be reloaded with a fresh magazine in less than one second.

My point is simple: Once you start banning firearms, it will not stop until all firearms are effectively banned. Then, the old adage will come true...only outlaws will have guns. Murder is already illegal, yet that law does not stop a committed killer. Why would a gun ban stop him?

[bark4me]

Originally Posted by RVJim

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Looks like you already did

[bark4me]

Looks like all this started when they took The Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer out in schools

[Jacob85]

Where did you get your 77 percent statement? I would question that

[Veiragirl]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

Totally agree!

[fcgiii]

What is a mass murder event? One that hits the national media.

Are guns the problem? Not for Timothy McVey.

What is an assault rifle? A semiautomatic rifle whose name starts with AR.

What happens when you outlaw guns? Then only outlaws …

Oh, you know the thing

[SHIBUMI]

Sounds like you are solving all the worlds issues. First, the forefathers had muskets. If they were around today they would not agree with the gun laws. Why does anyone need an ar/ak or multiple firing pistols except army and police. They don't!

Governors can solve these problems by putting a $25,000 tax on ar/ak and a $10,000 tax on multiple firing pistols. Combined with a background check. Age 21 and older

There are things you will never regulate so you use taxes to do that.

Also, women need to understand and follow birth control to lower abortion rates.

what other balloons can we float?

Originally Posted by fcgiii

What is a mass murder event? One that hits the national media.

Are guns the problem? Not for Timothy McVey.

What is an assault rifle? A semiautomatic rifle whose name starts with AR.

What happens when you outlaw guns? Then only outlaws …

Oh, you know the thing

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Jacob85

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?

Wrong! Semi-automatic weapons shoot only ONE bullet at a time. Fully automatic weapons are not/have not been used in murders in a very long time....decades.....before they were federally restricted in ownership. This is the problem we have today, ignorance of the equipment being used by murderers. No offense meant, just a correction.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Actually, Australia and some other countries have solved the problem of mass murder events. I keep saying that because it is not GENERALLY known to Americans. I rarely hear that mentioned on TV in connection with these events. If you look at a graph of which countries have gun crime problems the US is over double the next country.
Also, a graph of gun ownership by country shows that the US has 1.2 guns in civilian hands PER person. That is WAY more than Canada, Mexico, or any other 1st world country,

To give a very crude summary.......The US is the PROBLEM and Australia is the SOLUTION.

Australia, Australia again and again. Lovely country. But, it is not "like" America, is it? Stopping Mass Murders is the goal, but hardly the root cause or the major crime factor. Mass murders are bad, but we have a lot more murders than that of "mass murders." Australia did not STOP murders by taking away the people's right to gun ownership. It only stopped a very small percentage of murders by penalizing the WHOLE population of the country. Most stats enjoy mentioning "per capita" when they make their charts, etc. They say that since there is an increase in population, there is a decrease "per capita" in killings/murder. They don't mention that there are still almost the same amount of murders, just not "per capita." Getting back to "mass murders" how about comparing them to the total amount of murders in the country instead of spotlighting how many folks are killed at one time? Of course, it is a shame that children in schools are being killed, but that is more of a blame that they are not being protected and cannot protect themselves. If you set up a game preserve in a park and put up a sign saying "No hunting" will that stop poachers? It will only stop decent, law abiding citizens from hunting in the game preserve. How do you stop the poaching? Do you take away all the instruments of hunting from everyone? No, you put up high fencing and patrol the land with security, maybe even installing security cameras. Is anyone really serious about protecting our children or are they just USING the children as an excuse to take away the tools of hunting and self defense from good people?
I have said this over and over again, if you wish to hinder/stop most if not all school shootings, harden their security. Tell me how this won't work? Is putting up a high fence and a guard at the gate too expensive? C'mon, man!
This is NOT Australia. Australia has not eliminated murder and eliminating mass murder by taking means of self defense away is only going to create MORE murders by other methods. If you take a gun away from ALL hunters, then the poachers will just use cross bows in the game preserve, if it is not fenced and guarded.
Protect the children and stop their being victims of "mass murders" by REAL protection, not make believe remedies.

[Byte1]

If the U.S.A. kept the missile defense system in place in Eastern Europe, would Russia still have invaded Ukraine? I realize that Ukraine is not NATO, but..........

[Annie66]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

What do we do when that doesn't work? What is an assault weapon? What is a truly heinous crime?

Are we going to parse words here? I believe most readers understood my definition of an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine capable of firing a high rate of fire. Heinous crimes can be defined as any crime resulting serious injuries or death; often to multiple people. The injures can be either physical or mental damage as a result of the event.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Annie66

Are we going to parse words here? I believe most readers understood my definition of an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine capable of firing a high rate of fire. Heinous crimes can be defined as any crime resulting serious injuries or death; often to multiple people. The injures can be either physical or mental damage as a result of the event.

How these are being marketed would be interesting.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Annie66

Are we going to parse words here? I believe most readers understood my definition of an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine capable of firing a high rate of fire. Heinous crimes can be defined as any crime resulting serious injuries or death; often to multiple people. The injures can be either physical or mental damage as a result of the event.

Ok, some would say that an "assault weapon" is any weapon capable of being used to "assault" someone. That would include but not be limited to, muskets, hunting rifles, swords, knives, bb and pellet guns, arrows, spears, baseball bats, axes, screw drivers (used in NY subway in one incident that was in the news), sharpened toothbrushes (as used in jails) whips, chains, etc. The definition is dependent upon the opinion of whomever decides to define "assault weapon." Let's not forget hand grenades, Molotov cocktails, acid, automobiles. Although, for the convenience of the unlearned, an assault weapon defined here is any spooky gun with a plastic stock that looks like a military gun and fires noisy bullets, and pistols that look complicated and fire more than five bullets by other means than manually loading a bullet into the chamber in order to fire it.
A "heinous" crime could be anything from taking a life to saying something mean to someone.
To those of us that have some (if limited) experience with firearms, an assault weapon would be an automatic firing weapon that fires more than one round per single application of the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon does NOT fire more than one round per trigger pull.
It is usually the subject ignorant person that wishes to ban something they have no comprehension of, which also causes them fear and apprehension.