I don't get how you differentiate between "fully automatic" and "like fully automatic." If the end result is that a person can legally circumvent the restrictions on automatic weapons and can legally own a weapon that is as quick as an automatic weapon then what is the real difference outside of a technical one? The point in restricting automatic weapons is about how there's no real good justification for an average person to have one and that they're incredibly dangerous. To me this feels like a semantics argument without much merit.
I'm open to an explanation though.
Preventing suicides is something we should be trying to do, too. Their deaths are just as awful as those who are murdered. Theoretically speaking, if gun control only resulted in preventing suicides and not a single homicide then that's a pretty strong argument for it. I hope you are not implying that because gun violence statistics can include suicides that the number of deaths isn't "as bad" because of it.
Yes, please explain. Because, in America for instance, states with more gun control broadly see less gun violence compared to states with laxer gun control.
Food for thought:
"FBI did a very intensive study of 160 mass shootings over the period from 2000 to 2013. And what they found was that over that period, in the 160 cases, there was only one incidence of a private citizen who was not security personnel or a police officer who effectively intervened in the mass shooting, and that individual was an active duty Marine. On the other hand, 22 unarmed citizens intervened to stop those mass shootings, typically when the individual was reloading. And so it gives you a sense of the relative effectiveness of relying on someone with a gun to intervene in an active shooting scenario."
[
source]
Suicides can be helped, perhaps, but not in the way you're thinking. Here, what if I told you you could no longer eat candy because children choke on candy and therefore candy if now outlawed? Sound ridiculous? Taking away a right of law because of the few is wrong in my opinion.
Most women take pills and most men either hang or shoot themselves. Personally I'd rather die instantly than choke to death slowly.
Regardless, if you take away all tools of suicide you're really no better than a dictatorship. People will commit suicide whether you want them too or not or whether or not you suspect it. It's a sad fact that you'll eventually come to terms with.
Also, no, I do not view suicide as tragic as murder. Sorry. A life ended voluntarily is not the same as someone getting killed for some money or other disagreement. There are ways to prevent suicide but there are no known ways to prevent homicide, remember that.
The FBI does not have a current definition they use to define a 'mass shooting' so I am loathe to accept a study from the 'FBI' when they themselves debate on what counts as a mass shooting. I've seen cases where 'mass shooting' means two or more, but for the most part it tends to be four or more persons. The circumstances must be taken into accoint as well such as motive. Is it a bank robbery? Familial homicide? I don't consider a bank robbery to be a mass shooting regardless how many people are shot. The motive is different in this example.
However, if I do grant leeway for this study I would ask you to consider the fact that the vast majority of these 'mass shootings' take place in gun free zones or otherwise controlled areas where guns are prohibited on the premises. The FBI has they're own database for future reference if you ever need to use them as a direct source.
States with more gun control see less gun crime: False.
New York, California and Illinois. Please take these three as an example. Illinois has arguably the strictest gun control laws side from California and yet has the highest homicide rate when correlated with firearms. California has roughly 104 laws dictating ownership of fireamrs while Newyork has 75 and Illinois has 64. Just because Illinois has less laws dods not mean that they aren't as strict if not more so. It all depends on the verbage and word of law.
Using gun laws to negate gun crime doesn't work. It doesn't matter if you have 4 (AK) laws or 104 (CA) criminals will use firearms regardless. Keep in mind that your statement does not take population into account, and even so we need only look at criminality and drug trafficking to know why they see such amounts of homicides. Texas, for example, borders Mexico and guess what comes across the border every year? If you guessed Mexicans you'd be wrong. . . well, right I guess, but drugs. Cartels and guns go hand in hand. Florida has this problem as well.
Also, California has the most amount of gang members than any other state in the union. The Bloods and the Crips alone collectively hold an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 active members. Several of these individuals are felons. Felonius individuals cannot possess or otherwise own firearms:
Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is banned by federal law from ever possessing ?any firearm or ammunition.? Specifically a person ?convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year? cannot possess any firearm in any location. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison, unless said individual has their rights restored by the convicting state.
That being said, any and all gun control laws do not apply to felonious individuals. If they were law abiding citizens then they wouldn't be felons.
Fully Automatic: Firearm produced with all the necessary components to fire full auto.
Like fully automatic: otherwise modified in order to achieve fully automatic fire.
Semi-Automatic: One press of the trigger fires one round. The opposite of automatic.
There are some firearms that are extremely difficult to modify full-auto, such as shotguns and revolvers.
The US' homicide rate has been stedily declining since the early 90's, mass shootings are responsible for less than 1% of gun related homicides wothin the US, and criminals don't follow the laws.
What everyone here needs to keep in mind is that criminals commit the vast majority of gun related homicides, often associated with drugs. You can melt down all the legal guns you want and 'surprise-surprise' MS-13 didn't get the memo.
