If not now, when? If not us, then who?

But semi-automatic firearms don't just wildly spray. You need to pull the trigger each time.

you are correct but not if the weapon is modified which appears to be true in the case of Las Vegas.

and of course... if a person is willing to kill 50+ people then one can safely assume they will be willing to break the law by modifying a weapon or obtaining a weapon illegally.

jag1993 wrote: You outlaw rape and murder and they still happen. Prohibiting the act does not remove the act from existing.

The bill in regards to mental health was highly criticized because it took away due process rights from various groups including elderly and veterans. The bill regarding the No fly list was criticized even more because of how the system operated, Citizens were put on the list and given no notice (another violation of Due Process) and it was highly difficult to be removed from the list to begin with. Additionally the no fly list had nothing to do with the NICS background check system to begin with. A young boy and a US senator were accidentally put onto the no fly list. Silencers also have a safety aspect, they protect the individuals ears and hearing. Yes, there are other forms of hearing protection so the silencers legislation I can see but if the goal is adequate legislation why are only critics being labeled so harshly?

Semi-Automatic guns make up 80-90% of all guns in America and you need a background check for every single one. It is a federal crime to buy a gun without a permit and the NICS system through the FBI process millions a year and any inconsistency in the check is rejected. The time's and technology do not change the right, if that were true then TV, Internet and radios are not protected by the 1st amendment.

We may not know the motive behind this event yet, the investigation is still on going and there is still no clarity. But he bought all those guns and ammo legally. He went to a reputable dealer, passed all the background checks and still got everything he needed. Pass a new law and someone will still find away to accomplish it. You can make it as hard as possible but it will still happen and the only day-to-day accomplishment will be endangering other lives. You cannot discern what is or what is not acceptable to another person when it is there life.

I own guns as well, I don't kill people either. You know what I own? A semi-automatic rifle. I'm a firearm safety instructor with the NRA. I know these laws because if I don't I go to prison and lose that right. The portions of the gun owning community are calling for new regulations but others are calling for time to pass and then to examine legislation to ensure it does what it is designed to do and ensure rights are protected. Responsible gun ownership is in action, handling, storage and safety of the firearm. Not what legislation one supports or criticizes. Cars kill thousands every year and even after increased regulations and training there are still thousands of deaths every year. Legislation does not solve the problem it merely changes it.

It turns to an all-or-none scenario. You either all the guns or ban all guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXxQBIfH7I

FACTS, please. I don't want to look like a college debater here, but so much of what you say here is factually inaccurate.

1. Prohibiting murder definitely limits the number of murders. Nothing will be 100% effective, but failure to reach 100% is never justification for settling for 0%. Society must always strive for the greater good, not the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise you have anarchy because everything becomes "unpreventable".

2. Federally required background checks are not required in Nevada because the FBI and other federal institution ssaid the state cannot force them to conduct background checks at their expense. As of today, you can buy a gun without a background check in Nevada. ONE SOURCE OF MANY

3. I was on the "No Fly" list by mistake. So was my father-in-law. It took us both one trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles and a phone call to fix. If there is an error and you want a gun that bad, you can get yourself off of the list. The point I was making is that if you are deemed too unstable to fly on a plane, how can you possibly be expected to own a gun responsibly? People ion the relevant mental health database literally cannot be trusted to deposit their Social Security check, but they should have guns? The regulation existed, and Trump overturned it. If it made sense enough to enact, it had public support, and it was working, why overturn it? Because the NRA didn't like it. ONE SOURCE OF MANY

4. I was very careful; not to say "semi-automatic weapons" before. I said "semi-automatic rifles". Sure, 80% of guns are semi-auto, but a huge portion of those are pistols or hand guns. I have less issue with those if they have small magazines. You can't kill 59 people with a handgun. I'm talking about weapons that can kill at long range with huge magazines or belt-fed ammunition. Nobody needs a weapon like that for any sort of protection, recreation, or hunting. And as I've already sourced above, you can get semi-auto handguns with no background check in Nevada because the FBI is refusing to process those checks based on the way Nevada law is written. The federal government is actually superseding the state government as it is supposed to, but resulting in less strict gun control, not more.

