OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[ThisGuyFawkes]

Really? Because back in 2007, just as an example, the asian kid at virginia tech killed 32 people with handguns? So I think what you are proposing really is banning semi automatic weapons? I mean its hard to have this discussion like this.

Do you think he would have been able to kill more people if he had an assault rifle instead of handguns? I guess we don't know, but instead of picking out 1 incident from 15+ years ago that helps your thesis, look at the overall picture. Recently, its almost always assault rifles because they kill more people quickly.

A genuine question to all assault rifle owners. Why did you purchase it and how do you use it?

Why would he have been able to kill more, lets just say if you're indoors and shooting almost point blank, why? There's a lot of mass shootings that did not involve an AR-15 or a rifle even. I just don't see any good data to show me why just banning an ar-15 is going to help with this issue.

There are a lot of gun enthusiasts and the AR-15 is a style of rifle that is very customizable. People like that. Whether it be for hunting(overkill imo) or just sport shooting. If you aren't a gun enthusiast or hunter or sport shooter or someone who wants one to defend your home, sure, I understand your wanting to just ban them. It seems like the easy answer. But really its not the answer. We need to dig deeper, its not that easy.

And to someone saying why do I need an AR to defend my home? I don't. But some people want that style of firearm. Its cool
And yes being able to defend your home is a legit reason to have a firearm whether you know how to hold or shoot one or not. If you don't like guns then don't get one but don't force that choice on others that want them for the right reasons.

I own a handgun for home defense. I don't think that's an issue. But semi-automatic assault rifles are completely unnecessary while leading to more deaths. Like I said previously, they're only shiny toys. So you want the right to own a deadly toy, but how many lives is it worth?

Just some statistics. Semi-automatic rifles were used about half as much as handguns in all mass shootings since 1985 (99 to 52), but rifles include 4 out of 5 of the most deadly (Las Vegas strip, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, and Texas First Baptist Church).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

On average, mass shooting deaths from rifles is 3.8 while handguns is 2.3. An extra 1.5 people per event. Why? So people can feel cool or do some sport shooting every once in awhile?

[edededtut]

From a cause of death stand point, they probably aren't in the top 1000.

It’s the number one cause of death for children.

[moorhosj]

The guy was a nut job that owned guns.
The police were called on him in 2019 for attempted suicide. That seems like an issue.
The police were then called again on him in 2019 for threatening to kill his family. That seems like an issue.
That same year, his father sponsored his FOID card which allowed him to purchase weapons. That seems like an issue.
Have you seen his videos and art? Tons of issues that should have been addressed LONG before he got to this point.

Precedent before 2008? You mean like how fully automatic weapons used to be easily available (pre 1986)?

And NO, you don't have to go through a complex process to buy or drive a car. You don't need insurance or a license or emissions tests. Think farm trucks (nor do I see anything in the Bill of Rights about car ownship....and somehow, all of those requirements don't stop some people from driving without a license or insurance or update tags, etc).

You have to be 21 to buy a handgun. In Illinois, you need a FOID as well. Do you think that stops all of the "teens" shooting each other?

Yeah, drunk driving is illegal. You know what else is illegal? Murdering people.
When a gun MURDERS someone, it is being operated improperly.

There is one amendment in the Bill of Rights that explicitly mentions regulation. It seems to be oddly overlooked in these discussions, but it’s right at the beginning. The Constitution literally tells us to regulate guns.

A gun exists to end life, there isn’t another purpose. Any other use it serves (“protection”) is directly because of its ability as a life-ending device.

A farm truck isn’t a street-legal car, if you want to drive on public streets (I.e. the overwhelming majority of streets) you do need to follow all the regulations mentioned. That you have to reach for an explanation of “farm trucks”, a clear exception to the rule, kind of proves my point on how much harder it is to legally buy and operate a car compared to a gun.

[moorhosj]

From a cause of death stand point, they probably aren't in the top 1000.

It’s the number one cause of death for children.

Not sure it’s #1, but it’s certainly higher (36x higher) than our peers. Must be because they don’t have depression, video games, mental health, or poverty in other countries.

