How to make mass shootings more difficult...

The mantra on the right is that if we can't stop all shootings, we shouldn't do anything. Thus missing the point (on purpose, I believe). The short term objective is not to stop all shootings. It's to save lives. We save lives by making it more difficult for these shooters to kill people.

Making it more difficult means that a potential shooter will have a harder time buying a gun (background checks). That if they can buy a gun, it won't be one that helps him kill more people ("assault weapon" ban). That if they get their hands on an "assault weapon", at least make them reload more often so more people can take shelter (large-capacity magazine ban). And many other proposals that we have outlined in different threads.

Key-phrase: "make it more difficult". Of the three mass shootings that the police thwarted last week, one of them was very near home (the one in Florida). But the one that caught my attention was the one in Norwalk. Given that Connecticut law doesn't allow high capacity magazines, the guy had to try to buy them out of state. And this is what tipped off the FBI and the Norwalk police.

So there's the example. Connecticut law made it harder for this guy to get his hands on high-capacity magazines. Just hard enough for him to get caught. And that's what we need to focus on.

It would be great to stop all mass shootings. And I believe we can do that as a long term objective. But in the short term, saving lives would be a great step forward.

The full story about the three cases here:
https://www.yahoo.com/now/3-mass-shooting-plots-stopped-121828185.html

 

Too common sensical for replies, I'm afraid. I concur, 100%. We cannot stop murderous intended folks to get their hands on guns. But if it is made more difficult, lives could be saved.

 

Define what an assault weapon is.

 

Drugs are illegal, yet anyone can buy any kind of drug in any neighborhood in any city/town in any state in this Nation.

It's called the black market.

 

Good one. All weapons are assault weapons.

 

Until they circumvent that system like they've done every other one and then the next shooting happens.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66/text

 

A good example for the newbies in the Forum. Kids: this is the kind of ridiculous posts you run the risk of sending if you respond without first reading what you are responding to.

 

It is used in roughly 25% of the murders committed using silverware according to the FBI. It has a shroud to prevent the user from burning his / her fingers. Like 95% of firearms, it is semi-automatic --- one squeeze of the trigger, one bullet fired.

 

Making it more difficult to obtain weapons or making it more difficult to obtain a particular kind of weapon will not save lives. What is needed to save lives is to keep those weapons out of nut jobs who will use those weapons. In both El Paso and Dayton there was ample opportunity to save lives because of opportunities missed.

And in those cases, all lives would have been saved because they should not have had access to weapons at all.

Although I generally object to limiting magazine size, I do believe that magazines which hold a hundred rounds are not needed by anyone. Certainly not by a hunter.

For the weapon I prefer for home defense, a 45ACP semi-automatic, it normally takes a eight round magazine. However, larger magazines are available, but they stick out of the bottom of the grip. I keep the 45 unloaded but with loaded magazines available. However, I only load five rounds per magazine because I am concerned that completely compressing the magazine spring over extended periods will weaken the spring. I am assured that keeping the spring completely compressed will not hurt it, but I err on the side of safety.

 

It appears the OP is out trolling again. He/she/alphabet may get more bites if this were in the gun control section of this forum.

 

Criminalizing the undermining of the background check system would have kept firearms out of Nikolas Cruz's hands. Obama Holder and Arne Duncan would be in the clink for their Promise Neighborhood conspiracy. Connor Betts would most likely have been denied the ability to purchase a firearm as well. Posting a "Hit List" should have been a disqualifier.

 

The best defence against an armed assailant is a trained and armed population.

 

Why is it ridiculous?

You and your left-winger friends want to ban/limit/regulate guns/ammo, yet I gave a perfect example of something being banned (drugs) NATIONALLY and it isn't working just like prohibition didn't work.

Try to keep up.

 

....like a brick. Just ask Reginald Denny.

 

I would be more sympathetic towards gun enthusiasts if the would support something, anything, like background checks that might help reduce deaths, but some enthusiasts see the only solution is themselves and their gun taking out the shooter. This is not logical.

 

There is no such thing as an assault weapon, that is a label placed on sporting rifles by liberals. Some of these sporting rifles are similar in appearance to certain military weapons but are only semi automatic and only fire one round at a time as do many other rifles that the liberals ignore because they're not scary looking. Liberals love to screw with our language, when they dislike something they give it a frightening or unpleasant label but when they're pushing something that is immoral or unnatural they love to paint it as something wholesome and good or at least hide it's true meaning. They love to soften their perverse lifestyles with monikers like Poly Amourous or Pan Sexual or Transgendered because those things are so normal. Pedophiles are reviled by just about everyone in every culture except here in the US they're now "minor attracted" or some such other liberal twaddle. Some claim it's just a sexual orientation, perfectly normal. How can liberals expect to be taken seriously about anything when they are willing to peddle this garbage to protect child molesters? The conversation is not about guns it's about the mischaracterization of everything for some political purpose. This is pure Orwellian BS.

 

All guns sold by a dealer require background checks. The background checks could be more inclusive to include those will mental problems and other problems.

However, when they talk about universal background checks, they are talking about something which is impossible to enforce. Universal background checks require universal registration and universal registration is impossible to enforce because it would require unannounced inspections of everyone's home and every other location where it is possible to hide/store a weapon to make sure they do not have unregistered guns. Otherwise, a person can just deny that he ever owned a particular weapon.

 

This has been explained a hundred times on here.. we already have background checks.
When people fail background checks it's reported, i believe to the FBI. Maybe ATF.
Point being it's reported but the government agencies don't prosecute..

How about we get the government doing it's job and prosecute these cases. Before piling more useless laws on top of legal gun owners.

 

There are over a 1000 Federal gun laws.

When you include all Federal and State gun laws the total is well over 20,000 gun laws.

We already have a background check system. It's called The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

What new laws are you advocating that would have stopped these latest mass shootings????

 

“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”

That right there makes the bill unconstitutional.

 

That's very interesting. Under that legislation, the AR15 would be banned but the Ruger Mini 14 would not. Both are semi automatic, both fire the same ammo, both accept a detachable magazine. The only difference is that the AR15 is black and scary.

 

You just described all handguns.

 

We've been through this nonsense before. No problem. I'm ex-infantry. I know one when I see one. QED.