Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That is true, but irrelevant to the question of whether AR-15s are worth the societal cost.

Again, a false choice. AR-15s are not a cost to society the cost to society is the people who misuse them.

The same people without the AR-15s would not be able to be quite so destructive, so the societal cost can be partly ascribed to the presence of these weapons.

Knives kill more people than AR-15s. So do certain drugs, and alcohol related deaths.

See my comment about Rogaine.

Inaccurate characterization of restricting AR-15s. Law-abiding citizens are not being declared “guilty.”

Yes they are, at least in the leftist media. There have been posters here tell that lie. But taking a firearm that is no where near the major cause of gun murders, when virtually none but a few AR-15 owners have committed crimes holds them accountable. “People are willing to see innocent kids die so they can take their AR-15 to the range and shoot.” That’s the framing of it. I know you’ve seen it.

Yes I have seen it and that’s not the position that I am taking. So I don’t think you can criticize my position for something others have said holding a different position.

 

[JonNC]

The same people without the AR-15s would not be able to be quite so destructive, so the societal cost can be partly ascribed to the presence of these weapons.

Regular rifles are just as deadly and powerful. A pistol grip or barrel shroud is irrelevant

See my comment about Rogaine.

Firearms are a right.

Yes I have seen it and that’s not the position that I am taking. So I don’t think you can criticize my position for something others have said holding a different position.

I didn’t say you did. In fact I clearly said I know you’ve seen it. But just because that isn’t your view doesn’t mean the impact isn’t as I’ve stated

 

[Inisfallen]

Amazes me how many liberals would be accepting of a Soviet style extermination of their fellow citizens over a political disagreement.

Really? 'Cause I’m a liberal, and I know a lot of liberals, and I’ve never met one who would accept a “Soviet style extermination of their fellow citizens” for any reason.

Just because I don’t believe you and your guns are the only things standing between me and the gulag doesn’t mean I’d accept the extermination of my fellow citizens.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The same people without the AR-15s would not be able to be quite so destructive, so the societal cost can be partly ascribed to the presence of these weapons.

Regular rifles are just as deadly and powerful. A pistol grip or barrel shroud is irrelevant

The fact that they can fire faster with more bullets makes them more deadly in the hands of wrong-doers.

Firearms are a right.

As I have always said, that is the opinion of flawed humans - an opinion I happen to disagree with.

Yes I have seen it and that’s not the position that I am taking. So I don’t think you can criticize my position for something others have said holding a different position.

I didn’t say you did. In fact I clearly said I know you’ve seen it. But just because that isn’t your view doesn’t mean the impact isn’t as I’ve stated

I don’t know what the impact of other people’s view might be, but whatever it is, it does not bear on the legitimacy of my view.

 

[JonNC]

The fact that they can fire faster with more bullets makes them more deadly in the hands of wrong-doers.

Semi automatic is semi automatic. One pull one round.

As I have always said, that is the opinion of flawed humans - an opinion I happen to disagree with.

And the other view is the opinion of more flawed humans.

I don’t know what the impact of other people’s view might be, but whatever it is, it does not bear on the legitimacy of my view.

Of course not. But you (and I ) aren’t framing the debate.

 

[Theo520]

Teachers wouldn’t have a six shooter on their hip, if that is what you are imagining.

The likely scenario would be selected teachers that had been vetted and trained would have a gun safe or lock box in their classroom.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are those among us, Jon, that feel that the delusions of power and liberty that are sold alongside AR15s don’t justify the societal costs incurred due to the occasional closet psychopath getting a hold of one.

But do you really think people like the Fla shooter is motivated to kill by the shape of the gun? Does that really make sense to you, given that some 8 million people own them and don’t shoot anybody? I can imagine that the design might mildly motivate a shooter to choose an AR-15 over, say, an M-14. But then, there’s no particular reason to think that motivation would be anything more than a marginally greater ease of handling. Nor is there any reason to think banning all AR-15 sales and confiscation of the 8 million or so that are out there would dissuade any shooter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The same people without the AR-15s would not be able to be quite so destructive, so the societal cost can be partly ascribed to the presence of these weapons.

I’m not sure that’s true. There are a number of guns with actions similar to that of an AR-15. As I recall, too, the Aurora Colo killer killed 12 people and wounded something like 70 without ever using an AR-15. He started out with a semi-automatic shotgun, then used one or more pistols, then used a semi-automatic rifle.

 

[Lev]

But do you really think people like the Fla shooter is motivated to kill by the shape of the gun?

It’s beheld as a powerful and sexy accessory by many US gun owners. Just look at its prolific use in selfie culture.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...07rZAhUIHpQKHRNWBkAQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=637

 

[JonNC]

I’m not sure that’s true. There are a number of guns with actions similar to that of an AR-15. As I recall, too, the Aurora Colo killer killed 12 people and wounded something like 70 without ever using an AR-15. He started out with a semi-automatic shotgun, then used one or more pistols, then used a semi-automatic rifle.

