42 people in Chicago shot over the weekend - Impact on US elections

we already have it, it's been in place since the 1930s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act#Overview

 

How exactly am I nit-picking verbiage? You do understand assault rifles are banned already?

You do understand assault weapons and assault weapons are COMPLETELY two different things? There is no nit picking words if you do not understand the difference.

 

Poverty and an economy for the 1% and the deluded little guys like Bobbie who support such an economy are a big part of the problem.

Of course those little guys who have fallen prey to the gun industry lobby and support assault weapons for everyone are especially responsible.

 

Because you know I am talking about semi-automatic rifles vs. handguns first of all. Second of all your response doesn't even make sense. Third assault weapons is not a defined termed as I said. And 4th you are ignoring the rest of the post and focusing on one word.

So stop being such a condescending puss and if you want to discuss, then discuss.

 

This is a great point.

I was talking to my GF about this the other day about the split response regarding the Orlando shooting and that on one hand you have people arguing about a dangerous ideology and on the other hand you have people arguing about dangerous weapons.

In the US though guns are also an ideology and what drives the arguments for greater or less gun control is often very ideological in nature.

 

So based on your description above of assault weapons being something that is not defined. You just want to ban some guns that are scary looking? Help us out here we can't figure out what you want to ban?

 

Are you comparing gun ownership laws in the USA to boy rape and human slavery?

Honestly, it would be a civil war blood bathe if guns were made illegal/confiscated in the USA.

I cannot say what will happen in 50-100 years, but there won't be a sudden change in the sentiment of Americans.

Concerning slavery, the Civil War almost destroyed the USA; there is no way that this country undergoes that type of situation again over gun ownership.

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "meaningful".

A lot of gun owners support background checks...... but start moving the dial much from there and it gets extremely dicey.

Thank you for the information.

 

Also the move to ban assault rifles is really misplaced.

Most of the violence committed by people with guns, are with handguns.

There is NO chance that there will be a ban on handguns anytime soon.

Honestly, a ban on assault rifles would make a very small difference in the grand scheme of things.

I do find the idea of highly taxing guns to be interesting.... but that would probably not have sufficient support either.

 

The last ban on assault rifles was shown to have no impact, yet that's the first thing the left always goes for any time someone is shot with any kind of weapon.

 

I don't know a gun owner that isn't surprised that our current background check didn't flag this latest whack job as a no go for purchasing a gun. I am for a background check that at least checks with the FBI to see if a person has been under investigation and for what. If those investigations include possible terrorist activity then something different should happen. There would have to be a lot of thought put into what those changes might be but this guy should never have been able to purchase a gun. I don't know any gun owner/advocate that wouldn't agree with that.

I got a hold on a gun purchase once just because I had moved recently.

 

In regards of banning guns or lowering the amounts of guns in the US (any kind of guns) and I'm not sure this idea has been ventured out before or sounds stupid but can the government provide a tax credit or something for every gun you sell back to the government?

 

I think the issue was that he was cleared. You can't strip constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process so since they had nothing on him, they had no cause to prevent the sale. Perhaps you could work out something where people who were once on the list who purchase certain weapons immediately trigger increased scrutiny or surveillance. I don't think there would be anything wrong with that, but it would be expensive.

Sure, they can do gun buyback programs, but those are totally voluntary and would only disarm those who aren't looking to do harm. It's nothing but a waste of taxpayer money.

 

not stupid. Been done in other countries. Might even have been done on a very small scale in some part of the US. Actually yes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

 

The 1st problem is there is no background checks (the loophole), no record, no ID requirement in private sales, which includes those that gather at gun shows to buy/sell. Thus, criminals can legally buy guns. Let's make it a bit more difficult for criminals, shall we?

As to terrorist suspects. No constitution lawyers here, but I suspect there are ways to block high risk individual from buying guns as weighted against public safety. We have taken rights away from terrorist suspects, including killing them without due process, since after 911.

As for enhancing background checks - I think they need to look at that to see what can be done for cases like this. Learn, implement and improve.

 

That's 91% that were able to buy.

For those denied, they can buy from private parties to avoid the background check.

 

I'm not sure if Gun control is the answer for Chiraq murders, That's more of a social issue than anything else.

I do think gun ownership laws will help with accidental gun related deaths, domestic homicides and mass shootings.

Toronto has pretty strict gun laws, but there's always shootings in low income neighborhoods. Everytime they sweep these places they find tons and tons of fire arms.

 

I don't own firearms, but I'd snatch a few up for the "bargain".

Probably disassemble it or something.

It's quite interesting that by the time we do have a meaningful handgun ban, 3D printing and cheap durable polymers will finally be ready for primetime.

 

I think any semi-automatic rifle should be banned. And I think magazines should be limited to a certain number of bullets to limit semi-automatic handguns. The police should always have the upper hand in weapons.

You don't see people running around with automatic weapons - and that's because they are illegal. So it does work.

 

The automatic weapon ban is what it is. IMO if the nut job that did this had had an automatic AR there would be a lot less dead people but that is another argument. It isn't really that hard to get a license to have an automatic weapon fwiw. I find fully automatic weapons to be close to worthless unless you are just laying down cover fire in a direction with nothing specific to aim at.

Why do the people who want to limit our second amendment rights want to use the words assault weapon when what they want is semi automatic rifles? Are they just trying to confuse the public? If the statements I hear from most anti-gun people are an indication, it is working. A very small percentage of gun violence would be affected by this action and the actual reason for the 2nd amendment would be significantly impacted. Semi automatic pistols would be a much better target if you're looking to actually affect gun violence much.

A militia really should have semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines to be very effective... semi-auto pistols really won't be necessary.