How to make mass shootings more difficult...

Immediate failure of premise.

Its not that some shootings can't be prevented. Its that theres no reason to think an equal or greater amount of defensive, justifiable gun use that deters violent crime won't also be prevented. And that is what we oppose.

 

This post is pure BS. I'm an Independent leaning left. I'm also ex-army. The military knows what an assault weapon is. Obviously you didn't serve. You can cut and paste this garbage from an NRA site.

 

There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon".

 

I would be more sympathetic towards firearm banners/regulators if they would support something, anything, like tighter regulation of alcohol that might help reduce deaths, but banners/ regulators see only their fear/hate of firearms and are unwilling to take reasonable steps on other issues that would have potential to save/improve many more lives.

 

"an equal or greater amount of defensive, justifiable gun use" has never before been quantified, so it certainly does not stand as conclusive counter-argument.

How many good guys with a gun have been shot down by the perps, by other good guys with a gun, or by the police?

 

I have an idea.

Let's start enforcing existing laws.

Leftists want us to give our guns to the government who can't keep weapons and drugs out of prisons.

 

Here I cut and pasted this from Wikipedia,The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups, the media and the firearms industry.[1][4][5][6][7] It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic or burst mode.[5]

 

Read the OP. You have been debunked!

Unless you're selling a "nutjob detection machine"... that is nonsense.

 

You used an AR-15 in the military? I was under the impression that the current weapon of choice is the M4 carbine which was introduced to replace the M16, which was introduced to replace the M14.

Now, just what do all of these weapons have in common with each other?
I

can't

seem to

remember.

 

There will always be guns that are "equal or greater" than others. If assault weapons are off the list, you won't need an assault weapon to meet the "equal or greater" requirement. And, the bonus: less instances in which it will need to be met.

 

The gunners are afraid t answer this from above.

""an equal or greater amount of defensive, justifiable gun use" has never before been quantified, so it certainly does not stand as conclusive counter-argument.

How many good guys with a gun have been shot down by the perps, by other good guys with a gun, or by the police?"

 

I read it. You talked about making it difficult to obtain weapons, not impossible.

The nut job shooters from both El Paso and Dayton expressed their intentions ahead of time as have a some potential shooters who were recently stopped.

 

You mean like the ones that kept this 13 year old from buying a rifle?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orn-or-lottery-but-a-rifle-no-problem.560171/

"Ideas" from those whose "genius" gave us today's daily mass shootings are not exactly what we should be paying much attention to.

 

That's part of it. But what I meant was, read the whole the OP.

 

I read it all. You underestimate the shooters. They will find a way with whatever weapon they have available. You have to stop the shooters themselves.

 

So, as the OP says, we make less available. Make them look harder.

You keep bringing up elements that were already addressed on the OP. That is why I keep asking if you read it.

 

Can't tell if serious.

 

You keep bringing up that I have not read the OP. You fail to show what part of the OP you think I have failed to read.

Making them look harder will not make them kill any less people. They will simply look harder. You underestimate the shooters. The key is the shooter, not the hardware.

 

I live in Illinois. When I was buying my gun the store employees did gather my info and sent it to FBI. I also had to wait a few days before I could pick it up, I guess there is a cool down law meant to make you wait with the gun purchase to avoid impulse murders.
I’m not really sure what else could be done. I’m against making guns illegal.
In my opinion, some things that could help - make laws with mandatory prison times for gun law violations. Enforce the laws, don’t just give a slap on the wrists. Have psychiatric professionals report to FBI individuals they believe could be a threat to society. Stop illegal immigration, enforce the borders. Fight gangs.

I live in Chicago suburb and in my opinion massacres that happen daily on Chicago south and west are a much bigger problem than all mass shootings combined. These gang bangers don’t buy their guns in guns stores. They don’t buy their drugs in liquor store either. Each year they cause more deaths than all mass shootings combined. But for some reason liberal media chooses to ignore black on black mass shootings and prefers to concentrate on occasional deranged individuals.
So, as always, progressives are out chasing a dream and totally ignore a giant elephant in the room.

 

Another thing.
In Chicago a few years ago cops were accused of using racial profiling when they stopped and frisked gangbangers. Liberal city of Chicago and ACLU decided it was a great idea to force cops to fill out a 2 page document every time they stopped someone. Naturally, cops pretty much discontinued stopping random people. Now look at this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago#Violent_crime

Check out the annual homicide numbers for 2014-2018.
See the spike?
Several hundred people, most of them black and Latinos, died because ACLU and city of Chicago did not want to hurt the feelings of gangbangers by allowing police to jut randomly check them.
I guess it’s OK for a 5 year old black girl to die in a drive by shooting, the most important thing is that the black shooters didn’t feel discriminated against by the “racist” cops who would have stopped and frisked them a half an hour ago if it wasn’t for ACLU.

 

South and west side Chicago are war zones. They have been for years. Is there a lot of killing? Yes. Is there public awareness? Yes again. Is there public concern? Only in the rare instances it spills over into "polite neighborhoods." These are no-mans lands and nobody much cares if gang bangers kill one another.

If some monster decides to shoot up a school, mall, theater, bar, night club, a concert, or church public awareness and concern goes into overdrive. That's because Innocents and children are being slaughtered in "nice" neighborhoods. That's the way it is.

 

They can go on full auto.

 

No its not.

 

Perhaps.

Define 'assault weapon' as you would like to see it defined in US law and we'll see (assuming you arent referring to 'assault weapon' as already defined internationally and already not legal for us to own without a 'destructive devices' liscence issued by the BATFE).