Las Vegas...

jag1993 wrote: There's is a right to own firearms. Making them illegal and/or forbidden it's manufacturing removes that right.

The 2nd Amendment was written when people owned muskets that fired one bullet at a time. It was meant to protect the citizenry from an over zealous government controlled military. Do you think your guns will stop the U.S. Military from entering your house with a tank now? Do you think an automatic weapon is the same as a musket? Applying the 2nd Amendment of 1789 to modern firearms legislation is a special kind of dumb. We've updated nearly every other outdated part of the Constitution except this one.

jag1993 wrote: High capacity magazines is a subjective term. Some states already outright limit how much ammo you can buy and use.

False. It doesn't have to be arbitrary or subjective. Every magazine in existence can be limited to whatever we choose. Only allow five rounds in a magazine available to the public for any gun. Period. That can be done. No more subjectivity. State law is not federal law. If the federal law limits ammo, the states have to follow it.

jag1993 wrote: Some places already have waiting periods. The other issue of waiting periods is states and municipalities are streatching this period without due process (another right).

Again, federal law would supersede any state or local law, and the fact that local law enforcement and municipalities are extending waiting periods is not without due process. It is written into their laws to do so. The cops can also change the speed limit without my vote or permission. Public safety issues can be reflected in immediate changes to legislation as is allowed for in the original legislation. And due process is not a "right", it's a process the government is supposed to follow under certain circumstances, but the government can also change that process.

jag1993 wrote: The issue of selling to mentally ill people has been distorted. The original bill concerning mental health and guns wasn't supported due due process rights again.

No, the orignal legislation adding people with mental illness tot he background check list for firearms was presesnted by Obama in 2013 after Sandy Hook and then torpedoed by Trump and the current Congress (Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221) after the NRA had given them huge campaign contributions. The Obama-era regulation was also contested by the NRA and gun lobbyists, but was enacted according to "due process". It was law until the current administration rolled it back to be on the good side of gun lobbyists with a lot of money. Follow the money and look at the history of gun legislation and you'll see it has nothing to do with "due process" and everything to do with dollars.

jag1993 wrote: If we limit the money allowed to donations it risks infringing on individual right to speech.

We already limit donations. They limit what I am allowed to donate to any one candidate as a private citizen. (Source: https://transition.fec.gov/info/contriblimitschart1718.pdf)
Corporations and lobbyists are supposed to be held to the same standard, but they skirt the rules using Political Action Committees that can receive donations and then spend it on behalf of candidates without the candidate actually touching the money. This isn't a free speech issue. You can support whomever you wish and be as vocal as you like about it, but that doesn't mean you can buy candidates or elections. We have laws against just that so our elections are not influenced unduly by financial and foreign powers (cough cough RUSSIA cough cough). That system has been corrupted by PACs. It's the main motivation behind current campaign finance reform being proposed currently.

jag1993 wrote: Should I go on?

Yes, please explain why any private citizen would ever need an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. Ever. Then explain why anyone properly trained would ever need more than eight rounds in your weapon of choice to defend their home.

jag1993 wrote: These have all been proposed and refuted for a reason. Claiming the other side is a part of the evil because they disagree with your policy ideas does not bring a solution.

The reason these policies are refuted is greed for power and financial gain. I'm not claiming the other side is evil. Who is the other side, anyway? If it's the NRA, much of their actions are morally reprehensible and I do disagree with their mission, but I don't call them evil. I call them irresponsible. I'm providing evidence that the lack of gun control results in mass casualty events and this can be stopped by enacting policies that nearly EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION has figured out. The solution already exists and it is practiced everywhere but here in the U.S. These are facts. Americans are 4.3% of the world population but own 43% of privately owned guns. This is an American problem, not my personal policy.

I am going to have to agree with Jag on this one.

We have all talked about Gun Rights and im sure I could dig up such threads here at TOTJO. It has been a hot hot HOT topic for a very long time.

The point however was that one of our Knights is shaken and grieving, that being you Senan, and so it was out of politeness that no one (Until now) broached some of the political topics presented here. I myself wrote up a couple responses than deleted because I didn't want to dishonor what you've endured.

What happened was Tragic.

However....Gun Rights and owning guns is not the problem and we should instead be more concerned about the mental state of people who perform such attrocity.....Not instantly point our fingers at a gun and say "Boooo!!"

Law or not - This guy and others like him have ways to aquire them. Period.

Soooo.....

I am so very sorry for the heartache you are going through Senan. But remember....As Jedi, Perspective - even in tragedy - is key.

jag1993 wrote: There's is a right to own firearms. Making them illegal and/or forbidden it's manufacturing removes that right.

High capacity magazines is a subjective term. Some states already outright limit how much ammo you can buy and use.

Some places already have waiting periods. The other issue of waiting periods is states and municipalities are streatching this period without due process (another right).

The issue of selling to mentally ill people has been distorted. The original bill concerning mental health and guns wasn't supported due due process rights again.

If we limit the money allowed to donations it risks infringing on individual right to speech.

Should I go on?

These have all been proposed and refuted for a reason. Claiming the other side is a part of the evil because they disagree with your policy ideas does not bring a solution.

Perhaps it is not emotions that we are letting guide us towards the idea of getting rid of guns. Perhaps that, time and time again, guns are found in the hands of bad men who use them for violence.

YES, most people who have guns wont use them for such a reason. But perhaps its logic and reason, not emotion, that leads us to the conclusion that a major overhaul of gun laws is needed.

Port Arthur Massacre

Above is a link to a historical even... well, more like ~20 years ago. Guy killed ~35 people with his guns. And guess what the Australian government did? They took away the guns. (In this case, they got rid of all automatic weapons and made major overhauls to private ownership of weapons). This is a logical and reasonable approach to limiting murder.