The rate of firearm deaths among children and adolescents was higher in the United States than in all other high-income countries and low to-middle-income countries with available 2016 data. The rate in the United States was 36.5 times as high as the overall rate observed in 12 other high-income countries (4.02 per 100,000 [95% CI, 3.88 to 4.16] vs. 0.11 per 100,000 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.15]).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637963/

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Do you think he would have been able to kill more people if he had an assault rifle instead of handguns? I guess we don't know, but instead of picking out 1 incident from 15+ years ago that helps your thesis, look at the overall picture. Recently, its almost always assault rifles because they kill more people quickly.

A genuine question to all assault rifle owners. Why did you purchase it and how do you use it?

Why would he have been able to kill more, lets just say if you're indoors and shooting almost point blank, why? There's a lot of mass shootings that did not involve an AR-15 or a rifle even. I just don't see any good data to show me why just banning an ar-15 is going to help with this issue.

There are a lot of gun enthusiasts and the AR-15 is a style of rifle that is very customizable. People like that. Whether it be for hunting(overkill imo) or just sport shooting. If you aren't a gun enthusiast or hunter or sport shooter or someone who wants one to defend your home, sure, I understand your wanting to just ban them. It seems like the easy answer. But really its not the answer. We need to dig deeper, its not that easy.

And to someone saying why do I need an AR to defend my home? I don't. But some people want that style of firearm. Its cool
And yes being able to defend your home is a legit reason to have a firearm whether you know how to hold or shoot one or not. If you don't like guns then don't get one but don't force that choice on others that want them for the right reasons.

I own a handgun for home defense. I don't think that's an issue. But semi-automatic assault rifles are completely unnecessary while leading to more deaths. Like I said previously, they're only shiny toys. So you want the right to own a deadly toy, but how many lives is it worth?

Just some statistics. Semi-automatic rifles were used about half as much as handguns in all mass shootings since 1985 (99 to 52), but rifles include 4 out of 5 of the most deadly (Las Vegas strip, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, and Texas First Baptist Church).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

On average, mass shooting deaths from rifles is 3.8 while handguns is 2.3. An extra 1.5 people per event. Why? So people can feel cool or do some sport shooting every once in awhile?

Once again, we are focusing on the firearms. Why aren't we discussing the motives or the possible abusive history of the shooters? I already gave the example of the Virginia Tech shooter who took 32 people's lives with 2 handguns. You want to focus on taking something away which will still leave these people other choices to do what they intend to do. You can also turn a handgun into an "assault" style weapon.

Look I'm all for finding answers to help the cause here, I just don't believe this is going to resolve anything.

[Ctownbulls]

Why would he have been able to kill more, lets just say if you're indoors and shooting almost point blank, why? There's a lot of mass shootings that did not involve an AR-15 or a rifle even. I just don't see any good data to show me why just banning an ar-15 is going to help with this issue.

There are a lot of gun enthusiasts and the AR-15 is a style of rifle that is very customizable. People like that. Whether it be for hunting(overkill imo) or just sport shooting. If you aren't a gun enthusiast or hunter or sport shooter or someone who wants one to defend your home, sure, I understand your wanting to just ban them. It seems like the easy answer. But really its not the answer. We need to dig deeper, its not that easy.

And to someone saying why do I need an AR to defend my home? I don't. But some people want that style of firearm. Its cool
And yes being able to defend your home is a legit reason to have a firearm whether you know how to hold or shoot one or not. If you don't like guns then don't get one but don't force that choice on others that want them for the right reasons.

I own a handgun for home defense. I don't think that's an issue. But semi-automatic assault rifles are completely unnecessary while leading to more deaths. Like I said previously, they're only shiny toys. So you want the right to own a deadly toy, but how many lives is it worth?

Just some statistics. Semi-automatic rifles were used about half as much as handguns in all mass shootings since 1985 (99 to 52), but rifles include 4 out of 5 of the most deadly (Las Vegas strip, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, and Texas First Baptist Church).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

On average, mass shooting deaths from rifles is 3.8 while handguns is 2.3. An extra 1.5 people per event. Why? So people can feel cool or do some sport shooting every once in awhile?

