OT this is how things are handled in WV....

[JoeLion]

This is a very complex issue/problem of which I don’t have a complete answer, however can this country just start with no sales of assault weapons? They are weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

 

[Mile High Lion]

Sounds like the world is a better place because it has one one less scumbag loser. What's the problem?

 

[PSUMichFan]

I am not surprised how emotional this topic is considering what has transpired over the past few days. What I don't understand mentally is what drives mostly adult males to acquire a gun and go on a rampage? I don't know what the "solutions" are to minimize this violence, but it has become very political and probably will be for many years.

 

[Nohow]

This is a very complex issue/problem of which I don’t have a complete answer, however can this country just start with no sales of assault weapons? They are weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

No, we can’t.

 

[Nitt1300]

No, we can’t.

and we won't

 

[Nitt1300]

 

[91Joe95]

This is a very complex issue/problem of which I don’t have a complete answer, however can this country just start with no sales of assault weapons? They are weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

You have to define assault weapon first.

 

[Connorpozlee]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...witter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews
An additional common refrain after a mass shooting, he says, is a call for policies that make it easier for people to carry guns so they can defend themselves. "Well, guess what, the data do not bear that out at all," says Webster. "If anything, it shows higher rates of fatal mass shootings in response to weaker regulations for concealed carry by civilians."

OK. So again, what is the answer?

 

[Nohow]

OK. So again, what is the answer?

Again, given the situation in this country, there is none.

 

[NittPicker]

The other thread was nuked but this one rose from the ashes to take its place.

 

[Steve B]

Number of homicides in Philly for this year will almost certainly surpass the total of all these incidents. The mass shootings get the attention but are not the biggest problem.

 

[WDLion]

Number of homicides in Philly for this year will almost certainly surpass the total of all these incidents. The mass shootings get the attention but are not the biggest problem.

So drug dealers and gang members killing each other are a bigger problem than kids getting killed in schools.

 

[PSUJam]

 

[91Joe95]

The other thread was nuked but this one rose from the ashes to take its place.

Who doesn't like some dirtbag getting taken out? Apparently that has become controversial. Go figure. The OP clearly meant it a little tongue in cheek and as a celebration.

 

[Pizzaboy]

So, the answer to gun violence is more gun violence?

Yup- that does sound like West ByGawd.

You're right Psuro she shouldn't of killed that *******.She should of let him kill 10 or 12 more people instead of killing him.

 

[PSUJam]

shouldn't of

 

[PSUJam]

This is a very complex issue/problem of which I don’t have a complete answer, however can this country just start with no sales of assault weapons? They are weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

 

[PhillyBillyReprise]

Mr. Butler was angry and got a gun for revenge. When he left did he go buy the gun? What if there had been a waiting period for buying the gun? Did he buy it where he had to go through a background check? What if an assault rifle wasn’t available? Finally, to what well regulated militia did he belong?

 

[NittPicker]

Who doesn't like some dirtbag getting taken out? Apparently that has become controversial. Go figure. The OP clearly meant it a little tongue in cheek and as a celebration.

It’s turned into the same thing as the other thread which has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[s1uggo72]

Mr. Butler was angry and got a gun for revenge. When he left did he go buy the gun? What if there had been a waiting period for buying the gun? Did he buy it where he had to go through a background check? What if an assault rifle wasn’t available? Finally, to what well regulated militia did he belong?

Charleston police reported that a man was killed by a woman armed with a handgun after he opened fire on a crowd with an AR-15. The shooter was a convicted felon who could not legally own a firearm.​

Dennis Butler, 37, has been identified as the now deceased gunman. He was known to law enforcement and has been convicted of multiple felonies.

 

[leinbacker]

You have to define assault weapon first.

would it include a rental box truck?

 

[leinbacker]

This is a very complex issue/problem of which I don’t have a complete answer, however can this country just start with no sales of assault weapons? They are weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

And let’s ban the sale of fentanyl too

 

[Metal Mike]

As to gun violence not being the answer what would you do if you were in this situation and did not have a gun. Most would call the police (who have guns) to confront the shooter. The police would attempt to disarm the shooter but in a last resort would have to shoot this person. In either case guns would be the answer to stop gun violence. So, stop with the rape is the answer to rape.