Last night, ~50 people died, and over 500 were injured by either gunfire or being trampled by the mayhem it caused. YES, this man was probably deranged. But how many mass murders need to happen before people stop crying that those calling for an overhaul of gun laws are being "ruled by emotion"?

Here in Canada, we don't have mass shootings of this level. Ever. But we do have people with guns. It is still possible to get a gun. It takes time, training, patience, and lots of analysis. And if you give the cops a single reason to take away your license, you lose it and your guns, FOREVER. No second chances, don't pass go, don't collect two hundred dollars. You need licenses to transport them to and from ranges, you need to have your licenses on you at all times. Strict? Yes. But the results speak for themselves.

Just sad that literally an hour down the road from me it becomes open season on innocents at the hands of the deranged or angry just because no one wants to give up their guns or make it harder to get guns.

Essentially, if ya'll Americans are so tough, how about this idea?

Senan wrote:

Yes, please explain why any private citizen would ever need an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. Ever. Then explain why anyone properly trained would ever need more than eight rounds in your weapon of choice to defend their home.

Rights are not subject to the requirement of a need. A semiautomatic weapon is a weapon that fires one round per pull of the trigger. So why would I need the most common and standard style of firearm out there? Well because if I need a second shot I need it now and racking a bolt, slide or recocking a hammer could cost me time that gets me killed. Why would anyone ever need more than 8 rounds? Because drugs, multiple attackers, and adrenaline mean that one shot or even eight shots may not be enough. Rounds miss or are ineffective and if I am facing more than one attacker or an attacker that is on drugs reloading could be the death of me. There are more than enough cases of multiple attackers or people taking more than 8 rounds to stop to explain why someone could need more than that number.

Thank you, Trisskar, for your concern and support, and your understanding. This event has rubbed me the wrong way and I am surely a bit to raw to be considering things as important as this right now. I am shaken and I do need to grieve properly. While I agree with Arisaig that there are logical, not emotional, motivations to have this conversation. I understand that it needs to be a conversation that includes all sides.

I should also be fair and clear and point out that I myself own three guns and am not anti-gun. I'm anti-stupid, and too many people have been allowed to do stupid things with guns lately.

Senan wrote: I should also be fair and clear and point out that I myself own three guns and am not anti-gun. I'm anti-stupid, and too many people have been allowed to do stupid things with guns lately.

Well said. Having been trained for the Canadian Armed Forces, I've seen a fair share of stupid people with guns. Thankfully they get booted right then and there. I'm all for everyone having guns. They're hella fun. But sadly the only way to get them out of the hands of stupid people is to make them much harder to get a hold of.

MadHatter wrote:

Senan wrote:

Yes, please explain why any private citizen would ever need an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. Ever. Then explain why anyone properly trained would ever need more than eight rounds in your weapon of choice to defend their home.

MadHatter wrote: Rights are not subject to the requirement of a need. A semiautomatic weapon is a weapon that fires one round per pull of the trigger. So why would I need the most common and standard style of firearm out there? Well because if I need a second shot I need it now and racking a bolt, slide or recocking a hammer could cost me time that gets me killed. Why would anyone ever need more than 8 rounds? Because drugs, multiple attackers, and adrenaline mean that one shot or even eight shots may not be enough. Rounds miss or are ineffective and if I am facing more than one attacker or an attacker that is on drugs reloading could be the death of me. There are more than enough cases of multiple attackers or people taking more than 8 rounds to stop to explain why someone could need more than that number.

That's exactly my point. This right (the 2nd Amendment) should be subject to the requirement of need. It isn't needed anymore. You aren't going to stop a U.S military tank from doing whatever it wants, no matter how many guns you have. So what are you actually using your guns for? You can still hunt and target shoot and protect your home without militarized weapons. The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment were doing fine surviving with muskets. The Right to Bear Arms is an arbitrary right granted by people who were afraid of the British military coming into their homes, so they made sure the American military wouldn't do the same. It is not an unalienable right or Natural Law. It is wholly a man made concept. That was almost 230 years ago. This is the same time slaves were 2/3 of a person, women couldn't vote, and before alcohol was prohibited and then legalized again. Things change, and it is time for gun laws to change.

If the criminals didn't have the easy access to guns, you wouldn't have to kill them in your house, and if you still cant do it with eight rounds in a pump action shotgun, you shouldn't own guns at all. You'll never convince me that any semiautomatic rifle or handgun is as effective as a shotgun for defending your house. And you don't see people committing mass shootings that kill 50+ and injure 500+ with a shotgun. There are not more than enough cases of any gun violence of any type to justify an automatic weapon in civilian hands. Far more people die from mass shootings than home invasions resulting in homocide. Facts are facts.

Senan wrote:
If the criminals didn't have the easy access to guns, you wouldn't have to kill them in your house, and if you still cant do it with eight rounds in a pump action shotgun, you shouldn't own guns at all. You'll never convince me that any semiautomatic rifle or handgun is as effective as a shotgun for defending your house. And you don't see people committing mass shootings that kill 50+ and injure 500+ with a shotgun. There are not more than enough cases of any gun violence of any type to justify an automatic weapon in civilian hands. Far more people die from mass shootings than home invasions resulting in homocide. Facts are facts.

Senan sure a shotgun might do it. It also might kill my neighbors if I miss. I do not use a shotgun for home defense for that very reason. No one is 100 percent accurate under any situation never mind under stress. So I have to take into account that I might miss and what might happen with that round. Pistol rounds are less effective for defense but are also less likely to leave my house and put innocent lives at risk. Further, we are not just talking home defense but defense outside the home. and I cannot use or carry a shotgun sensibly outside the house for defense. That is really all I have to say on the matter as we will likely not see eye to eye. But thank you for listening and may peace reach you soon.