5. He can have all of the handguns, shotguns and bolt action rifles he wants as is legal. Tell me one logical reason why he needed a semi-automatic rifle. Any reason. I'd also like an example of how outlawing semi-automatic rifles would put anyone in more danger than allowing people to own them. I'd like to know how less semi-autos makes for more danger. And sure, criminals can always find a way around the law, but how many people do you know that own a bazooka? Any? If reputable dealers can't sell AK-47s, then there will be less of them and they become harder to get. We don't see bazookas on the street because they are damn near impossible to get a hold of because they are rare and mainly in the hands of the U.S. military. Reputable dealers can't sell them, so civilians can't get them. Semi-automatic rifles could have easily been the same. Civilians don't need bazookas or AR-15s. There is no difference in my mind. Even a bazooka doesn't kill 59 people in less than 12 minutes.

6. Yes, I can discern what is acceptable and unacceptable to others. Having your "own life" doesn't mean you make your own rules. As part of a society, we all forfeit certain freedoms in order to maintain order. The UNAbomber thought it was acceptable to send bombs through the mail and kill people. Most Americans disagreed and he was held accountable for his actions with multiple life sentences. I don't care if you want a tank. You can't have one. It doesn't matter if tanks are acceptable to own in your life.

7. The NRA is not federal law enforcement. Being a "firearms safety instructor" means nothing to anyone who isn't a member or believer in the NRA. It is not a right. It is your choice. I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts and became a Shotgun and Rifle merit badge instructor. Does that mean you have to listen to me about guns? Nope. I am especially skeptical of the NRA considering they spend millions of dollars influencing law makers to vote their way on gun legislation or prevent new regulation. If it is good legislation, you shouldn't have to pay people to get it passed. If it is bad legislation, you shouldn't have to pay people to kill the bill. Congress is supposed to be trusted with representing the voters, not private organizations, but the NRA has threatened them to the point that our legislative branch is handcuffed by lobbyist who claim to support "safety and responsibility", but encourage legislation that puts less regulations ensuring safety and responsibility in place. In Canada, you have to get a license, take a safety course, pass an exam, pass a background check (takes 45 days), register the weapon at time of purchase, and possibly get a permit to transport it. SOURCE . It's a pain in the ass, but you know what? Canadians still own guns and they don't shoot each other nearly as often as Americans do.

8. Since seat belts were made a requirement and laws required people to wear them, vehicle related fatalities dropped by 45% SOURCE . Sure, thousands still die in car crashes, but thousands less than would if seat belts were not required. The auto industry gets safer every year. The gun industry does the opposite. Deaths Nothing will ever prevent all gun deaths. After all, the point of semi-automatic rifles is apparently to kill people. We don't hunt deer with them and I don't see them in the Olympics, so I can't seem to find what else they would be for. Regulating the sale and ownership of these weapons WILL decrease gun related deaths per capita just based on numbers.

1. If the greater good means a sacrifice of rights and putting lives in danger. By performing this widespread confiscation which would be necessary to these semi-automatic guns (long gun or handgun) we leave people vulnerable. gun saves lives gun saves lives again .

tighter restrictions will not 100% solve the problem but it will also cause other problems to arise

2. In reference to Nevada background checks, you have missed something. In the original letter sent by the FBI the act in question is in reference to PRIVATE PARTY individuals not from a store to consumer.

http://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/Publications/AGO_2016-12.pdf.

The Analysis section states that individuals that purchase from dealers must still be run, it is private buyers, mainly family where a check is not needed. It is then again expressed on Page 4 where it clarifies the dealers cannot contact the Depository for check on PRIVATE PARTIES. If you buy a gun from a store you are thus still subject to the Federally mandated background check of the NICS. Page 5 in the letter also expresses the law was "intended to impose mere conditions now operates as a total ban" showing how it overextended it original purpose.

3. The Executive Order put in place by Obama in question was overturned by Congress not President Trump, as I stated previously, because of issues with due process rights. Stated by Republican House Chairman Goodlatte

"This is a slap in the face for those in the disabled community because it paints all those who suffer from mental disorders with the same broad brush," said Republican House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, as reported by USA Today. "It assumes that simply because an individual suffers from a mental condition, that individual is unfit to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights."

Additionally, even the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) opposed the same bill for similar reason. "We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent."

www,npr.org/2017/02/02/513126985/house-votes-to-overturn-obama-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

www,aclu,org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

Even a study was done on the connections between mental illness and these shootings www,ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286

In this study it states,

"Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.26"

The ACLU sided with the NRA over individual rights because of the vagueness of the Order.