The 2nd amendment is hardwired into our bill of rights. Challenging this right, which is unalienable, calls into question the right to free speech which people are now arguing against with 'hate speech'. It isn't a stretch because it has happened before in history and then we fought a war with those guys and they lost 70 odd years ago.
We can go back and forth and people can make all the naive comments they like. They can claim they have the right to dictate law to a country they know next to nothing about and they can bleed their hearts dry crying about the poor, unfortunate souls but at the end of the day what have they said?
I have not seen a single decent argument that even begins to tackle the logistics for implementing the repeal of the 2nd.
Who is going to foot the bill? Taxpayers? The same taxpayers that don't want to hand over their guns?
Who is going to take the guns away? Is there going to be a buy-back like Australia? If so, then you've already defeated yourself in wanting to get rid of guns, because people won't turn them in for $500.
Would you tax the guns? How much? How often? What happens if they don't pay?
You cause more problems here by claiming rightful, law abiding owners are going to break the law. If you sincerley believe that the majority of gun crime is commited by legal firearms there really is nothing left for me to say.
You'll most likely forever continue to spout your mouth off at every tragedy but do nothing about it like the vast majority of those that do. If you have no plan, no structure then you will lose, always. There is no incentive to listen to you or the politicians that claim they know what's best for the citizens despite them lying though their teeth to get you to change your mind. They don't matter and only want to garner support for future campaigns.
More people are murdered with handguns than long rifles if you had any doubt about that. . .
If you ever wanted to know, if you ever had an open mind or half a thought to treat both sides fairly, which most of you are not despite your claiming to do so, you would do your own research. The gun show loophole doesn't exist and it's harder to obtain a gun than a car.
Why? Because you need a license to own a firearm. You will get a background check by law, otherwise the gunstore will receive a massive fine and lose their license and potentially receive jail time depending.
Quit refusing to do research into these laws. You do this and all it makes you is a jackass.
Harsh? Maybe. But really, grow up, grow some balls and quit listening to dorks like myself and do your own research in to actual laws. Not Fox news, CNN, MSNBC or whatever else you may or may not watch. The law and facts are what decide the outcome of whether or not (if you have a plan) your plan can be implemented.
If you really have no clue how guns work, I really don't want to talk to you about the law. Just the way it works. You've come from the kiddie table with your crayons and big beautiful ideas only to get a pat on the head by mom and get scowled at by grandpa who thinks you're a froot loop.
In order to change the law, you must know the law. If you are unwilling to learn the law you will be ignored by those that are most critical in changing it. I should not have to explain the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic or single and dual action.
If you don't know these terms by the way, congratulations: you have just been denied gun ownership. Yes. That's right. There's a test.
One last thing, the shooter of the Church in Texas was convicted of domestic abuse. Guess what?
The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104?208, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(9), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).
Which makes him owning guns illegal and against the law already.
Really, the thing you must ask yourself is how the hell you're going to convince me. A USMC (ret.) gun owner. I assure you, your task will not be easy. There are millions of gun owners like me who knows their shit and their local laws.
Attempting to waddle into a debate blindfolded without facts in hand will see you politely escorted to the proverbial door of thought because if you can't even begin to put forth a decent argument as to why legal, law abiding citizens that haven't broken any laws whatsoever can't own a rifle, handgun or shotgun to defend their home, hunt or protect their persons you will never be able to have the court systems rule in your favor.
This is a Republic and as such you need to have at least 2/3 to even begin the process of tabeling this idea. That is the reality. There isn't a big debate about this. Change my mind. If you manage to do that, maybe. Maybe.
However, if I have to explain to you how a gun works or how the law works, you've lost. Judges don't need to sit and listen to you drivvel on about laws they already know of and they have no need or want to waste time explaining them to you.
I am part of the group you need to convince. You need data. You need proof. As it is, you are the challenging party so I really don't have to justify shit to any of you. It's your job, since you've proudly accepted the feel good pats on the back, to come up with the factual data needed to change laws and remove entire sections from the Bill of (unalienable) Rights. If you cannot or won't do this, all you're really looking for are brownie points and to be reaffirmed by people that think like you.
Your feelings don't impress nor move people to change laws. The laws will not change because 'Finland' or 'Britain' or 'Canada' this and that. These and other countries have no business moulding our laws because those countries . . . don't live here. Their crime isn't our crime and viceversa. Work within the confines of the US legal systems. If you refuse to atrempt this.
I understand. But just note that you truly don't care. You say you do but you really don't. You like to look at the pretty pictures and 'take the high road'.
This is a general statement and directed at those that know nothing, that do nothing and just feel and bark orders at others about what we should do about it without lifting a finger to help.