there has been gobs and gobs of bills to regulate and control assault style weapons introduced and bandied about for many many years now and all have been detoured or whatever. that's why i'm advocating the extreme measure of an executive order.

the SC was able to figure out how to ban private ownership of nukes and still not tread on the 2nd amendment. i think they can do the same with assault style weapons. and more really, next step though. but yeah, close the gun show loopholes and ban assault style weapons and i would think that would be a profound step in the right direction and still maintain the 2nd amendment.

here's another staggering statistic:

2000 suspected terrorists legally bought guns in the USA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...m-buying-guns/

Did 2,000 suspected terrorists legally buy guns in the U.S.? | PolitiFact California

the orlando terrorist was on the FBI terrorist watchlist and purchased his assault style weapons legally in the week(s) just prior to his attack.

Pulse nightclub massacre: questions over how suspect on FBI's radar could buy guns

Sorry if this offends someone's ill conceived (tortured) reading of the 2nd Amendment -- there is reasonable cause to deny their purchase -- we are at war. Their lives are not at risk (usually) ... Not selling them arms is risk-avoidance. However, there should be a right of appeal to show cause if they are US citizens.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...m-buying-guns/

That isn't the argument at hand. It's controlling who can buy them. Should some punk kid with emotional issues, who was investigated and interviewed by the fbi twice be able to buy guns and assault rifles legally? No. The counter that they 'will all buy illegally' instead goes out the window once you make the seller of the weapons just as accountable on illegal use with illegal sales.

Exactly :thumbsup:thumbsup

The genie is out of the bottle. A ban means turn in your AR's. Legal responsible owners all turn them in. Great. Meanwhile the crooked and demented and those not quite right in the head all flout the new law. Yay.

Oh what the hell, try it. Of course law enforcement will have to expend a lot of energy and focus to get even most of the law abiding US citizens to part with their heavier weapons I would think. Most if not all will find it unconstitutional and do a "from my cold dead hands" type of thing.

Bring on the ban. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. Or is Obammer trying to sabotage a Hillary-led government by choosing to yammer about this now? lol

Common sense:

Convicted drunk drivers get their license suspended.

Pilots have to get physicals before getting their pilots license.

You take drivers ed and take a driving test before getting a license to drive.

Wanna buy an AR-15 that shoots 13 rounds a second for $250? No license, no health or psych evaluation, no problem. Fucked up

doesn't happen like this...

ban the guns :2 cents:

i don't think a ban would need for current owners to turn in their weapons. the statistics show that mass shooters typically buy their assault style weapons in the weeks prior to their assaults. it seems to me, based on the stats like these, that a ban alone, a buying moratorium, would go a long way towards curbing mass shootings in the USA.

The real problem is mental health. If you take away a certain weapon, people will just find a new weapon. There is something about mental health in the USA that is a problem. Religion sure doesn't help.

a new study from Duke University, John Hopkins University, and the University of Southern Florida shows that there is very little correlation between gun crime and mental illness. It goes to show that those pushing the blame onto the mentally ill are not only unfair, but often a tactic used to pigeonhole the multiple problems associated with gun violence into one faction.

?This is one of the hardest distinctions to make,? said Emma McGinty, a professor at John Hopkins and lead author of the study. ?There could be emotional regulation issues related to anger, for example, which are a separate phenomenon. There could be underlying substance use issues. There could be a whole host of other risk factors for violence going on.?

Although violent crime statistics were high among the mentally ill, The Washington Post noted that those with a diagnosis were actually less likely to carry a gun. Arrest records ranked those with illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or depression lower than those without, and those who had committed suicide were half as likely to use a gun.

Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences from Duke and one of the study?s researchers, noted that pushing the blame onto one group of individuals was dangerous and doesn?t solve the problem at hand.

Untangling Gun Violence from Mental Illness - The Atlantic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-is-dangerous/

pretty much

Everyday people should have special training and a permit to own something that shoots 13 rounds a second. The permit should be free and good for life, unless you fuck up, then its revoked with the AR-15.

Unfortunately there are over 3 million AR-15's in circulation in the U.S. already, huge black market after any regulation.

The point is for owners to be documented and have training, not to stop distribution or confiscate from current owners.

Hard to believe citizens are even allowed to own this type of gun. First, if you need a weapon that fires multiple shots simultaneously to hunt you should stick to buying grocery meat. Second, how can people value their freedom to own a fucking machine gun over human lives? Why not ban them so these lunatics have a harder time killing people? Then you guys that want machine guns can buy them on the black market since that's so easy.

2) What can be a 'good intention' to buy an assault weapon?

Well, the alternative would be armed soldiers in public gatherings of more than 50 people. Trained guards who have military discipline might work -- but the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits this to federal troops but a state's National Guard can be mobilized.

The Guard's training and discipline is less than optimum. But you cannot put a cop on every corner. I read there were 600 to 800 people in that club -- a target of opportunity shooting gallery for a psycho-terrorist ISIS wannabe :2 cents: Good thing he was taken out before he killed more innocents.

So keep flooding more genies out of the bottle.

Long term it will save them weork and of course lives.

Do you really believe this would cost the Dems the election?

