Ban all Semi-Auto's For The Common Good!!! (Page 3): That's a good idea. Now let's ban beer since that what most drunk drivers have consumed. Then we can stop DUI's also. A better idea...

Smedley_buzkill

PeterS wrote:

No, but the police will still have their arms and the ban isn't on all guns--just semi-automatic's. You just need to be sure to kill the bad guy before you have to reload...

That's a good idea. Now let's ban beer since that what most drunk drivers have consumed. Then we can stop DUI's also. A better idea might be to revoke the drivers licenses of non-drinkers.
Oh, but the Police will still have their arms. Assuming you are able to call them, the average response time is 8-15 minutes. That's a long time to wait.
The response time of my .45, (one of those horrible semi autos) is around 900 ft/sec. (I use a little bit hotter handload.)
So, you turn in your semi auto, and when the criminal who didn't turn his in breaks into your house, tell him you've called the police and they will be here in a few minutes.
I would pay folding money to see that one.

Carlos

So when the crazies don't have semi's anymore they will just change their ways. They wont think of using the ones that were left, pistols, rifles, shotguns. And I'm sure there would be no way In The world they could get their hands on other semi's.
How about a Cure like........giving the crazies the needle. Then they wont even be around anymore at all. Do that enough and many of you will see some difference in the killings. When Virginia has their strict law, I think it was huge sentences for using a gun in a crime, long jail sentences for those who were 't supposed to have a gun at all , crime dropped noticeably. Made a Big difference.
If people were killing each other with golf clubs should we take away all the golf clubs from people?
England's crime is still pretty high only they use knives now.
Punish the criminal not the innocent citizen. Listen to the NRA, they have sensible resolutions.

What fools these mortals be.

Smedley_buzkill

Carlos wrote:

So when the crazies don't have semi's anymore they... (show quote)

No, what fools these Liberal mortals be.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Smedley_buzkill wrote:

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

You Sir...are a gentleman and scholar!

Unfortunately enlightenment has fallen on a goon who sports a damaged soysoupbone, so disappointed in his party of impotence, that has to sling Bullbiden.

Like someone of proper humanitarian grace said.."I'd kick his walker out from under him"

That, I'd like to see!

Love...byronglimish.

Carlos

The "common good" is out buying guns, most of them got smart, lots of socialist did too. It's getting to be every man for himself out there. Even the lefties are wiseing up because a crazy person doesn't really care if your on the left or right, your just a target to them.
Common good is just another way of saying "give us your guns, all of them". Supposed to make you feel like you care only about yourself, "You don't care about the common good. Selfish man."
OK, I'll give up all my guns, especially my AR-15...................Ya right, hold your breath.

Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich

PeterS wrote:

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

"OK"....."Liberal".....Then will you campaign, to re-institute the death penalty, for anyone that uses one for killing, etc.? { Because, the criminals, "will" have them!}.....Money where your mouth is....cause youse ain't got no brains!.....

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

crazylibertarian wrote:

It should not surprise anyone that PeterS equates ... (show quote)

I think that Pete and his jihad friends have guns and ammo stored somewhere waiting for the rest of us to lose our right to have one. Then the real mass killings will begin.

Retired builder

proud republican wrote:

This weekend in Chicago there were 40 shootings again..10 people died

Mentally ill people perpetrate these atrocities. The laws were in place at one time to protect the public from the derangement of the mentally ill. The almighty Supreme court is responsible for changing the law that could have interdicted some of this. Guns don't kill - people kill. Why do people hide from this truth with all of the B.S. about whether it was an automatic or a wheel gun.

Mike ivey

I saw a t shirt the other day that said: Ban Stupid People
Not Guns!

Couldn't say it any better! Create more laws, all you do is create more criminals. Seems pretty simple to me. Besides, the 2nd Amendment is precisely correct in that it says : Shall Not Be Infringed! That means, no matter what some moronic newspaper editor or worthless politician opines about, We the People have the RIGHT to OWN ANY type of firearm we wish to own. And that includes FULL Automatics, Semi-Automatics, shotgun, etc..... what is it about that you Don't understand?

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

proud republican wrote:

This weekend in Chicago there were 40 shootings again..10 people died

Called a gang war.. the type of guns has nothing to do with these killings..

But Peters reply on the guns used is correct, they were semi auto hand guns with extended magazines.

I personally agree with the fact pointed out that actually collecting guns can never happen. just impossible..

while Clinton s 94 war on crime and its ban of specific guns was effective and should never have been changed, now we have millions of these specific style guns and will never remove them..

Also, this AM read a good point in a post which expressed the need for more trained Psychiatrists.. 70% shortage to make any headway of evaluation of these people...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

permafrost wrote:

Called a gang war.. the type of guns has nothing t... (show quote)

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.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Rose42 wrote:

By your logic alchohol should be banned so there will be no more killed by drunk drivers.

According to the CDC -

-In 2016, 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for 28% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States

-Of the 1,233 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2016, 214 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver

Thats far more than die in mass shootings. And about the same number of homicides involving a gun.

OOPS, I was going to jump all over your stats, but you qualified them as MASS shootings, so I think they must be correct..

So now my point is the unwillingness to have any restrictions on guns.

And the reason is always the same, wont end the killings, don`t bother trying..

I will point out we have law after law on serous crime, none of them stop the crime.. bank robbery is against the law.. but we still have bank robbers..

I would not expect gun regulation to end killings but I do think some laws can have an effect on the numbers and that alone would be a good, very good thing..

As I said earlier, also would like to see more effort to locate/treat the mentally ill who conduct the killing , before they kill...

Rose42

permafrost wrote:

Called a gang war.. the type of guns has nothing t... (show quote)

Clinton's ban was ineffective. There was already a downward trend that showed his ban had no impact.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

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)

Hard to say Blade, we can find a lot of information that says the ban did indeed work..

but I do not think we will ever again see such a ban..

the reason? It is probable that the ban was one big reason why Bush jr made it to the white house..

The gun lobby is huge and single minded..

From fact-check..

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.

gaconservative74

proud republican wrote:

This weekend in Chicago there were 40 shootings again..10 people died

52 shootings is what I read.