Ban all Semi-Auto's For The Common Good!!! (Page 5): If you catch them going out on their own and shooting people you'll be a rich man! I wonder how many people would pay to see a...

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Mikeyavelli wrote:

I just checked. All my guns are here with me, but if I ever catch them going out on their own and shooting people I'll just have to take away their clips and ammo.

If you catch them going out on their own and shooting people you'll be a rich man! I wonder how many people would pay to see a rifle or pistol that shoots itself off.

Cha-Freaking-Ching!

JoyV

PeterS wrote:

Once again we had another mass shooting involving ... (show quote)

First, do you know what a semi-auto is? The vast majority of guns, both long and handguns, owned by Americans are semi-automatic. About 25% are shotguns and an unknown number of guns which are not semi-autos such as those which are bolt action, lever action, and pump action.

Secondly, do you really believe those whose goal is to murder or commit other crimes would obey the gun restriction laws? Banning law abiding citizens from owning semi-automatics would not have prevented any of the mass murders but would have prevented some of the heroes who used their own semi-autos to stop some of the shooters.

Most most important of all, IT IS A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION!!! The guarantee that the government will not infringe on our right to bear arms is right behind our right to freedom of speech in importance to our founders.

Many people die by motor vehicles. We don't ban motor vehicles as being the cause. Even when the vehicle is used to intentionally mow down crowds, we don't blame the vehicle or call for the ban of the types of vehicles used for mass killings. It is the USER of the motor vehicle who is to blame, not the vehicle itself. The same is true of guns. If you want less mass shootings, eliminate gun banned zones. Areas where guns are banned are the areas mass shooters choose to commit their mayhem. Encouraging law abiding citizens to arm themselves would be an even greater deterrent.

JoyV

Rose42 wrote:

Yes ban cell phones and alchohol to save more lives than banning guns would....

But it wouldn't work that way. Prohibition taught us that making a desired commodity illegal just makes a black market attractive. The more money which can be made, the more it will be controlled by criminals, and the more violence will be involved in controlling the commodity. And good luck trying to implement a ban on cell phones!

JoyV

Blade_Runner wrote:

If a semi-auto handgun is not an effective self de... (show quote)

JoyV

drlarrygino wrote:

And Pete's logic is also a reason why abortion should be outlawed. 60 million babies murdered and counting but Petey Boy endorses this! He is insane.

How often have we heard those on the left say they don't want to ban guns, they just want reasonable or sensible gun laws. Yet they never say they want reasonable or sensible abortion laws. In fact they will often say no matter how you feel, it is the law!!! Well we say, no matter how you feel it is not merely the law, but part of the Bill of Rights first ratified along with the US Constitution. Not added at a later time.

JoyV

badbob85037 wrote:

And where did that shooting take place clown boy? A Gun Free Zone where even a crazed monster knows he can run up a large body count. If clown boy is looking for a common denominator to these killings look to the pharmaceutical industry and their poisons to cure a chemical imbalance This is for everyone but clown boy as it could walk up to clown boy, introduce himself, then slap the crap out of him and he still wouldn't have a clue.

Since the mid 50's every school shooting weather it is one or a large number of victims. the shooter has been taking poisons to cure a chemical imbalance. These poisons as mercury and fluoride have taken their toll on our youth. Prozac's main ingredient in Fluoride the same fluoride NAZIs used in WWII to make their victims go mad and they dump it into our water. It drops your IQ, trashes your liver and re- productive organs.

Every member of the FDA has financial ties to this industry. They approve these drugs twice as fast and twice as many. There are almost 200 of these drugs prescribed to over 100 million people world wide explaining the massive stabbing of innocent and the burning of their schools. Pay offs to doctors for prescribing these drugs these companies make the poison then come up with a chemical imbalance for it to cure. These near 200 drugs make on average $7.5 million a day profit.

With profit at $ 400 billion a year on these drugs alone and the pharmaceutical industry being the number one lobbyist in DC, spending 6 times the amount of number two you can see why Congress blames a piece of steel and the idiots go with that spreading their bull shit. Plenty of cash to grease hands at the Federal and State levels. The kicker is no one on Earth knows what a chemical imbalance is.

It's not just these drugs to 'cure' chemical imbalance. Next time you are watching television and a drug commercial comes on pay attention to the last 30 seconds. You'll see the side effects of these drugs out weigh any benefits the drug offers.