Once again, we are focusing on the firearms. Why aren't we discussing the motives or the possible abusive history of the shooters? I already gave the example of the Virginia Tech shooter who took 32 people's lives with 2 handguns. You want to focus on taking something away which will still leave these people other choices to do what they intend to do. You can also turn a handgun into an "assault" style weapon.

Look I'm all for finding answers to help the cause here, I just don't believe this is going to resolve anything.

Maybe just ban guns in general.

[Michael Jackson]

It appears that Crimo should maybe have been institutionalized when he threatened to kill everyone and the cops had to take all hiis knives and swords away. Of course they are saying they had no power to do more. I'm not sure if I believe that, and if it is true, I definitely think that should be changed. Talking about killing everyone should get you a direct ride to an insane asylum. Yes, we need to start making more widespread use of those again, sadly.

I don’t think that the way the system is setup that they can do more honestly. Asylums don’t exist anymore in the sense people think. There are not enough resources to house and treat these people. TBH the treatment programs aren’t overly effective either. Realistically, even if Crimio was “committed” it might be for a month, he will go to group and will be suggested an out patient treatment program. Then he is back out on the street. There is not an easy solution to this either. You can’t just go locking people up long term for having a breakdown.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I own a handgun for home defense. I don't think that's an issue. But semi-automatic assault rifles are completely unnecessary while leading to more deaths. Like I said previously, they're only shiny toys. So you want the right to own a deadly toy, but how many lives is it worth?

Just some statistics. Semi-automatic rifles were used about half as much as handguns in all mass shootings since 1985 (99 to 52), but rifles include 4 out of 5 of the most deadly (Las Vegas strip, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, and Texas First Baptist Church).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

On average, mass shooting deaths from rifles is 3.8 while handguns is 2.3. An extra 1.5 people per event. Why? So people can feel cool or do some sport shooting every once in awhile?

Once again, we are focusing on the firearms. Why aren't we discussing the motives or the possible abusive history of the shooters? I already gave the example of the Virginia Tech shooter who took 32 people's lives with 2 handguns. You want to focus on taking something away which will still leave these people other choices to do what they intend to do. You can also turn a handgun into an "assault" style weapon.

Look I'm all for finding answers to help the cause here, I just don't believe this is going to resolve anything.

Maybe just ban guns in general.

And I've already touched on that earlier in this thread. I don't care about amendments. But what I do care about is something I grew up doing which is hunting. Even more important to me is protecting my home and my wife and 2 young children. Not everyone gets to live in a neighborhood where there is no worry of home invasions. You ban guns and you take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and thats it. You just gave everyone that could give 2 craps about laws and decide to illegally own a gun, and yes they will, free run over the law abiding citizen. Cops won't save you, they will show up after it all happens to write up a report. Heck even if they do show up we saw what happened in Uvalde.

[Bullflip]

I own a handgun for home defense. I don't think that's an issue. But semi-automatic assault rifles are completely unnecessary while leading to more deaths. Like I said previously, they're only shiny toys. So you want the right to own a deadly toy, but how many lives is it worth?

Just some statistics. Semi-automatic rifles were used about half as much as handguns in all mass shootings since 1985 (99 to 52), but rifles include 4 out of 5 of the most deadly (Las Vegas strip, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, and Texas First Baptist Church).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

On average, mass shooting deaths from rifles is 3.8 while handguns is 2.3. An extra 1.5 people per event. Why? So people can feel cool or do some sport shooting every once in awhile?

Once again, we are focusing on the firearms. Why aren't we discussing the motives or the possible abusive history of the shooters? I already gave the example of the Virginia Tech shooter who took 32 people's lives with 2 handguns. You want to focus on taking something away which will still leave these people other choices to do what they intend to do. You can also turn a handgun into an "assault" style weapon.

Look I'm all for finding answers to help the cause here, I just don't believe this is going to resolve anything.

Maybe just ban guns in general.

This is not realistic. Maybe look at banning certain type of guns. What should happen is have stronger background checks

[Tetlak]

I am so sick of this "there's no easy answer!" cop out.

