Originally Posted by tsmall22204 (Post 2120425)

It is not your knowledge of the constitution it is your interpretation. As stated earlier, you are biased, and starting this thread was a waste of time.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120644)

If mass murders keep increasing and become a much BIGGER problem than today, then the US will begin buy-backs and destruction of the weapons causing the most problems like Australia did after their mass murders. At some point in the future the US may HAVE to ask .......do they preserve American society or do they preserve the right for every citizen to own a military man-killing weapon? Everything in life is a trade off or balance..

Originally Posted by RickyLee (Post 2120690)

so if Susie JoBob owns a high end chassis rifle accessorized with high quality optics, a suppressor, a bi-pod and other competition accessories. Maybe he/she owns multiple high end competition weapons. When the confiscation time comes or even a buyback, do you really think he she will be compensated fairly? Maybe he she should just lose their investment? How about when they outlaw combustion vehicles and they come to take your Mercedes and your Lexus and your kids Nissan should they compensate you fairly? How will this be funded? Who will pay for it?

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2120691)

Who said anything about confiscating weapons? Stopping the sale of certain ones and maybe holding gun manufacturers and sellers liable for foreseeable injuries.

Originally Posted by Larchap49 (Post 2120566)

Australians are almost as suppressed as Russians and Chinese, I doubt you would be happy with that much government interference, although you may find out sooner than you think

Originally Posted by Larchap49 (Post 2120566)

Australians are almost as suppressed as Russians and Chinese, I doubt you would be happy with that much government interference, although you may find out sooner than you think

Originally Posted by bp243 (Post 2120416)

It would seem plausible to consider our USA gun-related deaths per capita with all other countries. For those countries that have lower gun-related deaths per capita, it would mean following up with the philosophy behind the gun controls in those countries. If we really want change, it's important to uncover those countries who are doing it the way that reduces the amount of deaths. Is that something that you'd be willing to do?

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2120695)

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.

Originally Posted by Jacob85 (Post 2120354)

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?

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2120695)

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.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120541)

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.

Originally Posted by Jacob85 (Post 2120354)

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?

Originally Posted by RVJim (Post 2120170)

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.

Originally Posted by Keefelane66 (Post 2120188)

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

Originally Posted by fcgiii (Post 2120798)

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

Originally Posted by Jacob85 (Post 2120354)

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?

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120543)

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.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120528)

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

Originally Posted by Annie66 (Post 2120883)

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.

Originally Posted by Annie66 (Post 2120883)

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.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2120650)

He was scared about collateral damage if he took the shot.

Originally Posted by Bay Kid (Post 2120730)

In the end our enemies would like to make sure Americans do not have any guns. Then only the crooks, military and China/Russia have guns. Then with the help of all the illegal young people placed all around America we can be overtaken with ease.

Originally Posted by fcgiii (Post 2120798)

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

Originally Posted by Annie66 (Post 2120883)

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.

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 2120670)

Point being, if there are mental health issues, simply removing a gun won’t work. If they are ill and determined, there are far worse tactics they will use. A gun may be less lethal than other methods that may be employed… the Oklahoma bombing tragedy comes to mind among other schemes.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120673)

My mistake on the medical errors it appears I put in an extra zero. It should have said 300,000 people die every year from medical errors. Your Health Care May Kill You: Medical Errors - PubMed

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120679)

I don't see that happening. Forced buy back is the same thing as gun confiscation. The term is comical actually since the government didn't sell the guns in the first place they can't "buy back". I do not see this ever happening in our country. I can't fathom the loss of life from the people who would refuse to surrender their guns added to the loss of life from those trying to confiscate them.

Let's use some critical thinking here. As we know most mass shootings are done with handguns. If you think Americans would ever surrender handguns, well, I have no uncertainty the answer is no. Therefore, all of this effort is over AR styled rifles. Millions of dollars spent to try to ban them. I did the math in an earlier post but the reality is AR style rifles are responsible for 30-40 murders per year. So, the 77% of mass shootings would still occur and the 23% of killers who preferred to use an AR wouldn't have one and therefore would opt for handguns instead to do their mass shooting. What would we gain?

Let's start by hardening the schools, which is much more cost effective, and we begin by saving children.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120680)

In the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, if you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics suck.

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2120694)

I find it humorous when the uneducated call for military style or AR/AK weapon ban. There is nothing available off the shelf today in a plastic scary black configuration that is any different than its wood stock version. I can put racing decals and a number on my Camry, but that does not make it a NASCAR. In the picture below, we have the same gun in differing stocks. Same projectile, same action system, and same barrel configuration. Nothing differentiates the lethality of one gun over the other. The guns that so many want to ban is nothing but a "normal" gun in a scary black costume.