Colorado Mass Shooting

by Simon 34 Replies latest social current

• 

  truth_b_known

  Breaking down a "Mass Shooting"

  • A person goes to a public place and murders 4 or more people by using a firearm
  • That firearm tends to be a box magazine fed rifle
  • 24 Hour Cable News Media and Left leaning government with its ideological supporters blame the firearm and a lack of "common sense gun control laws"
  • Right leaning news media, talk radio hosts, and government with its ideological supporters blame too many gun control laws and a lack of mental health services
  • Nothing changes
  • Repeat

  Arguments for Assault Weapons ban

  1. Risk of future mass shootings too high
  2. No one needs an Assault Weapon
  3. Assault Weapons are military styled weapons intended for warfare
  4. You can hunt or participate in firearms sports with something other than an Assault Rifle

  Arguments against Assault Weapons ban

  1. The U.S. Constitution provides a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Needs
  2. U.S. Supreme Court case law does not allow for types of firearms to be prohibited
  3. Law abiding gun owners should not be disarmed because a few people use a particular type of firearm to commit crimes
  4. There is no such thing as an Assault Weapon
  5. The military uses 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns as well as rifles making any firearm a military style firearm

  The irony - a large number of Americans do not, nor would ever own any type of firearm. Yet, they have no problem deciding what all Americans need or do not need when it comes to firearm ownership. This is all stemmed from a fear of being murdered by someone with a firearm. So their solution is to consolidate all firearms with the State and give the State a monopoly on deadly force. If a gun owner refuses to surrender his weapon to the State, the State will send its agents with firearms to forcibly seized those weapons and possibly kill the owner by using a firearm if they refuse to surrender it.

  Conversely, those who have no issue with firearms or using lawful deadly force would rather go grocery shopping with their AR-15 slung because at least they would have a fighting chance to stop a crazed gunman bent on carrying out the next mass shooting. More guns is the solution. An armed society is polite society.

  This boils down to turning the United States of America into the former Soviet Union or turning the United States of America into the Wild West of the 19th century. The fact is that is a false dichotomy. Those are not are only two options. In addition, that does not mean a compromise is required to satisfy opposing views. There are solutions where all parties leave the negotiation table feeling satisfied.
• 

  road to nowhere

  Truth b known

  I agree but will note that the actual wild west wasn't very wild most of the time. All the notable gunfights can be read about in a couple hours and many modern cities match that bloodshed every year.
• 

  TD

  The fact is that is a false dichotomy.

  It is indeed a false dichotomy, which with respect, I believe you have exaggerated above

  Nobody on either side maintains that "Assault Weapons" do not exist.

  The U.S. Armed Forces define assault weapons as, "...short, compact, selective fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges." (Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide p. 67)

  Modern examples would include the M1A4, AK74M, AK12, HK MG36, SCAR, SAW, RK62 etc., etc., etc.
  

  Not only has civilian ownership of these weapons has been strictly regulated since 1934, the importation of some of these examples is completely illegal.

  The dispute arises because advocates of gun control have appropriated term "assault weapon" as a definition of convenience to suit their agenda.

  It is patently ridiculous to claim that a rifle which the military does not consider to be an assault weapon is in fact intended for warfare, but as with all things, the people who know the least about a subject consider themselves to be the most knowledgeable
• 

  redvip2000

  you consider the fact the M16 was actually developed and made by armour lite you are really splitting hairs if you think there is much difference between an AR-15 and a M-16 carbine . ( or whatever it is called now).

  Yes there is a big difference. The AR 15 is not an assault weapon, you press the trigger and it shoots one bullet. In the state that I live in, an AR 15 can only have a maximum of 10 bullets, the same maximum as a handgun.

  Part of the problem is that the design of the AR 15 looks like a military weapon, but it's just a rifle.

  
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  The dispute arises because advocates of gun control have appropriated term "assault weapon" as a definition of convenience to suit their agenda.

  Exactly. As with “climate change” and “racism”. Even important words like “justice” and “rights” are appropriated to further an agenda.