There is a middle. The problem is, and Jeff has pointed this out repeatedly in another thread, people willing to compromise have a very rational fear of "it's a good first step". I support background checks. I support having gun sales at gun shows go through a FFL holder. I support limiting magazine capacity. I'd support no detachable magazine.. The problem is, when put in context of "it's a good first step"... there's always the concern of "what's the next step?" The issue is that people can't be honest about their intentions.
I'm a gun owner. I see people focusing on the AR-15 and it tells me pretty quickly what their intentions are. The AR-15 isn't some special magical killing machine. Gun owners like me see them focusing on the gun and can't help but wonder, what happens when some loon uses one of the guns I own? "A good first step" is the problem lack of honesty is the problem relating to gun control. It's not that people aren't willing to compromise.

I don't agree with you

My snub-nose revolver is a "semi-automatic" (1 shot per trigger pull). Is it an 'assault weapon' as defined by the media? Should it be banned? :rolleyes:

The heart of the issue is not the gun, it is the human. Human mental health is a very complex issue.

The government has had a "war on drugs" that has worked almost as well as alcohol prohibition in the United States. That was a constitutional amendment passed legally. It was a utter failure and only created a huge organized crime problem. It took another constitutional amendment to repeal it.

Even in the unlikely event the 2nd amendment could be repealed, it would make prohibition look like the model for a perfectly enforced law.

The laws that need changing are the mental health laws, and HIPPA laws. How to do it will be a very complex and sticky issue.

Bottom line, I can't see any reason whatsoever to restrict my gun ownership. None at all.

The real issue before us is man's propensity to use violence to resolve issues. So long as a man is willing to pick up a weapon and do harm or kill another man no measure of controlling weapons is going to remedy the situation.

In some quarters the use of appealing to the populace for weapons control is a cynical attempt at political subjugation. The Founders being victims of tyranny understood this principle very well.

One would say to the gun control crowd be careful of what you wish for. On one hand it will not alleviate the problem of violence in a society. On the other you will lose an ever increasing amount of your freedoms.

Public safety is always a chimera. Franklin said to effect that those who are willing to trade in a little freedom for safety deserve neither safety nor freedom. Citizen Franklin knew first hand of what he spoke. A large segment of the American people do not understand that as their freedom has already been bought at a cost. For them the cost of freedom has been cheap and is easily given away.

As a cautionary tale to the political elite. Comrade Stalin the Red Tsar of all the Russia's had a close friend and associate by the name of Kirov who was the head of the Leningrad party. One day Stalin saw his friend off on a plane back to Leningrad. Two days later Stalin had him murdered and how Stalin grieved for his friend. The moral of the story is that unless there are broad based freedoms enjoyed by all there is no freedom for anyone save the supreme leader. Everyone else lives in fear.

Do you realize that the rule that you're quoting is regional?

I'd love to see ANY data that indicates that folks that kill their spouses buy the gun and within an hour, a day or a week then use it to kill someone. I suspect that's not the case, but I have no data to back that up either.
Yeah, who/how do we get to pick. How many fire extinguishers are enough?
Oh, well clearly EVERYONE is exactly like you mentally and psychologically and you are the standard with which the entire world should be judged.

I never realized, but it's nice now to know that the entire world, every person in it, does (or clearly, should) deal with stress exactly the same way.

I wasn't in the military. My grandfather (WWII), father (VN, but not overseas) and uncle (VN) were. As far as I know, none of them got paid or asked for support for PTSD. I'm not sure folks that all ex military out there are that worried about getting paid for PTSD. I suspect there may be some that want/need support (psychological or whatever). Might there be some that are out for some cash, sure, aren't there always in any group of people.

There goes over half the firearms.

Yeah, I'm sure compliance with such insanity would be high.

Detachable magazines, along with the firearms they feed, date from the late 19th century. Many who know nothing about firearms believe them to be some kind of a modern innovation. They honestly believe that we had no "mass shootings" until recently because we had no "high capacity" detachable magazines, nor did we have semi-automatic firearms. They believe we could somehow return to some idyllic society long gone, some Mayberry of their innocent youths, if only we could ban these modern killing machines. They are, of course, wrong on all counts.

Many have pointed to mental health as the real culprit. It's pretty hard to refute that. Something has changed in our society, and not for the better. The OP blames PTSD in Vietnam era vets as one probable link, yet the vast majority of our modern day mass shooters never served. Generations of WWI, WWII, and Korean War vets came home equally, if not more "shell shocked" and integrated back into society without exploding into violence at the slightest provocation. No, it's something else.

Supe touches on what I believe to be a large part of it - poor, disconnected parenting. Kids have been raised by day cares, nannies, and electronic games for better than a generation at this point. We have been roundly encouraged to "spare the rod" in modern child rearing, and have well and truly managed to "spoil the child".