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act passed in the 90's allowed these FDA vermin to get away with passing these poisons off as cures. It also made natures cures be pulled from stores across the country. To have a drug approved you put up $1 million for the 'testing' and $7.5 million a day profit it's a drop in the bucket, yet not affordable to small companies with lines of nature's cures.

People with two brain cells need to find out more about this industry before they start taking anything these greedy SOB's pass off as a cure. The female insert that is to prevent pregnancy isn't the best thing since canned milk. Some women are dead from using it and hundreds of law suits have been filed against Bayer that makes it. Don't be a democRat, get educated.

BY the way peters gun grabber there are almost 400 million guns in America with 5 to 6 million super gun owners, that's the new scare word your kind has made up to describe anyone having 10 or more fire arms. These 5 to 6 million are the kind that strongly believe the statement 'out of my cold dead hand'. The police and military both support the Second Amendment so who is going to be stupid enough to try to disarm America? I'll be waiting for your knock at my door.

And where did that shooting take place clown boy? ... (show quote)

When you wrote, "common denominator" I thought you would say gun controlled areas. I don't think ALL the mass murderers were on drugs. But it is an interesting point.

JoyV

Smedley_buzkill wrote:

That's a good idea. Now let's ban beer since that ... (show quote)

Great analogy!!! Revoke the non drinkers drivers license to cut down on deaths due to drunk driving. Make as much sense as banning firearms from law abiding citizens.

JoyV

Blade_Runner wrote:

Attn. Gun Control Advocates: We Banned Assault Weapons Before ... And It Didn't Work

Gun Control: Maybe they are too young to know, or have faulty memories, but whatever the reason, all those pushing for a ban on "assault weapons" in the wake of the Florida school shooting ignore the fact that the last time the country imposed such a ban it failed to make a measurable difference.

Gun control advocates were ecstatic when President Trump appeared to support a ban on "semi-automatic assault weapons." The White House later issued a statement that he still opposes a ban.

Nevertheless, Democrats have already introduced two bills that would outlaw the sale of weapons like the AR-15, based mainly on various cosmetic features of the guns, and limit the size of magazines allowed. And the press has been playing up the issue with relentless fervor.

What nobody seems to want to acknowledge, however, is that the very ban being proposed by Democrats was in effect for 10 years — from 1994 to 2004.

It was part of a larger crime bill signed by President Clinton after a spate of shootings created a similar outrage in the public. Like today, polls showed widespread support for the ban, and even President Reagan backed it.

Nevertheless, Clinton barely mentioned the gun ban in his lengthy remarks on the broader crime bill, saying only that "we will finally ban these assault weapons from our street that have no purpose other than to kill."

Like the current proposals, the previous ban forbid the sale of certain menacing-looking semi-automatic rifles and handguns, and banned the sale of magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds. Like the current proposals, it grandfathered in "assault weapons" sold before the ban went into effect.

Despite Clinton's apparent effort to downplay the ban when he signed it into law, it had a large political impact, contributing to the Democrats' losing control of the House in 1994. And so, when the ban's 10-year time limit was up, Congress didn't bother to renew it, despite the fact that President Bush supported renewal.

So, did the previous "assault weapons" ban work?

It turns out that various independent studies came to the same conclusion: the ban had no measurable impact on the number of shootings or the number of shooting deaths while it was in effect.

A 2005 report from the National Research Council, for example, noted that "A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes."

A 2004 study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice found that while the ban appeared to have reduced the number of crimes committed with "assault weapons," any benefits were "likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics."

As a result, the Justice study found "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury."

The main reason the failure of the ban to make a difference: "assault weapons" account for a tiny share of gun crimes — less than 6%. Even among mass shootings, most didn't involve an "assault weapon" in the decade before the ban went into effect.

Mass shootings didn't stop during the ban, either — there were 16 while the ban was in effect, which resulted in 237 deaths or injuries. In fact, it was while the ban was in effect that the Columbine High School massacre happened, in which 13 students were killed and 24 injured.

What's more, gun deaths have steadily declined since 1994, even though the rate of gun ownership has climbed.

Democrats pushing for an "assault weapons" ban today know that getting it approved in an election year by a Republican-controlled Congress is a fantasy. This is nothing more than a political ploy.

But the bigger and more reprehensible fantasy is the one being peddled by gun control advocates: namely, that such a ban would have any meaningful impact on gun deaths or mass shootings.