We live in a society and era with more social stressors than ever before. You want troubled young people to get help? Guess what, health care isn't free. People don't have simplified and cheap access to mental health professionals, and if they do, there is still a stigma about seeking mental health with the boomers, and young males specifically.

Wake the **** up.

The only thing we can actually do is ban these things, but we live in such an individualistic society that it will never happen. My rights to own a lethal weapon are more important than your rights to not get murdered in public by said weapon. My rights >> your rights. This nation has always been this way, and always will.

Before you start preaching about needing guns to protect you from the big bad government, it's 2022. Guns aren't protecting you from a military that invests more money than entire nations GDP into drones and other tech. You wont even have soldiers to shoot at. My lord

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I am so sick of this "there's no easy answer!" cop out.

We live in a society and era with more social stressors than ever before. You want troubled young people to get help? Guess what, health care isn't free. People don't have simplified and cheap access to mental health professionals, and if they do, there is still a stigma about seeking mental health with the boomers, and young males specifically.

Wake the **** up.

The only thing we can actually do is ban these things, but we live in such an individualistic society that it will never happen. My rights to own a lethal weapon are more important than your rights to not get murdered in public by said weapon. My rights >> your rights. This nation has always been this way, and always will.

Before you start preaching about needing guns to protect you from the big bad government, it's 2022. Guns aren't protecting you from a military that invests more money than entire nations GDP into drones and other tech. You wont even have soldiers to shoot at. My lord

Well I never personally ever said or even thought of having a firearm to protect me from the government. I don't care about rights or amendments or the left or right. I care about my family. You can't just ban guns and I've already given my reasons. It won't work in this country sorry. Any other suggestions?

[Betta Bulleavit]

Why does anyone need an AR-15 in our modern society? The only real purpose of that weapon is to kill a lot of people quickly. A handgun is more than enough for home protection, unless you believe that a Mexican cartel has a vendetta against you. Assault rifles are just shiny toys for adult men. They serve no other purpose, and their easy availability means that more people die.

Yes, one of these young men could also just run their car into a crowd or use some other form of weapon, but the numbers show that it's mostly assault rifles doing the work. Banning assault rifles will almost certainly reduce the amount of casualties from these incidents. The only reason anyone would argue against this is because they value their toys more than human lives.

Also, unpopular opinion, but the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. It was created 250 years ago when the US barely had a standing army and no police service, and guns took 2 minutes to reload. The fact that it hasn't been updated over the centuries as weapons have evolved is a shame.

I agree with this post in its totality. If one cannot draw the distinction between weapons of defense and weapons of mass casualty, then it’s really difficult to have a productive conversation on this topic. And I say this as a gun owner myself.

When all else fails, just think about it like this…

If a person finds themselves in a situation where an AR 15 style weapon is their best means of self defense, they’ve either been living a really dark life that’s akin to some Hollywood production OR….you’re looking to do more than just self-defense. It’s really that simple.

[1985Bear]

Believe it or not, this is a civil discussion which I appreciate. It would be interesting to hear some of the pro gun voices on this thread tell us what they think should be done to curb gun violence.

Do you think it is even a problem that needs addressing?

What rules would you like to see implemented?

If a republican candidate ever ran on curbing gun violence vs a no changes candidate, would you ever vote for them?

I have 3 teenage kids who have to go through mass shooter drills for the past 10 years. It’s disgusting and for me, is a low point in my view of America.

Democrats have not presented taking all the guns away. No one I know thinks that is what should happen, Not even close. They try small things that don’t get passed that typically have like 80% approval on both sides of the aisle. That is not representative government.

I read through the TN laws to buy. But we have open state borders so our rules in IL don’t apply there and vice versa.

What I would like to see:
National database of all guns for ATF and law enforcement- if you don’t know who has guns, how can you check on their mental health. There is no such database, ATF is purposefully understaffed and republicans have passed laws saying no federal funds can be spent on any gun research. Yay?

National Background checks through ATF (criminal and mental health), waiting periods, age limits on certain guns.

Convicted Violent criminals (felons) have all their guns taken away. (Registry required) - not hunters, good guys, etc.