As I recall,he was able to reload because there was no one who could challenge him

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

What I identified isn’t a dichotomy, Jon… It’s a side effect…

Sure you did. You are providing a false choice.

No, honey. You just don’t understand it.

What I’m saying is that whatever freedom you give the Honest, Freedom-Loving, Apple-Pie-Eating American, you also give to the closet psychopath.

If you think that’s a dichotomy, you don’t know what one is. AR15s are just one example of pertinent guns being used. Plastic Glocks and Springfields are also great, pertinent examples.

Mass shootings can be stopped, to a great degree, by following current law, for example.

Obviously not, Jon. Obviously not.

Current law clearly has too many moving parts to effectively work. Ergo it needs to change.

 

[Vonsalza]

By your own admission then your plan is not going to help prevent schoolchildren from being killed in the classroom?

Can you provide where I make this admission, per your obviously otherwise baseless assertion here?

I want a practical plan that is going to help prevent these murders. What I see working is the Israeli solution.

You’re totally right. Short term, it’s turning schools into little police states. And then per the faults of the Israeli solution, they just get car bombed immediately outside the perimeter. But the school itself does remain safe.

 

[Rau]

The 10 year ban on the sale of (not) assault weapons for 10 showed absolutely no change.

What did the total quantity of guns do in the same period?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

There are those among us, Jon, that feel that the delusions of power and liberty that are sold alongside AR15s don’t justify the societal costs incurred due to the occasional closet psychopath getting a hold of one.

But do you really think people like the Fla shooter is motivated to kill by the shape of the gun?

The type of gun is just one example. I’m equally happy making the same statement with “plastic Glock” or “plastic Springfield” as another stand-in.

 

[Vonsalza]

JonNC:

The 10 year ban on the sale of (not) assault weapons for 10 showed absolutely no change.

What did the total quantity of guns do in the same period?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JonNC]

No, honey. You just don’t understand it.

As usual, your obnoxious style rears it’s ugly head.

What I’m saying is that whatever freedom you give the Honest, Freedom-Loving, Apple-Pie-Eating American, you also give to the closet psychopath.

And you, of course, know what I was talking about. The dichotomy is the false choice between people having guns and or children being safe.

Obviously not, Jon. Obviously not.

Current law clearly has too many moving parts to effectively work. Ergo it needs to change.

Obviously so. The FBI does the right thing. Local law enforcement does the right thing. The Sir Force does the right thing. The armed deputy on the campus does the right thing.
More can be done without denying the law abiding thrir rights as leftists are drooling to do

 

[Lev]

Ridgerunner:

I’m not sure that’s true. There are a number of guns with actions similar to that of an AR-15. As I recall, too, the Aurora Colo killer killed 12 people and wounded something like 70 without ever using an AR-15. He started out with a semi-automatic shotgun, then used one or more pistols, then used a semi-automatic rifle.

As I recall,he was able to reload because there was no one who could challenge him

And yet Colorado is a concealed carry State. Do you propose forcing people to carry? At any rate the shooter wearing a gas mask, set off tear gas grenades first preventing anyone with a gun from having a clear shot. Do you suggest that people not only carry a gun but also wear a gas mask to the movies to resolve that?

 

[JonNC]

Rau:

JonNC:

The 10 year ban on the sale of (not) assault weapons for 10 showed absolutely no change.

What did the total quantity of guns do in the same period?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/

It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.

“The ban’s success in reducing criminal use of the banned guns and magazines has been mixed,” the report said, noting that because the ban had not yet reduced the use of large-capacity magazines in crime, researchers could not “clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

Fact: the ban did nothing to curb the problem. I would suspect that since AR-15s represent such a tiny percentage of gun murders any increase or decrease would be minor as well.

 

[AlNg]

Can you provide where I make this admission, per your obviously otherwise baseless assertion here?

I thought you said:

You should be more concerned about being hit by lightening.

 

[JonNC]

Abortion” is short for “aborting a pregnancy” not “killing a child”.

Technically, a child is killed. You can try to deflect from the killing all you want, but that’s what it is

Now, if you want to compare gun owners to doctors, then I’m all for that too.

I am. The tools used by doctors and law abiding free citizens should not be banned or confiscated for political reasons. Actions should be illegal, not tools.

Doctors are required to undergo years of extensive training and be licensed and certified before they are allowed to perform abortions.

And when a gun owner uses the gun in professional ways- law enforcement, etc - they should be well trained and licensed too.

They are also liable for malpractice and are required to purchase extremely expensive insurance to make sure they can afford to pay the victims who suffer harm due to error or negligence. I am all for gun owners being required to do the same.

One of the truths of owning a gun is you are responsible for the rounds that come out of it. Period.
The difference of course, is that owning a firearm is a RIGHT. So often, that distinction makes a big difference. Some gun owners have insurance. It is a choice they make. If you have a CCL, it is a really good idea.
But let me know when you think people should have insurance to exercise due process or other rights.