It's the Guns

a reply to: DBCowboy

That’s why there is a right to defend by force of arms a right...

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
Colt just announced that they will stop making AR-15 rifles for civilian use, claiming that there is already enough of them in the market.

We don’t have to ban them, just have to stop making them (for everyone except law enforcement and the military).

Colt sells 1500 dollar bare bones rifles. No one buys colt 6920s anymore. It's not profitable for them.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Tortuga

Your strawmen are poorly constructed.

Do better.

I'm just #ting with you, I know how much you all love your guns. I loved my guns too. I miss them most when I am out and about in my car these days. So it's probably for the best they didn't let me leave with them.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Tortuga

Considering guns are not even close to the top 10 causes of death in the US, we really should address the others before we start tearing up the bill of rights even more.

Yeah probably ban fast food first.

a reply to: Tortuga

If I lived in the US

originally posted by: Tortuga

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Tortuga

You don’t understand, it’s a Right.

You simply cannot remove freedoms, rights.

That’s what authoritarians do. That’s what tyrants do.

We used to have democracy here, they can do what they want.

Enough people in the US want a tyrant as well, just look at Warren or Sanders

a reply to: Edumakated

That has to be one of the most troublesome parts of this subject.

It really brings new meaning to "ignorance is strength." So many revel in it on so many topics. I firmly believe its the result of a trash information diet amplified by addictive technology. Everything happens "out there," and "out there" can be defined and cultivated by so many people and groups of people.

I am of the opinion that we should seriously consider doing things like including gun classes (safety, operation, and yes, real world experience) as standard in our school system.

I dont accept that "yes, it is the guns." I do believe something is awry, though thats a much bigger topic in my mind. I also flat out reject the notion that when this nation was founded, they were ignorant of semi-auto or even auto firearms as a whole.

Though, I do suspect they might not have considered the impact of mass networked technologies and government working through corporations as a proxy to circumvent the restrictions placed by those documents..

The question stands though:
What if it isnt the guns?

If we go so far as to repeal the 2nd, even if its just a functional rather than an open shredding of a founding principle, what if that doesnt work?

Then, we are dealing with a situation where a precedent has been set for the dissolution of the Constitution and BoR as a whole. Less citizens will be legally armed, which is a problem on many levels in a nation where they are so prevalent. On top of that, the lack of access could very well result in horrible people picking different methods to act out. Many of which will be substantially worse.

Eff all that noise.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Edumakated

Also look at legal definitions of Mass Shooting. In the US, four wounded or killed or any combination (which can include the shooter) is a mass shooting. In Australia, five dead (not counting the shooter) or it is not a mass shooting.

So 75,000 wounded and two dead is NOT a mass shooting in Australia. Father takes out wife and two kids before turning the gun on himself IS a mass shooting even if no one died.

Yeah, I think the whole 4 or more killed thing is a stupid definition of a mass shooting. A mass shooting should really be defined as a person who goes to a public place with the intent of shooting as much random people as possible for no logical reason.

Its basically a statistically proven fact that easier legal access to guns increases the likelihood of these kind of genuine mass shootings occurring. But its also pretty obvious that the actual death rate due to (genuine) mass shootings is is only a tiny portion of the overall death by gun rates in the US, or in any other first world country for that matter.

So I highly doubt the US could put a significant dent in gun related murders by implementing stricter laws. There's just simply to many guns in circulation at this point... It probably works in Australia, simply because the majority of illegal guns in circulation at this point are like rusty old shot guns that weren't handed in after the gun by back in the 90's, which probably go for more on the black market than a nearly new ak-47 would go for on the US black market.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Is a Winchester model 1907 okay. I mean it was first released for public sale in 1907. You could even order it out of a catalog and have the mailman deliver it back then. It’s much older than that one rifle made in 1958, which oddly enough could be mail ordered back then as well.