Limit of number of guns a person can buy (is 50 a fair #) in order to stop straw purchasing. Collectors are different than the gun show guy buying all he can in TN to sell to gangs in Chicago.

Mental Health - tricky. If you are prescribed antibiotics psychotic medication should you be able to buy guns? Again, a medical database would be needed (would be effective but highly unlikely). The gun side keeps saying mental health, society, dads at home, Jesus are the reason but have offered zero solutions on how to address those concerns. If I go to the Gap, and am checking out, they ask if I would like to open a Gap credit card? If yes, they do a quick credit check and if denied , they just say it’s denied and someone will send you a letter saying why. Why not do that with gun sales and mental health? It’s pie in the sky stuff and I think there is much that could be done, but I’m looking at anything that can stop us from leading the world in murdering each other.
The worst stat you can be a leader in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

Why does anyone need an AR-15 in our modern society? The only real purpose of that weapon is to kill a lot of people quickly. A handgun is more than enough for home protection, unless you believe that a Mexican cartel has a vendetta against you. Assault rifles are just shiny toys for adult men. They serve no other purpose, and their easy availability means that more people die.

Yes, one of these young men could also just run their car into a crowd or use some other form of weapon, but the numbers show that it's mostly assault rifles doing the work. Banning assault rifles will almost certainly reduce the amount of casualties from these incidents. The only reason anyone would argue against this is because they value their toys more than human lives.

Also, unpopular opinion, but the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. It was created 250 years ago when the US barely had a standing army and no police service, and guns took 2 minutes to reload. The fact that it hasn't been updated over the centuries as weapons have evolved is a shame.

I agree with this post in its totality. If one cannot draw the distinction between weapons of defense and weapons of mass casualty, then it’s really difficult to have a productive conversation on this topic. And I say this as a gun owner myself.

When all else fails, just think about it like this…

If a person finds themselves in a situation where an AR 15 style weapon is their best means of self defense, they’ve either been living a really dark life that’s akin to some Hollywood production OR….you’re looking to do more than just self-defense. It’s really that simple.

I don't think anyone here is saying they need an AR-15 to defend themselves. The argument about needing for self defense was in response to people just saying lets ban all guns.

But banning just an AR-15 does what? There are other semi-automatic rifles and handguns. It is possible to kill a large number of people using any of these other firearms. So why just ban the AR-15?

[Betta Bulleavit]

Why does anyone need an AR-15 in our modern society? The only real purpose of that weapon is to kill a lot of people quickly. A handgun is more than enough for home protection, unless you believe that a Mexican cartel has a vendetta against you. Assault rifles are just shiny toys for adult men. They serve no other purpose, and their easy availability means that more people die.

Yes, one of these young men could also just run their car into a crowd or use some other form of weapon, but the numbers show that it's mostly assault rifles doing the work. Banning assault rifles will almost certainly reduce the amount of casualties from these incidents. The only reason anyone would argue against this is because they value their toys more than human lives.

Also, unpopular opinion, but the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. It was created 250 years ago when the US barely had a standing army and no police service, and guns took 2 minutes to reload. The fact that it hasn't been updated over the centuries as weapons have evolved is a shame.

I agree with this post in its totality. If one cannot draw the distinction between weapons of defense and weapons of mass casualty, then it’s really difficult to have a productive conversation on this topic. And I say this as a gun owner myself.

When all else fails, just think about it like this…

If a person finds themselves in a situation where an AR 15 style weapon is their best means of self defense, they’ve either been living a really dark life that’s akin to some Hollywood production OR….you’re looking to do more than just self-defense. It’s really that simple.

I don't think anyone here is saying they need an AR-15 to defend themselves. The argument about needing for self defense was in response to people just saying lets ban all guns.

But banning just an AR-15 does what? There are other semi-automatic rifles and handguns. It is possible to kill a large number of people using any of these other firearms. So why just ban the AR-15?

The AR-15 is designed for mass casualty. And while it may not be the ONLY gun that is capable of that, it does seem to be the tool of choice is a large number of these mass shootings. This is likely due to the fact that they are so easily accessible and very easy to use/learn how to use. While it may not bring these events to a complete halt, it would be a huge step in the right direction.

[MrSparkle]

Everyone wants to say “fix mental health care”, yet the pro-gun party also happens to be the “don’t fix health care” party, which results in a stalemate.

The other reason the mental health argument is broken, is because most people with mental health syndromes are actually harmless.

I’d categorize most murderers as sociopaths, who feel no emotional remorse for inflicting pain on others or themselves. These people exist, and they lie with no remorse. In fact the military would do mental profiles and specifically choose these people to groom as assassins, spies, or frontline killers.

So they operate in a way that deliberately takes advantage of other people’s naiveness (in this case, his parents and the police checking on him for the previous charge). It is impossible to tell what’s really going on in the kid’s head, but he sure isn’t crying about other people’s pain or unable to hold back tears or control their sadness. Is it mental health, or is he an emotionless bastard seeking a thrill that nothing can fill?

It’s more complicated than “fix mental health.” Mental health is a rabbit hole. My family had a stalker, and believe me- things gets complicated very fast and there is basically nothing the police or law can do until somebody gets hurt or dies.

You can post the most cryptic video online ever, but we are a country that preserves the right to a fair trial. GOP/NRA’s cry for mental health is just another precursor tactic to justify and abuse “pre-crime.” As if they can make a safe judgment call on who will or won’t commit a crime.

Complete BS if you ask me. Ban efficient murder weapons- the easiest solution that nobody wants to accept. With our looming complete GOP takeover… Won’t happen, so onto the next tragedy. All you can do is keep your guard up when in public gatherings and choose your functions wisely.

[Dresden]

I own a handgun for home defense. I don't think that's an issue. But semi-automatic assault rifles are completely unnecessary while leading to more deaths. Like I said previously, they're only shiny toys. So you want the right to own a deadly toy, but how many lives is it worth?

Just some statistics. Semi-automatic rifles were used about half as much as handguns in all mass shootings since 1985 (99 to 52), but rifles include 4 out of 5 of the most deadly (Las Vegas strip, Orlando nightclub, Sandy Hook, and Texas First Baptist Church).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

On average, mass shooting deaths from rifles is 3.8 while handguns is 2.3. An extra 1.5 people per event. Why? So people can feel cool or do some sport shooting every once in awhile?

Once again, we are focusing on the firearms. Why aren't we discussing the motives or the possible abusive history of the shooters? I already gave the example of the Virginia Tech shooter who took 32 people's lives with 2 handguns. You want to focus on taking something away which will still leave these people other choices to do what they intend to do. You can also turn a handgun into an "assault" style weapon.

Look I'm all for finding answers to help the cause here, I just don't believe this is going to resolve anything.

Maybe just ban guns in general.

Bingo! It works- numerous other countries have just about banned guns. Or they have put very stringent regulations on owning one. And it works- it's like a science experiment- you can take multiple nations, and have strict gun control laws in most of them, and very few in another, and then check the results. The data is very clear on this. You can even look at the number of gun deaths by state in the US- it correlates very closely to how strict the state's gun laws are. this isn't rocket science- there are ways to stop this through regulation, but people just don't want to do it.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

I agree with this post in its totality. If one cannot draw the distinction between weapons of defense and weapons of mass casualty, then it’s really difficult to have a productive conversation on this topic. And I say this as a gun owner myself.

When all else fails, just think about it like this…

If a person finds themselves in a situation where an AR 15 style weapon is their best means of self defense, they’ve either been living a really dark life that’s akin to some Hollywood production OR….you’re looking to do more than just self-defense. It’s really that simple.

I don't think anyone here is saying they need an AR-15 to defend themselves. The argument about needing for self defense was in response to people just saying lets ban all guns.

But banning just an AR-15 does what? There are other semi-automatic rifles and handguns. It is possible to kill a large number of people using any of these other firearms. So why just ban the AR-15?

The AR-15 is designed for mass casualty. And while it may not be the ONLY gun that is capable of that, it does seem to be the tool of choice is a large number of these mass shootings. This is likely due to the fact that they are so easily accessible and very easy to use/learn how to use. While it may not bring these events to a complete halt, it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Yeah, that is a problem, they need to be harder to get.