Ask anyone who has been burdened with working alongside millennials in the workplace. Distracted, spoiled, little work ethic, defiant, and worse. There is something different about them that I did not see in previous generations following me into the workplace. Something very different. It's easy to see where their contemporaries are capable of lashing out in anger and self righteousness at a level us older generations were taught to contain. Maybe they were allowed to "express themselves" just a bit too much by clueless, uninvolved parents and daycare workers frightened of the consequences of disciplining these "little angels". Allowed too much by clueless adults who didn't want to "stunt their development". I dunno. It's something. But it's not the guns - they have always been out there, even more readily available than they are today. It's something else...

ya think?

1) That rifle was illegally possessed so none of the laws would matter.

2) It was a run of the mill semi-auto rifle, it is an assault rifle in looks only, like the Lazer 917 is a race car.

Including a lot of deer rifles that look nothing like a military rifle.

https://www.gunauction.com/pictures/...94823-6441.jpg

I am not an expert in firearms. I also don't want to look like a google backed debater.

"Also, anyone, please name even one time an Assault Rifle was used in a civilian mass shooting."

I don't think that any of the dead people care that it was unregistered, I was simply responding to the post above and not looking for an argument.
My google fu came also came up with this.

From Wiki:

"According to Gregg Lee Carter, an American sociologist who studies gun violence in the United States, the firearm was designed to comply with the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[7] The Bushmaster XM15-E2S "M4 type" carbine gained notoriety for its use in the October 2002 Beltway sniper attacks.[8]

A Bushmaster XM-15 was used in the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[9] Nine families (plaintiffs) of the 26 victims of the shooting filed a class action lawsuit in Connecticut against Bushmaster, Remington Arms and others (defendants) seeking "unspecified" damages,[10] claiming an exemption in the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which would normally disallow such a suit.[11][12] The plaintiffs alleged that the XM15-E2S was only suitable for military and policing applications, and Bushmaster had inappropriately marketed the firearm to civilians.[12] The case was dismissed in superior court and is being appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court. [13]

An XM-15 was also used in the 2018 Nashville Waffle House shooting.[14]"

Yea, it is as silly as the kids that want to outlaw all guns with more than 5 rounds. The vast majority of handguns would be banned.

All we really need is a law that makes it illegal to murder people. That will stop the murders.

Someone intent on killing people will not be deterred even a slight bit by breaking more laws about guns.

In high school I was already working as a professional photographer. I often brought to school my Hassleblad system and my 35mm system. The principal let me store it in his locked office. During deer season he also had about 30 deer rifles in his office to keep the pickups from getting a window broken and a gun stolen. It looks like a gun store in there. No one paid a bit of attention to it.

Now imagine, 30 kids driving to school with rifles today. It would be the lead story on all the news channels.

Compromise is when both sides meet somewhere close to the agreed-on middle.

You want every purchase to go thru a FFL and a background check? Fine. I want my state-issued CCW to be valid in all the states, just like state-issued birth certificate, drivers license, marriage license and eventually death certificate.

You want to ban semi-autos? Fine. Re-open the MG registry and have us register and tax them. But for a compromise I want a working happy switch without paying the artificially inflated prices.


See? Compromise each side gets something it wants in exchange for something the other side wants. What you (and many others) are proposing is "give this up and we'll let you keep this other bit... for now."

We all know what the two additional causes are: If the NRA glorified weapons and violence in the way that Hollywood does with an ease and style that is so alluring, so powerful and compelling, they would be rightfully pilloried.

Use a weapon in a movie, automatic PG-17. Same with video games. Why is this hard?

Add the wholesale usage of drugs on young boys who are guilty of nothing other than being a boy; drugged boys with zero conflict resolution skills because we have decided as a society that masculinity is "toxic" and the stage is set. Over 80% of elementary school teachers are female and steeped in Progressive Cant. Imagine that. Problem?

Banning guns is a cowards solution: There has never been a successful "ban" of any commodity, especially in the USA...guess we'd have to seal the southern border to keep the guns out. Progressives?

Police do use that type of weapon as well as semi-auto handguns but that doesn't make it an assault rifle. Unless you are going by the "assault rifle" ban which banned rifles that looked like an assault rifle but didn't have to function like one.

I was only pointing out the rifle is not a real assault rifle any more than a Lazer 917 is a real race car. It only looks the part.

The reason the Bushmaster was used is because it was cheap to buy, and since murder is already illegal, do you really think punishing the rest of us law abiding citizens, just because you don't care about your rights?
Drunk driving is illegal, and we saw how that worked out when alcohol was banned, cars have killed millions, sometimes in mass, we also see that areas that are the most anti 2nd Amendment, have the most crime . Also noticed, when a good guy with a legal gun saves the day, the liberal media pretty much ignores it, as it doesn't fit their agenda.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1554139298.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1554139298.jpg

Your reply to my comment is why there can't be a rational discussion... because people lose the ability to be rational when it comes to this subject. You see that I support something you don't support so you go off the handle and assume I'm "not on your side" which couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe you should read my entire comment?.... specifically the part about the AR-15??

I fully support CCW reciprocity and have never once advocated for the banning of semi autos.. Why would I want to ban something I own?