Why don't you refresh my memory when this revolution took place and what type and amount of firearms they used, smartass?

Gun safety measures, training and whatnot, look useful to avoid cases like a toddler pulling the trigger when going through mummy's purse, or the boys who crack daddy's armory.

But they're useless to prevent coldblooded serial murders like school shootings.

There are multiple problem complexes (more than just these two), each with its own characteristics and promising countermeasures. What happens so far is, everybody's pointing at everybody else. And the NRA, with the help of the nutcases and the top politicians it probably pays on a regular basis, does their best to prevent any kind of dialogue to start addressing this.

At this point the gun manufacturers can't be held accountable for the effects of their products. Taking the tobacco route and removing their immunity would at least open a route to reduce the attractiveness of simply selling ever more firearms.

After all there doesn't appear to be a step as simple yet effective as the bump stock ban, the only broad measure taken this century AFAIA. But that's by Trump so it mustn't be mentioned.

“Before the assault weapons ban went into effect in 1994, there were about 400,000 AR-15 style rifles in America. Today, there are 20 million.” Jaw dropping figure from @ZushaElinson, who is writing a book on the country’s best selling rifle.

https://twitter.com/biannagolodryga/...RKCmcy0LA&s=19

----

No idea if that is correct, but wow if it is.

Simple and effective, ya right.

The USA politically and common sense wise -- needs to meet in the middle on the "Guns" issue as well as many other topics..

Punishing the 99%+ of responsible gun owners is not going to end mass-shootings, such as the ones in the news recently for many years.

Preventative measures such as the 1994 Assault Rifle and High Capacity Magazine ban could be a realistic solution. Or like kind measures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

As a law abiding, tax-paying, responsible gun owner myself, I have always stood for safety first. Everyone else I have ever met in my entire lifetime, in the USA and Switzerland, feels the same way. The USA is a country of 300,000,000+ people. There is not a generalization that can touch upon every individual that owns a firearm. Not everyone is a gun-nut, or some kind of loner psycho. Many of us grew up hunting and providing our own food from our land.

However, the current laws in many states are antiquated for today's times.

More progressive rules and regulations such as 10 round magazine/clip limits, increased age of ownership (21+), better background check rules (no gun show parking lot deals), delayed waiting periods and mandatory gun ownership and safety classes would likely greatly reduce the number of incidences of extreme gun violence.

I will throw it out there, as facts are important in such a discussion. The number of deaths from firearms and motor vehicle accidents in America are relatively similar. Within 10% or so of each other every year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Taking away all guns from 99%+ of people that are responsible, is the equivalent of telling people to never purchase alcohol again, because they "could" drink and drive. If a person has an old bottle of liquor on the shelf that they have a few drinks from occasionally, then they must surrender it to the government as they "could" drink that, decide to get in their motor vehicle and run over people walking on foot. Cigarettes and Alcohol are instantly available on every corner in the USA and Europe. Does that make everyone who purchases these items a criminal or bad person?

Taking one extreme side of outlawing all guns is essentially the same thing. Realistically, outlawing guns only punishes the law-abiding citizens of any country. Criminals in any metropolitan area such as: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles will still find ways to obtain restricted firearms and accessories without problems. Thats not really the issue though in most cases. In most cases, the shootings that are seen in the news, the guns and gun accessories were purchased legally. A restriction of making a firearm so "easily available" would surely reduce some of the occurrences. Highly precise and often times "loop-hole" types of accessories should likely be banned as well.

Silencers/suppressors and Short Barrel Armalite-15 (style) or pre-ban M-16 firearms are in a different class. These types of things are not accessories and are considered restricted parts. They have a huge burden of steps to obtain in the USA. Tax Stamps, big prices, and multi-year waiting lists. They are almost never used in criminal or illegal offenses.

The specific problem, as in very recently, an 18 year old troubled kid was able to purchase dangerous weapons. Not many questions are asked in the state of Texas, other than do you have a criminal record, (they do check) do you have the money/credit card? And thats basically all it takes in many states. That's the problem the majority of the time in these situations that continue to occur.

I don't support anything other than proper firearm ownership and safety. Switzerland manages this well. The USA could learn a few things from Swiss Culture. Taking extreme sides on the issue one way or another is not going to solve anything.

For anyone that wants to compare: Here is how to buy basically any gun you want in Switzerland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0miJ4Y3RM

It's not really Trump's or the ATF's fault that the ban gets challenged at no end.