But lets say we ban Ar-15's. Then the next shooting which we know there will be they will use a Ruger mini 14 with extended mag. I mean we can get that easy right? Then the next shooting they used a glock 23 and had like 10 mags to swap out. Maybe we just need to make all firearms more difficult to obtain. And how do we keep the currently owned firearms from getting into the wrong hands? Are we just turning in firearms every time theres a mass shooting with one that you own? I just don't get the full plan for this.

I understand we need to do anything that helps but we have to look all the way down the sight. Its not as easy as just banning an AR-15.

[dougthonus]

From a cause of death stand point, they probably aren't in the top 1000.

It’s the number one cause of death for children.

I explicitly said that focusing on mass shootings is a red herring, because the total number of deaths from them is irrelevant compared to other causes and that if you wanted to focus on gun deaths, you would need to focus on other areas such as suicide or violent crime (though accidental deaths which is what you are talking about, would be another area in the non mass shooting area).

[panthermark]

A genuine question to all assault rifle owners. Why did you purchase it and how do you use it?

I will take that bait.
But first, I will point out that it is a loaded question.
I don't own an assault rifle via the military definition (that would be select fire). If you want to go by the 94 AWB definition, than you would understand that an assault style weapon is STILL just a mag fed, semi automatic rifle with cosmetic features that seem to scare people (keep this in mind for later). The 1994 ban didn't change anything because none of the cosmetic features had an impact on any of the capabilities of weapons like the AR-15.

I used to be really hard FUDD until I actually admitted that I understood the above, and stopped trying to apply gun laws based on my own "feelz". I actually dove in, and began to understand why the AR-15 in particular is so popular.

1. The design has been around for over 60 years. It has been through multiple wars, and has become a proven and reliable weapon.
2. The particular design, is lightweight with low-recoil (depending on configuration).
3. The particular design is more of a platform, than a weapon. I think a lot of non-shooters don't fully grasp this. One of the key reasons to its popularity, is because it is a MODULAR platform.
4. Due to its adoption with the US military (NATO 5.56 ammo/civilian .223 ammo), it means there is a lot of ammo made for it, making the ammo inexpensive.
5. With the correct configuration, the inexpensive (and very small 55gr full metal jacket round) can punch way above its weight.
5. Due to its popularity, like Jeeps or Honda Civics, the aftermarket parts, and online help is enormous.
6. Due to its popularity, and the original patent no longer applying, it is a very inexpensive weapon to purchase via economy of scale.
7. Due to the overall popularity, there is a wide range of ammunition types (and calibers) available.
8. You can build them from scratch. Some people enjoy building them up.


All of those impact why people buy them, but #3 is key. Due to it's modularity (and aftermarket availability/low cost), the ergonomics, color, caliber, size, and type of firearm (rifle, pistol, SBR, AOW, Non-NFA AOW) are all easily and quickly adjustable on the fly. You set it up exactly how you want it, based on your own specific needs.

I've built plenty, my absolute favorite is chambered is good ole fashioned .22LR. Yup, the same rimfire round kids shoot in Cub Scouts or fired out of the all-American Ruger 10/22 rifle.
Others I have are chambered in .300blk and are set up for hunting and Home Defense. I have not taken my .300blk deer hunting yet....as have never grabbed a deer permit. I've only grabbed the fur bearers permit so far to hunt critters. But I mostly just target shoot.

I mention the Ruger 10/22 because most people understand what it is, and are familiar with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_10/22


The problem with "ban this because of it looks based on my feelz" is this.

All of those are the SAME GUN. The are all the same semi-automatic, mag fed, rimfire rifle. The ballistic performance is exactly the same. Some just LOOK scarier than others.

It is the same with trying to ban AR-15's. You are trying to ban "looks", not ballistics or capability. To get what you actually want (instead of what you think you want) is is leading us to a ban on semi-automatic, mag fed weapons, and calibers, and I'm telling you, that is a non-starter. (Most pistols today are mag fed, semi automatic, and I'm pretty sure the fine gentlemen on the Southside and West side of the Chi shooting each other would gladly turn them in....or not).