4. No reason I can give is one you will accept. I've expressed before it is a right regardless of the technology utilized. We've had the 1st amendment for just as long so why are Computers and TV protected? If the 2nd only applies to muskets then the 1st only applies to printing presses and quills. You want to see a reason, here are the reasons a Semi-automatic should be allowed to be owned

https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-people-who-used-an-ar-15-to-defend-themselves-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.aBsI13iAI

If your argument is that there is NO REASON or that people who buy these guns are just at fault then tell these people that. The pointing fingers and drawing lines is the foundation of sensible legislation.

5. You're right to a point. But those rights are a part of my life and in many cases lives are saved by those rights. If you don't accept something as a right no argument will become legitimate. The UNAbomber is another hyperbolic example that does not fit the mold of general society. You argue that you have your life but not your own rules. You have your life but don't expect others to follow or agree with you. Claiming those that refute your evidence or position do so because they know their interests as well.

6. In regards to the NRA, no one said previously they were law enforcement. It is my choice and it is also my right seeing how it freedom of assembly as well as second amendment. What proof do have that NRA spends that much on lobby because according to Opensecrets.org the NRA spends roughly $ 3,200,000 and that is because the people who support the NRA, the citizens that support not the industry. Meanwhile, the lowest lobby on the "Top industries list" is actually Movies industry with $972,928,851. So the point of the NRA buying congress is not as accurate as it seems.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000082&year=2017
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i

7. Actually modern guns have a variety of safety mechanisms and the NRA has a very adequate safety program for children and adults that enforces technique and discipline. What makes semi-automatic rifles from the guns you are comfortable with? They are all guns regardless of size and all can potential harm someone which means if we are basing it on the potential of harm ALL guns must be removed. And limiting the number of guns sold will also not guarantee limits in deaths.

In a 2013 CDC study on links between guns ownership and violence several things were found including that One "body of research" (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found "estimated annual gun use for self-defense" to be "up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent."

as well as...

"Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue." There is no answer.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative/
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#x

From, another study. "On the other hand, in nations that have experienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.
This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law abiding citizenry—the only ones who obey gun
laws—does not reduce violence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns
to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low
crime nations that do not significantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

jag1993 wrote: 1. If the greater good means a sacrifice of rights and putting lives in danger. By performing this widespread confiscation which would be necessary to these semi-automatic guns (long gun or handgun) we leave people vulnerable. gun saves lives gun saves lives again .

tighter restrictions will not 100% solve the problem but it will also cause other problems to arise

So where were the guns saving lives in Las Vegas? If the greater good means getting rid of guns (or putting reasonable restrictions on having them) how does that affect people's rights? I'm pretty sure those 50 people had a right to live. I'm pretty sure the kids at Sandy Hook had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... But of course I forgot, if that takes away some people's rights to have their toys, then god forbid that!

What about those people that don't care about the law and carry weapons anyways?

Three years ago I walked into the local mall and I saw a man pull out a pair of brass knuckles. Here in Canada, those are fully restricted, you cannot have them. They would, one would think, give him an unfair advantage over anyone else, right? Oh boy, we need to escalate the weapons race here so we can defend ourselves, right?

Wrong. I tackled him, pinned him, removed the weapon from his possession, and informed someone nearby to call the cops.

I didn't need a gun to stop a criminal. I didn't need a gun for self defence. Guns are fun, yes, but Americans need more restrictions on them.

EDIT: not going into the other points. I just need to show that argument is weak off the batt

Everyone has the right to live. The victims of this act are mourned by all. Guns are not toys, they should not and are not treated as such. The people in my previous response have a right to live as well and used guns to protect it. Do their lives not matter then? Why take away their access to firearms to preserve their lives? You didn't need a gun, but others do.

There is no one that can discern what is the greater good.

Where were the guns saving lives at Las Vegas and Sandy Hook, probably at home because of the venues not allowing guns at the premises. Laws and establishment rules state where guns are allowed and the law abiding citizens and other innocent people are left defenseless. Then after these attacks blame is shifted to those who do not agree with the rash response so soon after an emotional time.

The argument is not weak. Once again it is the motion of painting those that disagree as uncaring. I care about the people that were killed but we cannot let our emotional response dictate and lead to ineffective policies. Which my other previous points attest to. Me not supporting the same solution or legislation does not mean I am uncaring.

jag1993 wrote: Once again it is the motion of painting those that disagree as uncaring. I care about the people that were killed but we cannot let our emotional response dictate and lead to ineffective policies. Which my other previous points attest to. Me not supporting the same solution or legislation does not mean I am uncaring.