As a gun owner the major problem I have seen is the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws. One shooter in my area was a felon who when arrested with a loaded weapon in his car and did not go to jail. He later killed 3 people. The other major issue is the fact that mentally ill people can buy firearms. Questions on the background check include are you seeing a mental health professional. Some people lie and check the NO block. Mental Health professionals when queried about their patients will not comment and site laws that protect patient privacy. Enforce current laws and change the laws that protect mental health patients.

Last is my take on “Assault Weapons”. The M-16 and AK47 are assault weapons because they can fire on Automatic. That is one trigger pull and multiple rounds are fired. The AR-15 is semi-automatic with one trigger pull firing one round. Automatic weapons are heavily regulated. Even if we ban AR-15 and like weapons, we are still left with semi-automatic rifles that can kill just as many people, but do not look scary. I own a M-1 rifle which is semi-automatic but with a wood stock, no pistol grip, and is not black. Banning AR-15s would not affect my owning an M-1 or similar weapon

 

[leinbacker]

As to gun violence not being the answer what would you do if you were in this situation and did not have a gun. Most would call the police (who have guns) to confront the shooter. The police would attempt to disarm the shooter but in a last resort would have to shoot this person. In either case guns would be the answer to stop gun violence. So, stop with the rape is the answer to rape.

As a gun owner the major problem I have seen is the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws. One shooter in my area was a felon who when arrested with a loaded weapon in his car and did not go to jail. He later killed 3 people. The other major issue is the fact that mentally ill people can buy firearms. Questions on the background check include are you seeing a mental health professional. Some people lie and check the NO block. Mental Health professionals when queried about their patients will not comment and site laws that protect patient privacy. Enforce current laws and change the laws that protect mental health patients.

Last is my take on “Assault Weapons”. The M-16 and AK47 are assault weapons because they can fire on Automatic. That is one trigger pull and multiple rounds are fired. The AR-15 is semi-automatic with one trigger pull firing one round. Automatic weapons are heavily regulated. Even if we ban AR-15 and like weapons, we are still left with semi-automatic rifles that can kill just as many people, but do not look scary. I own a M-1 rifle which is semi-automatic but with a wood stock, no pistol grip, and is not black. Banning AR-15s would not affect my owning an M-1 or similar weapon

seeing a mental health professional should not be a disqualified in itself. Most of those who are mentally ill are not a danger. Maybe the mental health professional should be able to flag a patient, much like a doctor can flag someone with DMV if they shouldn’t be driving.

The background check system is broken. Only a fraction of those that fail a background check are investigated and failing one in itself is most likely a felony. Even fewer are prosecuted.

Agree with “Assault Weapons”, it is a made up term to cause fear with an ignorant public. Automatic weapons like M16s, AK47s are classified as Assault Rifles and are near impossible to own. A revolver can be a semi automatic and can quickly be reloaded with speed loaders.

 

[nittanyfan333]

As a gun owner the major problem I have seen is the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws. One shooter in my area was a felon who when arrested with a loaded weapon in his car and did not go to jail. He later killed 3 people. The other major issue is the fact that mentally ill people can buy firearms. Questions on the background check include are you seeing a mental health professional. Some people lie and check the NO block. Mental Health professionals when queried about their patients will not comment and site laws that protect patient privacy. Enforce current laws and change the laws that protect mental health patients.

I'm in this camp as well. When something happens the common cry is "universal background checks". we already have that. Any firearm you purchase (if the firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer), from a pistol to a hunting rifle, requires a background check. Now, there are situations such as private sales that muddy the water. Honestly, I think any firearm purchased period dot, should require a background check. Further, I think it should require a waiting period to #1, help weed out emotional purchases and #2 (and more importantly) allow for a comprehensive combing of social media accounts of the purchaser to be conducted. I'd also like to see a psychological background check done. When I applied for my CCW permit, I had to pay for a background psych check.

Last is my take on “Assault Weapons”. The M-16 and AK47 are assault weapons because they can fire on Automatic. That is one trigger pull and multiple rounds are fired. The AR-15 is semi-automatic with one trigger pull firing one round. Automatic weapons are heavily regulated. Even if we ban AR-15 and like weapons, we are still left with semi-automatic rifles that can kill just as many people, but do not look scary. I own a M-1 rifle which is semi-automatic but with a wood stock, no pistol grip, and is not black. Banning AR-15s would not affect my owning an M-1 or similar weapon

yup. I have a Ruger 10-22. granted, much smaller caliber than an AR-15, but outside of the caliber size, it's the same action. What exactly is an "assault weapon"? Someone needs to define that, because it's making this whole argument so convoluted.








But here's the issue that no one seems to want to talk about. ENFORCEMENT. Outside of banning all firearms, there's no way to enforce any law that's enacted. it's like speeding. yes, it's technically against the law to speed, but how many of us do it? Bad people will still find a way to buy firearms. there's no way around it. Current background checks rely a lot on integrity. That's a problem, and something that needs to be HONESTLY talked about. If the left side said "look, we don't want to BAN ALL GUNS, but we need to figure out stricter regulation on purchasing and stricter enforcement" and if the right said "ok, we don't want "zero gun laws" outside of the constitution, but we need to figure out a way to help regulate how easy it is to buy a gun and put more into enforcement to help get the guns out of bad peoples hands" I think we'd start to get somewhere. As it is right now, we have a perpetual pendulum swing where people with ZERO experience with firearms shout from the mountaintops to ban all guns, and the gun proponents go to the other extreme of free and clear open carry, and around and around we go.

 

[nittanyfan333]

Automatic weapons like M16s, AK47s are classified as Assault Rifles and are near impossible to own.

and I think therein lies the problem. look at an AR-15 and an M-4 and tell me the difference? In the grand scheme of things, the only difference is an additional position on the select-fire switch. Just like the difference between my Ruger 10-22 and a .22 cal AR-15 platform is the color and grip. At the end of the day, they're the exact same action. but anti-gun folks have lumped them together and that is dishonest. It's like taking the body off of a corvette and puting a civic body on it. The engine, transmission, drivetrain..... all of it is a corvette but it looks like a civic. are you gonna call them both corvettes? We (both sides) need to define "assault weapon" to help get rid of all of this conflating...

I have a few buddies that have Class III licenses, and they've told me some of the requirements of obtaining and keeping that license. hooooooooooly crap, near impossible is spot on. and the cost...

 

[Moogy]

Lol, I don't even own a gun, nor do I want to. That said, I'm perfectly fine with law-abiding citizens having them for much needed defense.

And what does that have to do with your claim that folks are "mourning the death of the assailant"?

 

[Moogy]

OK. So again, what is the answer?

1. Allowing gun manufacturers to be liable for manufacturing/design defects in their products, like every other manufacturer of goods in the country
2. Legislated mandatory additional safety features, such as biometric safeties.
3. A sweeping background check reform, centered around the fact that a gun cannot be sold until a person is affirmatively cleared by all interested parties, and assuring that all databases are connected and have redundancies to double-check each other, with flags set up to prohibit sale until all missing/conflicting information is resolved
4. Limits on magazine capacities, and other features which make gun operation more lethal, more quickly.
5. Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns
6. Mandatory safe storage requirements
7. Better oversight of gun dealers, and the closing of all sale loopholes (online, unlicensed, private transfers, etc.).
8. A continuous focus on sweeping the streets for illegally obtained/held guns
9. Reform based on limiting access to guns due to mental health concerns

Just as a start.

All of these crackdowns wouldn't be as necessary, had we not let the problem get so out of hand, by being so careless, and so beholden to a terrorist organization for commercial gain. The entire culture surrounding guns needs to change. Celebrating the very few times when someone successfully defends themselves with a gun is part of the culture problem. "We need guns to defend ourselves from guns" is a large part of what got us here. Until this brainwashing is stopped, things won't get better. In order to get that one-in-a-million successful self defense with a gun, you need to allow millions upon millions of folks to arm themselves, creating thousands upon thousands of crimes and (intentional and accidental) deaths in the process. It's stupid. It's morally criminal.

Edit: Those focusing on getting "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" off the streets, as a primary tool to combat gun violence, are a huge part of the problem, too. That will do little to nothing, in the grand scheme of things, and if that reform is implemented (without other, more comprehensive measures), the killing will continue, and gun nuts will be even more empowered, screaming out "See!?! More gun legislation hasn't worked!"

 

[91Joe95]

1. Allowing gun manufacturers to be liable for manufacturing/design defects in their products, like every other manufacturer of goods in the country
2. Legislated mandatory additional safety features, such as biometric safeties.
3. A sweeping background check reform, centered around the fact that a gun cannot be sold until a person is affirmatively cleared by all interested parties, and assuring that all databases are connected and have redundancies to double-check each other, with flags set up to prohibit sale until all missing/conflicting information is resolved
4. Limits on magazine capacities, and other features which make gun operation more lethal, more quickly.
5. Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns
6. Mandatory safe storage requirements
7. Better oversight of gun dealers, and the closing of all sale loopholes (online, unlicensed, private transfers, etc.).
8. A continuous focus on sweeping that streets for illegally obtained/held guns
9. Reform based on limiting access to guns due to mental health concerns

Just as a start.

All of these crackdowns wouldn't be as necessary, had we not let the problem get so out of hand, by being so careless, and so beholden to a terrorist organization for commercial gain. The entire culture surrounding guns needs to change. Celebrating the very few times when someone successfully defends themselves with a gun is part of the culture problem. "We need guns to defend ourselves from guns" is a large part of what got us here. Until this brainwashing is stopped, things won't get better. In order to get that one-in-a-million successful self defense with a gun, you need to allow millions upon millions of folks to arm themselves, creating thousands upon thousands of crimes and (intentional and accidental) deaths in the process. It's stupid. It's morally criminal.

Edit: Those focusing on getting "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" off the streets, as a primary tool to combat gun violence, are a huge part of the problem, too. That will do little to nothing, in the grand scheme of things, and if that reform is implemented (without other, more comprehensive measures), the killing will continue, and gun nuts will be even more empowered, screaming out "See!?! More gun legislation hasn't worked!"

If you dropped some of the silly rhetoric you would probably convince more people instead of alienating them. I actually think there are several items in your list that have merit and are doable.

 

[Moogy]

If you dropped some of the silly rhetoric you would probably convince more people instead of alienating them. I actually think there are several items in your list that have merit and are doable.

There is no silly rhetoric within my post.

 

[Midnighter]

and I think therein lies the problem. look at an AR-15 and an M-4 and tell me the difference? In the grand scheme of things, the only difference is an additional position on the select-fire switch. Just like the difference between my Ruger 10-22 and a .22 cal AR-15 platform is the color and grip. At the end of the day, they're the exact same action. but anti-gun folks have lumped them together and that is dishonest. It's like taking the body off of a corvette and puting a civic body on it. The engine, transmission, drivetrain..... all of it is a corvette but it looks like a civic. are you gonna call them both corvettes? We (both sides) need to define "assault weapon" to help get rid of all of this conflating...

I have a few buddies that have Class III licenses, and they've told me some of the requirements of obtaining and keeping that license. hooooooooooly crap, near impossible is spot on. and the cost...

I'm trying to stay out of this but want to note the word 'assault' is a massive red herring designed to do exactly what most politicians love, which is muddle the issue with semantics. There is no difference between an M4 and an AR15 - both are military grade weapons (which is the truly defining element of a weapon that should not be available to the general public) that can fire as fast as you can pull a trigger. I was an expert marksmen in the Army - consistently. My issued weapon was an M16A2. You are taught to NEVER fire in three round burst (it does not have full auto) unless laying down suppresive/cover fire. You are taught to fire a single shot, as fast as you can, because that is most deadly. Military grade weapons should not be availabe to the public - at all. There is zero reason to have a AR15 or something similar. If you think your AR15 or whatever is going to stop the government from getting your guns, as David Koresh how that worked out. Part of the reason the cops in Texas were hesitant to respond to the school shooting this week is becuase they were afraid of getting shot likely because they were badly outgunned (I always chuckled at officers when they were issued their M9's - f*ck that). If no one will seriously limit/regulate firearms at least to the same extent as owning/operating a car, then the government needs to provide the funding for every school in America to have an armed on duty security team, cameras, motion detectors, and advanced 'panic room' facilities for teachers/students. The problem there is that once schools are secure, shooters will go back to malls and other soft targets. It's an endless cycle of 'no win'. I saw Ted Cruz interviewed by the BBC and he said 'None of the bills those Democrats want to enact would have prevented this shooting.' So, Ted *does* knows what it takes to prevent shootings like this, but won't sponsor a bill to do it. Lovely. /rant

 

[nittanyfan333]

There is no difference between an M4 and an AR15 - both are military grade weapons (which is the truly defining element of a weapon that should not be available to the general public) that can fire as fast as you can pull a trigger.

If we are talking about the commonly known AR15 (Colt's design for public sale) and NOT the original ARMALITE 15 that predated the M16, then yes there is a difference. Colt's AR15 is for public purchase and use is semi-auto, while the M4 carbine is select fire (S-1-3). But this gets to the argument, which is what do you define as "military grade weapon"? Is your definition of a "military grade weapon" semi-automatic? If that's the limiting factor, then should ban all .22LRs that are semi auto? what about shotguns? Do we go down the path of pistols? Not a direct shot at you (punn.... intended?) but a question that i think needs to be answered by everyone

Normally i'm not one to go down the rabbit hole, but in his instance i think words mean things and we need definitions because the "assault weapon" argument is getting really old. And if we're gonna say "military grade weapons" should be available to the general public (which I agree.... GENERAL public) then we need to have a clear line of deliniation of what these things are.

 

[Midnighter]

If we are talking about the commonly known AR15 (Colt's design for public sale) and NOT the original ARMALITE 15 that predated the M16, then yes there is a difference. Colt's AR15 is for public purchase and use is semi-auto, while the M4 carbine is select fire (S-1-3). But this gets to the argument, which is what do you define as "military grade weapon"? Is your definition of a "military grade weapon" semi-automatic? If that's the limiting factor, then should ban all .22LRs that are semi auto? what about shotguns? Do we go down the path of pistols? Not a direct shot at you (punn.... intended?) but a question that i think needs to be answered by everyone

Normally i'm not one to go down the rabbit hole, but in his instance i think words mean things and we need definitions because the "assault weapon" argument is getting really old. And if we're gonna say "military grade weapons" should be available to the general public (which I agree.... GENERAL public) then we need to have a clear line of deliniation of what these things are.

I'm talking rate of fire, magazine size, and caliber - that is military grade IMO (semi/full auto doesn't matter to me - firing as fast as you can pull a trigger is just as effective as full auto and deadlier IMO). And I never said 'ban all of them' - just make them a privilege to purchase and own. Rifles are far more accurate and have bigger rounds than pistols, but sure, pistols are just as effective/deadly in the right circumstances (mostly becuase of magazine capacity and tight quarters). I think owning firearms is a right but also a privilege - we should act like it. Not have things like loopholes to avoid background checks for private sellers.

Look - most gun owners in America (by a whopping majority) are safe and careful. I'd say the same thing about most people who bought codeine when you could buy it over the counter in Tylenol. But, if you mix 1 pound of sh*t into 10 pounds of ice cream, it's all sh*t. We need to adjust our thinking around firearm ownership to catch up with today's issues.

 

[PSUJam]

Here's an idea: Treat ammunition the way prescription drugs are treated and tracked. Black market ammo would be treated as a serious felony. Firearms aren't without ammo. There's no reason for anyone to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo.

 

[leinbacker]

1. Allowing gun manufacturers to be liable for manufacturing/design defects in their products, like every other manufacturer of goods in the country
2. Legislated mandatory additional safety features, such as biometric safeties.
3. A sweeping background check reform, centered around the fact that a gun cannot be sold until a person is affirmatively cleared by all interested parties, and assuring that all databases are connected and have redundancies to double-check each other, with flags set up to prohibit sale until all missing/conflicting information is resolved
4. Limits on magazine capacities, and other features which make gun operation more lethal, more quickly.
5. Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns
6. Mandatory safe storage requirements
7. Better oversight of gun dealers, and the closing of all sale loopholes (online, unlicensed, private transfers, etc.).
8. A continuous focus on sweeping the streets for illegally obtained/held guns
9. Reform based on limiting access to guns due to mental health concerns

Just as a start.

All of these crackdowns wouldn't be as necessary, had we not let the problem get so out of hand, by being so careless, and so beholden to a terrorist organization for commercial gain. The entire culture surrounding guns needs to change. Celebrating the very few times when someone successfully defends themselves with a gun is part of the culture problem. "We need guns to defend ourselves from guns" is a large part of what got us here. Until this brainwashing is stopped, things won't get better. In order to get that one-in-a-million successful self defense with a gun, you need to allow millions upon millions of folks to arm themselves, creating thousands upon thousands of crimes and (intentional and accidental) deaths in the process. It's stupid. It's morally criminal.

Edit: Those focusing on getting "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" off the streets, as a primary tool to combat gun violence, are a huge part of the problem, too. That will do little to nothing, in the grand scheme of things, and if that reform is implemented (without other, more comprehensive measures), the killing will continue, and gun nuts will be even more empowered, screaming out "See!?! More gun legislation hasn't worked!"

will these apply to criminals and gang bangers?

 

[leinbacker]

Here's an idea: Treat ammunition the way prescription drugs are treated and tracked. Firearms aren't without ammo. There's no reason for anyone to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo.

it’s not too difficult to manufacture ammo at home, plus it would be easy to smuggle into the country, like fentanyl.

At what point do we focus on the individual rather than further restrain the law abiding?

 

[NittPicker]

Agree with “Assault Weapons”, it is a made up term to cause fear with an ignorant public. Automatic weapons like M16s, AK47s are classified as Assault Rifles and are near impossible to own. A revolver can be a semi automatic and can quickly be reloaded with speed loaders.

It's obtuse to imply a revolver could be considered an assault weapon. There are reasons why they're not the weapon of choice for murderers in a mass casualty event.

 

[PSUJam]

it’s not too difficult to manufacture ammo at home, plus it would be easy to smuggle into the country, like fentanyl.

At what point do we focus on the individual rather than further restrain the law abiding?

I used to reload my own when I hunted as well. Track the components like gunpowder and bullets in the database as well.

This model actually does focus in the individual and could actually help the ammunition shortage the politicians cause.

Also, right now criminals can walk into a retail store and buy ammo for an illegal firearm. This would put an end to that.

 

[leinbacker]

It's obtuse to imply a revolver could be considered an assault weapon. There are reasons why they're not the weapon of choice for murderers in a mass casualty event.

the problem is there is no definition for ‘assault weapon’. If you define it as a semi-auto then revolvers would fall into the definition.

you also brought up mass casualty events, so background checks before renting a UHaul?

 

[NittPicker]

the problem is there is no definition for ‘assault weapon’. If you define it as a semi-auto then revolvers would fall into the definition.

you also brought up mass casualty events, so background checks before renting a UHaul?

The complaints about no definition of assault weapon are simply an excuse for inaction. It's like, "Oh well. There's no definition so there's nothing anyone can do ."

As for my mention of mass casualty events, good job with your attempt to ignore the context. I wrote there's a reason revolvers aren't the weapon of choice. People who use firearms opt principally for high capacity long guns. Please give me some examples of mass casualty events in which someone blew up a truck. I'll start - Oklahoma City. You can take it from there and give me a ratio of firearms incidents vs. explosives incidents. I'm always amused by the diversionary tactic of mentioning rental trucks as if they're responsible for deaths at synagogues, supermarkets, and elementary schools. If you think it's such a problem, maybe background checks should be done on anyone who wants to rent a vehicle.