And Trump immediately banned the device he used to unload all those rounds (bump stocks).

None is the correct answer.

We know what would happen.

Take away the "assault looking rifle "

Multiple crazies use a 12 ga and kill 5 and injure 10 at multiple locals.

Public outcry to eliminate 12 ga weapon of destruction.

If I told you I had a drug that would cure 50% of all cancer patients, nobody would say "Sorry, it's useless unless it cures 100%."

Another lie.

Would they stop at 50% or continue to drive toward a100% reduction?

5 ain't gonna be good enough.

When we have multiple shooters using a 12 ga we will then go after the 12 ga in the drive to zero.

Do you oppose a 100% reduction in mass shootings? What number is acceptable to you?

So, I’m going to define the problem is mass killing, as I really don’t think it matters how they die. What concrete steps would you propose to eliminate 100% of them (and include reasons why you were certain this is so)?

From CNN, first sentence is pretty clear. Quit being an ass. Your misrepresentations and vitriol do NOT belong in OT.

Soon after the Las Vegas shooting, President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw bump stocks.
But some lawmakers and gun lobbyists resisted, making new legislation unlikely. That made a regulatory change the only realistic path to accomplishing Trump's goal.
At his direction, the Justice Department in March 2018 proposed a rule clarifying that bump stocks were not merely parts but instead were "machine guns" -- what the federal government calls fully automatic weapons -- as defined by existing law.
Why? Because "such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," similar to automatic rifles, the department said.
Defining bump stocks as machine guns effectively bans them. Civilian possession of fully automatic weapons was outlawed in 1986 except for those already lawfully in people's ownership.
After considering public comments about the proposal, the department finalized and published the rule on December 26.

Took over a year.

Again, not my thread.

Go back to PARF. Take your lies with you.

The problem with your idea is that deadlier killers will take the place.

What did the driver of the truck in France do? 216 people with one truck?

I am thankful we have a limited shooter problem rather than a more prolific mass murder problem.

I'd like to not transition to the second, and will hold the brakes until those trying to steer the car won't point it at the cliff.

Taking away guns from lawful people will not cure anything.

It creates defenseless lawful people more easily exploited, more easily murdered, more easily raped.

When I look at the balance I'd rather give criminals a reason to fear.

First off, we will never get to zero.

Next, we wouldn't be addressing the root cause. Crazy folks.

We will still have those cancerous crazy people looking for a place to do harm. And they will find a way that offers release.

The answer is not as simple as eliminating the AR platform.

Do we really think that banning the platform and requiring all the millions in legal possession to be turned in is going to go smoothly? Will the crazies comply? Hell, how many sane gun owners will buck up against the action? That "corrective action" will present as many problems as it resolves.

Sorry--redefining the problem to ignore the obvious and change the subject doesn't work.

Fine. Let’s limit ourselves to talking about mass shootings. How does Terry propose we stop them?

State your proposal, then give us a logical rationale why it’s correct.

I don't understand why everyone is blaming the "gun" when most likely it is caused by psychiatric drugs and the pharmaceuticals who push them! These people snap and use what will do the most damage and what they use in the video games. If they don't have the guns they will just use something else. How about getting rid of the drugs which seem to be what triggers these people to snap in the first place?? Maybe its too easy to stop the madness that way. Sure all the TV networks will loose millions in advertising, but aren't the lives saved worth it? I'm sure the "news" will not tell you that is the issue, as they "don't want to bite the had that is feeding them"!

Obviously there is no simple answer that will solve everything, and demanding a "magic bullet" is simply a delaying tactic. There are concrete steps that can be taken to reduce--as opposed to eliminate--the threat. Banning the most effective types of weapons for mass killings is kind of an obvious one. That's what New Zealand did. That's what Australia did. We are alone in the world in our inability to solve this problem.

I propose a ban on assault weapons because they yield more casualties than other types of weapons.

High capacity handguns?

We know that mass murderers will obey new gun laws. There are millions of AK’s/AR’s in circulation.

Terry, you need to work on your strawmen, they are weak and ineffectual.

Do you have anything to offer that is not ridiculous, has a possibility of mitigating the problem and has a chance of being enforced?

you need to be more intelligent than this if any sort of ban is going to have a chance in hell of getting through.

Rifle calibers in magazine fed semi auto platforms that are easily carried are what gives these guys the ability to put up numbers like we have seen recently. Additionally the rifle platform makes short range accuracy MUCH easier than a handgun.