But it is uncaring. Innocents are dying, these guns are taking more lives than they're protecting. Yes, responsible gun owners use them for the range and hunting. But unfortunately the easy access to guns down there makes these massacres possible. So the fact more gun owners aren't calling for higher levels of gun control (lest the government say "enough is enough, take them ALL away") is rather uncaring, and to be blunt, selfish. Much akin to a toddler that stomps a foot and pouts if their mother threatens to take away their Hot Wheels if they don't behave.

Look up Canada mass murders with guns. Try it. There haven't been any that could hold a candle to the States' daily. In 2015 there was an average of 27 deaths per day by guns in the States. Yet guns are still easily accessed. Terrorism in the states has yet to scrape that number. Yet there is an open war against that, laws being passed on the daily to fight it. Priorities? EDIT: as opposed to 71 deaths to domestic terrorism that whole year.

As I've said several times in this debate, I'm not calling for guns to be seized. I'm calling for reasonable gun control laws. More tests, psyche analysis, waiting periods. Does it work? Look up here in Canada. Lots of people have guns here, yet no shootings. Because we are able to limit them to those that can handle that kind of power, not just anyone that walks off the streets and asks for a Deagle.

It is not selfish or uncaring. I want people to defend themselves so people aren't killed. Where is the outcry for Chicago with some of the most strict gun regulations and still have the highest crime and violence rates?

Toddlers don't list a series of studies in a debate. They do stamp their feet and say "do what I say or I'll call you names".

There is support for common sense gun control but that involves having that debate and being able to analyze these potential bills.You can't just walk in and ask for a gun, you have to apply for the Federal mandated background check which covers a variety of elements including mental health and any inconsistencies are rejected and the sale is terminated, some states even have these waiting periods. Broad legislation with vague descriptions is ineffective as well as already seen from Obama's executive order which even the leading civil rights group opposed.

Even Harvard studies are pointing to this. "The result is that high crime nations that ban guns to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates."

So why past laws that restrict rights the don't end up doing their intended purpose?

jag1993 wrote: Toddlers don't list a series of studies in a debate. They do stamp their feet and say "do what I say or I'll call you names".

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the general groups that base their lives around guns, being part of militias, stocking up on guns that may soon be banned, ect.

jag1993 wrote: "The result is that high crime nations that ban guns to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates."

Its not a matter of crime. Its a matter of taking the means for mass murder out of criminals hands. Yes, a man can murder with a knife, but you wouldn't see those death toll numbers as seen in Las Vegas if they had even the most "tactical" of knives or even a knife that is illegal (switchblade, balisong, ect)



But alas, we've gotten to a stalemate in this thread. I'm signing out.

Arisaig wrote: But alas, we've gotten to a stalemate in this thread. I'm signing out.

The stalemate was established at the outset of the thread.

I have been following the discussion, but have yet to read one argument offered on either side which has not been argued thousands of times before.

These are not your arguments, either of you, these are arguments we have all grown accustomed to having. Which is the problem itself.

We have been conditioned to believe it is an issue of lives versus rights, and we only understand our positions on these arguments because they are hammered into our positions.

If we expect to seek any reasonable change, we cannot at the same time expect the same arguments to work where they never have before. There is no "win" with these tactics. Each side only bolsters their own position, but does nothing to unseat the other from theirs.

Frankly, the US is markedly different from Canada, the UK, Australia, or any other country you may hail from. The issue rests not only in the eros, pathos, and ethos arts of persuasion, but in the very foundational documents our nation is built upon.

It is not easily uprooted from there, and intentionally so, whether we agree on the effects now...some 220, 230, or 240 years or whatever later.

Should the discussion stop resting on positions offered to us by other talking heads, and perhaps start leaning towards our own ability to think, relying on our oen intuition, then we will not find it to be at a stalemate at all.

Let us consider the issue with our own ability to think, to discover solutions. Rather than simply reverting to what we have been conditioned to think by others. For it is not what we think, but how we go about thinking, which allows us to consider both the simplest of issues, as well as these incredibly complex ones.

Outlaw self loading rifles? As handgun's can be for those who are a bad shot and get jumped. Things capable of high rates of ranged fire could be argued not to have a place in society, and it could be good for recruitment as if you want to play soldier you gotta join the military - of go be an air-softer. :dry: