How many mass shootings per year is considered socially acceptable, before there is no longer any need to try and reduce the amount further?
First, why should individuals who have done nothing wrong, nor contributed to the actions of criminals, feel inclined to make concessions about their own use of their own legal property, or otherwise be expected to accept restrictions on their rights in response for actions they did not commit? Second, no matter what course of action the united states may take, no matter what sort of firearm-related restrictions it may attempt to implement, nothing will ultimately change the fact the united states will continue to have the highest number of firearm-related murders, firearm-related suicides, and mass shootings, than any other nation in the world. It will always be at the top of the list compared to other nations, primarily to simply having so many more unregistered firearms than any other nation in the world. Failure is the only option that can be achieved in this equation. No matter what sort of reduction may be attempted, the number of mass shootings will continue to remain unacceptable, simply because the amount will always be greater than zero. If failure is the only achievable result that can be had, why should any effort actually be made? Why should countless finite resources be wasted in a useless endeavor that will still leave the united states with more mass shootings than any other nation?
What is the socially acceptable number of mass shootings per year, before it is determined there is simply no further need for any further effort in attempting to reduce and prevent such incidents from occurring?
Make no mistake about it, folks use phrases like "Ban AR's" because all they know about is AR-15s which happen to be the most popular semi-auto rifle in America and what they see all over the news. There will be no precedent set for banning other semi-auto rifles after AR's, if AR's are banned then the rest of them are going with them. They aren't going to ban AR's then say AK's are ok to own for a little while.
No, however they might let ruger slip in an exemption for the mini-14 in exchange for supporting the ban, like in 2012. 'Ban ARs' or 'ban assault rifles' is indeed 'code' for ban all semi-autos. Anyone who carries handgun should be advised, they're next.
And herein lies the exact reason why so many in the US do not support further gun control measures. The mentality is simple, you will not stop banning things until you reach net zero. Ban future sales of semi-auto rifles and "grandfather" in those who already have them. Somebody shoots up a place with an AR-15 next time then you'll remove the grandfather clause and start trying to confiscate them all. Then if you confiscate them all and the next shooting happens with a pair of Glocks then you'll ban semi-auto handguns. Then if the next one happens with Revolvers then you'll ban those. Then if the next one uses shotguns then you'll ban those. Until all that is left is muzzle loaders and/or bolt action and if something bad happens with those then you'll but massive restrictions on them. We are fully aware of what the overall mentality is here. I do however appreciate you being open enough to admit it as such though, most people beat around the bush with their true intentions in regards to gun control measures. For me personally? No thank you. I'd rather deal with a handful of mass shootings over going down that aforementioned rabbit hole.
I don't think so this go around. Most of this hysteria is based around looks over functionality and I don't think they'll let semantics play a role again. I guarantee that if my AK-47's become illegal because they are "assault rifles" (somehow) then my PAP M92 is getting banned as well right off the bat even if it is technically a pistol. I think they're coming for everything if they get their way, even if it doesn't "look scary" if it can take a magazine they'll want it gone. All of this talk is making my local FFL happy though. I stopped by today to pick up another rifle that I was waiting for them to have back in stock and they told me that their AR's are flying off the shelves within hours of restock at the moment. Glad everybody loves AR's and not AK's.
were you able to be grandfathered in for bump stocks? they are now a felony to possess for new gun owners, so they cannot make the AK or AR have automatic firing like a machine gun
I don't know nor do I personally care because I've never owned a bump stock because I believe them to be stupid. I can make my AK have "automatic firing like a machine gun" by putting a rubber band around the trigger weld or the belt loop trick if I wanted to waste money rapidly like that.
No law /constitution is set in stone. You might want to think it is. Humans create them, humans can unravel them.
They absolutely can, and within the confines of US law there is a procedure outlined that allows us to change the law regarding firearms if we so desire. It's outlined in Article V of the US Constitution. I will 100% support any change in gun law as long as it follows the rule of law set forth by the United States Constitution.
All the hysteria about common sense gun control being a slippery slope to a total ban on all guns is very profitable for the NRA. That's how they keep the donations pouring in. It hasn't happened in Canada which has a permit-to-purchase system. It's even less likely to happen in the US due to a strong gun culture.
It has, however, occurred within the United Kingdom. What has resulted in a total prohibition of handguns and most semi-automatic rifles, ultimately started as innocuously as as a requirement for individuals to obtain a firearms permit.
Then let those in the position of authority to do such, actually utilize the process for doing such, rather than attempting to cheat with a shortcut.
The US Constitution isn’t ‘set in stone’. The Founding Fathers recognized the need for change for the unseen or change in the will of the People, and included provisions and procedures for it’s Amendment. It has been amended many times. One of the many things that made the US Constitution a revolutionary framework for Governance; one that inspired many others since. There is even a provision/process that was included for a major overhaul if that was the will of the People’. Before someone makes such comments, they should endeavor to read the Constitution; it’s not that long.
i was not too happy when the President banned bump stocks, they were more convenient to use than rubber bands or the belt loop trick. but i understand he has a lot on his plate at the moment, hopefully we get to keep binary triggers for liberty's sake.
I have zero interest in the process...only the end result preferably one that alters the culture that preserves lives. It gets tiring to hear gun owners using to constitution as their "set in stone" justifications
Why? It's literally the law of the United States. As long as it exists it really is the only justification required. Asking for explanations for why we may want certain firearms or why we think we need certain firearms are fair questions, but the justification for why can actually have them is the Constitution....
