What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[mark46]

really? You mean that in other countries there aren't more guns than people?

We have the highest rate of gun ownership per capita of any developed nation on earth.

 

[Armoured]

I agree, RIFLES shouldn't be banned.

There is little question that the banning of grenade launchers and machine guns make us more safe. IMHO, the same is true for kits that convert guns to machine guns. I also believe the same is true for assault weapons.

I'm yet to see any second ammendment advocate coherently explain where the line should be.

 

[mark46]

How about asking law enforcement professionals from countries that don't have regular mass shootings?

Our law enforcement professionals favor more gun regulation. There is no reason to go overseas.

 

[Aldebaran]

How about asking law enforcement professionals from countries that don't have regular mass shootings?

Start with North Korea. Work you way through Russia, and then China. I'm sure those who work in government there would love to tell us how to do things (their way).

 

[dogs4thewin]

I agree, RIFLES shouldn't be banned.

There is little question that the banning of grenade launchers and machine guns make us more safe. IMHO, the same is true for kits that convert guns to machine guns. I also believe the same is true for assault weapons.

How exactly do you define assault weapons ANYTHING can be used as an assault weapon and I do mean ANYTHING.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Our law enforcement professionals favor more gun regulation. There is no reason to go overseas.

Actually, I have seen some sheriffs say that they would NOT enforce certain gun regulations.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I'm yet to see any second ammendment advocate coherently explain where the line should be.

Maybe some feel there should not be a line and some have different ideas of where the line should be.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm yet to see any second ammendment advocate coherently explain where the line should be.

That's because no matter where you draw the line, there are those who will always want to go further. If a mass shooting happens with an AR15, people want to ban them. If they got their way and another shooting happened where someone used a 9mm handgun with a 15 round magazine, people would want them banned as well. Then a shooting happens by someone with a revolver and kills 6 people, and people would say concealable guns of ALL types should be banned. Then they'd go after rifles when there's a sniper attack. After all, the reasoning is that even if it saves ONE life, it's worth a ban.
You see, there is no clear line at where regulations should end, because ANY misuse of ANY gun is always going to be seen as unacceptable--and a reason to press for further regulations and bans.

 

[mark46]

THRESHOLD QUESTION

Should machine guns be legal, with no need for background checks or registration? Does the 2nd Amendment protect such ownership.

 

[Armoured]

How exactly do you define assault weapons ANYTHING can be used as an assault weapon and I do mean ANYTHING.

Happy to help.
Assault weapon - Wikipedia

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's because no matter where you draw the line, there are those who will always want to go further. If a mass shooting happens with an AR15, people want to ban them. If they got their way and another shooting happened where someone used a 9mm handgun with a 15 round magazine, people would want them banned as well. Then a shooting happens by someone with a revolver and kills 6 people, and people would say concealable guns of ALL types should be banned. Then they'd go after rifles when there's a sniper attack. After all, the reasoning is that even if it saves ONE life, it's worth a ban.
You see, there is no clear line at where regulations should end, because ANY misuse of ANY gun is always going to be seen as unacceptable--and a reason to press for further regulations and bans.

because no gun in and of itself is harmful.

 

[Armoured]

Maybe some feel there should not be a line and some have different ideas of where the line should be.

Great. Why can't any of them explain where tthey think it should be?

 

[Armoured]

because no gun in and of itself is harmful.

No. But try killing someone with a spoon sometime.

 

[W2L]

 

[Aldebaran]

THRESHOLD QUESTION

Should machine guns be legal, with no need for background checks or registration? Does the 2nd Amendment protect such ownership.

Currently, they've been pretty much illegal since 1934. To get one would cost a person tens of thousands of dollars, and they would be very old because they're not even allowed to be manufactured anymore, except for the military. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

 

[mark46]

What you are saying is that any reduction in guns will likely reduce the number of gun deaths. That is probably true. However, that is not the law in the US. Folks can WANT to ban all guns. That cannot happen in our constitutional democracy.

You are correct. A line needs to be drawn, and any line seems arbitrary. Therefore, the NRA and most Republicans oppose any new legislation.

Consider that there are guns and weapons that are illegal. This means that the government can indeed draw a line. Guns can be outlawed and there can be regulation of guns. The political issue is the line to be drawn.

That's because no matter where you draw the line, there are those who will always want to go further. If a mass shooting happens with an AR15, people want to ban them. If they got their way and another shooting happened where someone used a 9mm handgun with a 15 round magazine, people would want them banned as well. Then a shooting happens by someone with a revolver and kills 6 people, and people would say concealable guns of ALL types should be banned. Then they'd go after rifles when there's a sniper attack. After all, the reasoning is that even if it saves ONE life, it's worth a ban.
You see, there is no clear line at where regulations should end, because ANY misuse of ANY gun is always going to be seen as unacceptable--and a reason to press for further regulations and bans.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Happy to help.
Assault weapon - Wikipedia

At the very beginning it says that the definition varies by jurisdiction. Yes, it goes on to give a general idea, but still no definition that has been accepted EVERYWHERE.

 

[Aldebaran]

because no gun in and of itself is harmful.

Exactly! The only way to regulate away the chance of a shooting is to regulate people themselves.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No. But try killing someone with a spoon sometime.

You cannot ban something just because it CAN be used for harm. Do we ban cars?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Exactly! The only way to regulate away the chance of a shooting is to regulate people themselves.

and doing that has almost always proven to lead to nothing but bad.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Start with North Korea. Work you way through Russia, and then China. I'm sure those who work in government there would love to tell us how to do things (their way).

I wish there was a continent where people were as happy and prosperous as we are in the USA but didn't have mass shootings every other day. I can imagine that imaginary continent. In my imagination it has countries in it like "Britain", "Norway", "Sweden", --sorry, I just made those silly names up! --