Playing on the emotions of the public while offering them false hopes is the exact opposite of responsible leadership.

b Attn. Gun Control Advocates: We Banned Assault ... (show quote)

Very informative!

JoyV

permafrost wrote:

OOPS, I was going to jump all over your stats, but... (show quote)

Yes we have laws against bank robbing. We also have laws against murder. But we don't have laws banning the ownership of masks, which many bank robbers use.

teabag09

permafrost wrote:

Gee, by your figures we save 3 to 5% of the lives ... (show quote)

Those can be used as deadly weapons, much more silent that a suppressor. Mike

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

JoyV wrote:

Great analogy!!! Revoke the non drinkers drivers license to cut down on deaths due to drunk driving. Make as much sense as banning firearms from law abiding citizens.

I don't think it was to cut down on wrecks.

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

permafrost wrote:

Up to a point, I think you are right...

we never told to use partial loaded mags on our rifles.. do not recall that was even addressed with hand guns..

but I would say most people could be expected to do a bit of fumbling in midst of killing a bunch when trying to change any size magazine..

I find the really large capacity clumsy.. but I have only a little experience with them..

I’ll bet that piece has a heck of a recoil.

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

JoyV wrote:

First, do you know what a semi-auto is? The vast ... (show quote)

Has anyone come up with the number of laws already on the books that the Virginia Beach shooter actually broke?

Publius

Only a moron would give up semi auto weapons. The 2nd amendment guarantees American citizens the right to fight a war against political tyranny. We could win a war against the government with AR-15’s. Not so much with shotguns.

If you want to stop mass shootings then you should ban psyche meds.the rise of mass shootings is directly correlated with the advent of psyche meds.

John King

PeterS wrote:

Once again we had another mass shooting involving ... (show quote)

"...Once again we had another mass shooting involving a semi-automatic weapon. So what's the solution? Well, we can start by banning the weapon of choice--the semi-automatic weapon..."

So, when the next shooting takes place with a shot-gun, do we ban that weapon?!? And when the next shooting is done with a magazine-loaded hand gun, do we ban that weapon too?!? And when a single shot six shooter is used, do we ban that weapon too?!? And when a kitchen steak knife is used, do we ban that too?!? What about when they use a car to ram through a wall to drive over as many kids as possible . . . do we ban cars too?!?

When are people going to get it thru their heads that it is not the weapon that is the problem, it is the person that is the problem!

"...Do that, and we at least give people a chance. And notice, I am not saying ban all guns just the ones responsible for all the mass slayings. This leaves bolt actions, pumps, and revolvers to satisfy our second amendment requirement--all of which are better than when the second amendment was written..."

Really?!? The second amendment afforded the militia with almost the same weapons the military had . . . they were at times side by side with the regular army of the time. Because they were using a guerilla type 'strike and run' method of fighting, their weapons needed to be easy to carry for rapid movement. In my opinion, we all should be having available the best and latest weapons available to ensure the "militia" is ready at all times to defend our country when the time comes! I question if you hold to the root meaning, the core meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Our country is based on the ability to deal with tyranny, not only from without but from within . . . . as stated in the Declaration of Independence:

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The 2nd amendment insures that the citizens are capable to defend their homeland as well as their home!

"...This leaves the question of how we enforce such a law and as I stated before--a fine of 10,000 and a couple of years in jail will lend to them being turned in in droves. Of course, the most radical right wing nuts will hold out but there is no argument that outweighs the common good of our country and that's what it comes down to...the common good..."

The common good of the country is best served when we insure all capable citizens are given the freedom the defend the common good of our country! You seek to take away that ability with your idea!

Let's say you outlaw those weapons! What happens whenever things get outlawed? Take prohibition for example . . . it created a black market where the very thing sought to outlaw was made available for a cost. No law will ever get rid of things desired by mankind . . . it will just create another item found on the black market!!! If someone wants to shoot up a place, do you think they will stop just because the weapon you have outlawed is harder to get?

The issue is not the weapon . . . the attention should not be on the 'how' they did this shooting . . . the attention needs to be on the 'why' they did this shooting!!!

The quickest, most efficient means of dealing with shooters . . . is to place in their minds the chance that there might be someone with a weapon there to stop them! The most effective deterrent is to have conceal-carry individuals present on the sight . . . PERIOD!!!

...just my opinion!!!