I mean it has wood stocks and uses a much larger .351 round instead of .223, but doesn’t look as scary. This picture just happens to have the 15 round detachable magazine, but 20 rounders were made as well and the French Army made theirs fully automatic after purchase.

such a handsome rifle, Id enjoy one in my collection. I wasnt familiar with it, thx

a reply to: Serdgiam

I'm convinced the problem is not because of access to guns. Remember your parents talking about how high schoolers in their day had gun racks in their pickups with rifles or shotguns in them? I do. Nobody ever thought about shooting up the school or any place else. And that was back when bullying was bullying!

Something happened around the mid to late 70's and slowly escalated till we had Columbine explode. That's where we need to start looking.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
Colt just announced that they will stop making AR-15 rifles for civilian use, claiming that there is already enough of them in the market.

We don’t have to ban them, just have to stop making them (for everyone except law enforcement and the military).

Colt sells 1500 dollar bare bones rifles. No one buys colt 6920s anymore. It's not profitable for them.

Yet, their stated reason for the discontinuation was not our product is no longer profitable, it is that in Colt’s opinion, the market already had enough product available.

A subtle distinction perhaps, and I’d even be willing to suggest considerable “spin” on Colt’s part.

However, by making such a public statement, in the way that they did, as opposed to simply ceasing production of an underselling product without a public announcement, Colt is definitely “throwing its hat into the ring”,

And from what seems to be an unexpected direction.

a reply to: Serdgiam

many rural communities had hunter safety and range safety courses well into the 90s.

I had gun safety at school, with the Boy Scouts, family and acquaintences.

That has all slipped away as population leaves rural America for disconnected urban living.

Firearms are tools,.

Well America has more people in jail than any other country and blacks make up a very large number of those in jail... So it's the blacks...

a reply to: Bluntone22

Ummmm....eeerrr...who put the blacks IN the jail?
Not a good argument for you.

And why does everyone seem to forget that columbine was a failed bombing? The guns were the backup plan...

So because one shooting was supposed to be a bombing.....ugh, I don't get this at all. Sorry.

a reply to: shooterbrody

die by it?

Well, it actually means well trained, in good order, as in ensuring the firearms are in working order, cleaned and the people well trained in their use.

a reply to: Krakatoa


So the founding fathers thought we should get firearms training?

I support this wholeheartedly!!!!


Firearms training for anyone wanting to purchase a firearm.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

We don’t have to ban them, just have to stop making them (for everyone except law enforcement and the military).

Why exempt military and law enforcement?

That said, most of the time these topics tend to come from individuals who have either been sheltered by urban life

a reply to: Serdgiam


What exactly about urban life is sheltering?

But the United States isn’t even the world leader for mass shooting deaths not even in the top five in terms of deaths by population ratio.
worldpopulationreview.com...
This data shows that the shooting deaths are quite low. It’s shows how many people are victims out of a million.

The problem isn’t the guns because they exist everywhere and other country’s have mass shootings too you just don’t always hear of them on CNN. Guns are tools it doesn’t matter if it’s a gun,bomb,car,knife rock or a big stick it’s a means to a end. It’s the desire to kill people.

Can you explain why other country’s appear higher on the list then USA and what is wrong with them?

a reply to: ErEhWoN

a reply to: ErEhWoN

So the founding fathers thought we should get firearms training?

You got it from your dads, granddads, uncles, neighbors, community. It came natural.

Don't you remember that Davy Crocket killed a bear when he was only three?

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

That said, most of the time these topics tend to come from individuals who have either been sheltered by urban life

a reply to: Serdgiam


What exactly about urban life is sheltering?

Meaning you don't live in an area where legal guns are not only plentiful, but used as tool much like a hammer. Hunting and varmint control. Or in some cases, protection from large wild animals like bears, cougars, etc (or people).

A good example of this is how pundits constantly question why someone needs an AR-15 with 30 rounds. Many farmers need to shoot multiple wild boar.

I'm reminded of a story where a survey was done of major journalists and none owned a pick up truck or knew anyone who did.... yet, pick up trucks are one of the largest selling vehicles in the country and obviously popular outside of cities. It showed how out of touch they are with middle America.