If the perpetrator has a knife, it's harder to kill people than have a gun or two with large magazine clips.

I agree with you about mental health, so why not very thorough checks before a gun license is issued?

That's assuming a gun license is required. Or is it just dogs that need to be licensed?

yes. this will be the #1 issue now. the other side of the coin of BO issuing an executive order banning the sale of assault style weapons is the right would seize on that with the BO is coming to take your guns away theme. during an election year with Hillary staking her candidacy on more of the BO status quo, while Trump issues more hyperbole could very well cost the dems the election.

So your idea is to hire armed security guards to protect night clubs. You know, like the armed security guard who just killed forty-nine people in Atlanta?

I think "bi est" was a freudian slip..

I read this mother fucker in orlando was a fucking security guard too. The point is we need to make it harder for mass murderers to kill people. Somehow. It's really fucked up because the FBI knew about the guy and still he was able to buy guns. I know they need proof to make charges stick but it's still fucked up.

The real problem is there is more than one problem

all the arguments both sides are making contribute

No you don't blame a car for driving over people...we do however have many restrictions on the cars that can legally be driven and sold in the US

Facts.

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers ? less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed.
Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005?2010 were under 25 years of age.

And the logic of the pro-gun crew is we can't stop all these so let's not try to slow it down. The accidental shootings are the scariest. A lot of people don't respect what a gun is. How many times have we read of a child shooting someone by accident while playing with a gun?

Some people believe the #1 issue in the coming election is their right to have a gun and all the risks attached to it. Obviously, one has to be hiding from the real world to think that. America has far bigger problems than the right to have a big gun and lots of ammo.

Well, we definitely know who the gun-nuts and the wannabe terrorists will vote for -- if they can vote :1orglaugh

It is easier to buy an assault rifle here that to buy a dog license. You don't even have to renew your long gun license. If you had to pay a $10 renewal fee and file a license report -- a lot of stolen guns might be accounted for -- [x] firearm was stolen -- no fee. At least we could track such things? Oh Yeah, $500 fine and a federal misdemeanor for filing a false report. This goes toward firearms illegally possessed by criminals mainly.

Firearms are a regulated industry and most regulated items have license fees. Make the license fee a tax-credit item but you have to pay to stay legal :2 cents: Of course, that is a year (annually) after the fact (the sale). This won't directly help mass shootings as they are not planed that far in advance -- they are usually impulse actions -- the straw that broke the camel's back (no pun intended).

I will ban all guns temporarily until we figure out what's going on. - Trump

There were 3,988,076 births in America last year. Roughly 32,000 died by guns last year, that's .8% of the number of births. Total deaths were 2,596,993. Yearly we're at a net gain of 1,391,083 new Americans added to the population. This is not sustainable.

We need more deaths.

What "good intentions" are carried out with an assault weapon?! :disgust

Hunting squirrels and such.

:1orglaugh

And someone in the NRA would give that answer with a straight face.

who gives a shit about gun suicides ?

The ones where they decide to go out in a blaze of publicity with everyone talking about them for months.

There's one thing you can always rely on from the pro-gun lobby. And that's stupidity.

Stop being logical. It has no place in the gun debate.

Only 32,000. Arm more rednecks. :1orglaugh

I'd like to know the definition of what some people call "assault" weapons. From my understanding this guy had access to fully automatic weapons which require a special license which he had because he was a security officer. He was also on the FBI watchlist. I see a problem with the FBI allowing this to happen. Obviously they were alerted when he purchased the weapon.

There is basically no defense against someone that is willing to die in a terrorist attack. No matter what weapon they choose to use. Solution? Bio-mechanical weapons associated with the owner only. They cannot operate in urban environments except legal gun ranges. In the wild, only dedicated hunting grounds. Hunting licenses integrated into the operating systems. Using an Individual IP address for ID we can track the owner, the gun and the spam. Remote destruct mechanism would allow authorities to detonate weapon if user turned out to be a fucking prick. We can take the best ideas of the Nazis, the NRA and turn this killing problem around and control it. We can let good citizen's have their guns and blow the fucking idiots into oblivion when we decide we don't like them anymore. I bet if I passed this idea along to Trump, he would suck my dick on Pennsylvania Blvd. He's just that kind of guy.

I'd just like to see background checks actually leading to certain people not being allowed to get their hands on any kind of gun, period. All too often I'm hearing talk of people in the US who obviously have no business having one or having access to one being able to obtain a gun or guns, freely, even though their past track record is fraught with red flags.

As far as a ban goes, you're talking about a limited ban where only new prospective buyers are denied access to AR's, not a complete ban meaning all AR's everywhere are immediately banned. Although I'm a bit skeptical as to how something like that would fly in the States it is a step, and your country is definitely headed for legislating some type of step such as that, or one like it.

Something's gotta give with the guns.

Just a point of note for future reference, but Paul when I put "lol" at the end of a sentence it means I'm joking.

you need to update your list of slurs and derogatory labels for others, markham.

the OP is a redneck born & raised and he's advocating less guns, not more.

This would never work. You cannot disable a firearm in a "urban setting" - what about home defense?