What comparable regulation have the Dems enacted?
They could have cut the entire story short by passing legislation to that end if they'd wanted. Instead Biden keeps repeating what he's said for at least a decade and produces nothing but warm air.

Who’s talking about punishing responsible gun owners? I certainly am not. I am talking about adopting and implementing simple common sense rules and procedures supported by the majority of US citizens.

I’m also suggesting that US governments, large purchasers of guns, seek safety features in the weapons that they buy. I’m certain the users of these government issued weapons would absolutely favour features that prevent their guns been turned against them. And once available there is a huge market, over 300 million, for voluntary retrofitting. The black market in stolen weapons would disappear like the market in stolen phones has.

Please let’s not turn this thread into a “they will have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands.”. Let’s discuss how we can implement widely supported common sense rules and procedures that will prevent the bad guys from killing children.

Or is that too boring for you?

__________________
YCMV - Your Canton May Vary

Women's vaginas are more regulated in the US than assault rifles are, the whole discussion is just ridiculous.

The outdated concept that law-abiding citizens could buy weapons to protect themselves against a despotic government is stupid. It might have been not-so-stupid a century ago, but today the Pentagon has drones and stuff...a red-neck Texan with an M16 vs. a drone is a foregone conclusion. Just ban automatic assault rifles. Nobody really needs them, they have no place in the hands of the civilian population.

West Virginia:

"Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236

Tom

Just wait for the NRA to turn this into positive news. Everyone should carry a weapon so we can protect ourselves...against weapons.

Seems a bit suspect.

Did she shoot him before he opened fire? If he had already started shooting at people, how come not a single person was killed or even slightly injured?

if that were really true then they shouldn't have had any problems with a bunch of cave dwellers in afghanistan.

Remind please me where exactly is the state of "afghanistan" as I am unable to find it on the US map

That's already the case, has been for decades. Banning bump stocks would make little sense otherwise.
A man told to slow down reacts to that with fetching a rifle and opening fire.
A woman attending a birthday party does so armed with a gun.
Said woman is celebrated for shooting said man dead.

Just another perfectly normal day in the USofA.



Other than that I agree with Tom, birthday parties tend to be a crowdy thing, it's probably rather difficult to miss completely in such a situation. Perhaps unless you have a couple screws loose, which is probably another aspect of the entire problem complex.

Plus the "good guy with a gun" may themselves have a very short life once police show up. It wouldn't be the first time one gets killed, be that by the cops or other "good guys with a gun".

Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous, I agree. I'm not sure what can be done though, you would have to make gun ownership very difficult to achieve, like it is in most of European states (and probably elsewhere). I don't think it sits well with the vast majority of people over there.

Frankly I don't know why anyone would need a gun...but then again I haven't lived there.

Btw, where did Anders Breivik procure his gun from? For maximum "effectiveness" he combined bombings with gun rampage but still.....wonder how that was possible where, in a peaceful (socially and otherwise) Norway.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik



All legal, all ultra-regulated channels.

Lets also not forget that Kinder eggs are still BANNED in the US as they are a "child hazard" but automatic assault rifles are obviously seen as less risky than them. The campaign to ban guns should be something along the lines of "M16s are as dangerous as Kinder eggs and should also be banned".

That’s not the view. Many things are banned in the US as a hazard - however, firearms are written into the Bill of Rights. Kinder Eggs are not.
The vast majority of US citizens are in favor of gun safety laws. The money tied up in lawsuits from the NRA and gun companies to prevent any changes to the Bill of Rights makes it incredibly hard to change anything.
Many argue that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are unchangeable, but they don’t understand that the thirty plus amendments are changes.
Bringing in things such as Kinder Eggs makes as much sense in this as the gun nuts arguing that removing guns because of a mass shooting would be the same as removing cars due to a drunk driver. These arguments just distract and accomplish nothing but making it more difficult to discuss the problem.

__________________
“one of the good guys”

No, they don't. The discussion should be about the risks vs. benefits of having a gun as the risks are clear while the benefits are only hypothetical and easily challenged.

As you said, an amendment is by definition changeable, so the fact that something is in the constitution as an amendment doesn't make it unchangeable.

Mitch McConnell: ‘Get Your Crying Done Now Because We’re Not Passing Shit’

https://www.theonion.com/mitch-mccon...e-r-1848977425

Switzerland and Serbia both have high gun ownership rates, but no school shootings. And the Swiss version of the AR-15 is full automatic, unlike the AR-15.

So it's not the guns.

Tom