As mentioned, these military clones are pretty underpowered by comparison. Also, for a situation where someone (or more than one) is approaching your house after dark, it’s not unreasonable to want extra ammunition. Handguns take a hell of a lot of practice to become proficient, and racking a shotgun slide at dark can be difficult in certain spaces.
That might be an extreme self-defense example, but so are mass shootings. Unless it can be shown that a restriction on freedom is necessary and sufficient to eliminate the harm posed, then I am not convinced it is needed.
Plus, slippery slope. If all civilian ownership of guns were banned tomorrow, I’m guessing that you wouldn’t have much of a problem with it. Many on this board have stated that they would be in favor of an outright ban. Until the air is clear that nobody is actually proposing that, I’m not comforted by the assurance that these are “sensible measures” that will be the end of the restrictions. The other side will come back next year and want more.
Cite? This country banned (mostly) machine guns, then mail order guns, then the Brady Bill, then assault weapons ban, then there was talk of handgun safety cards. That’s when the NRA really made a stand and said enough was enough. We had already accepted reasonable regulations, but they just kept becoming more reasonable.
The arguments for high-power, high-ROF weapons in general civilian hands are generally so nonsensical as to have been penned by the love child of John Wayne and Lewis Carroll, though.
Enough, IMHO; we have enough 2Am arguments. The consensus here seems to be that this is an absurd and nearly pointless lawsuit (or would be; it hasn’t been filed or even formally announced yet, AFAIK) intended more for publicity and back-channel suppression than any of its stated aims.
They’ve already been variously accused of collaborating in the murder of their children, in faking their children death’s and that their children never existed in the first place. I doubt any of them are foolish enough at this point to expect anything resembling sympathy under any circumstances from the pro-gun crowd. Who have made it very clear that they consider guns far more important than children, or adults for that matter.
I’m not necessarily advocating banning anything. If anything, the State should be disarmed first.
“From Oakland/ to Greece/ Disarm the/ Po-lice!”
It’s a broader question of why Americans feel so afraid of one another (among other things) that they feel the necessity to arm themselves so heavily. Crime is down across the Western world, including countries with very few firearms, as well as places like Canada, Norway, and Switzerland, among others, where sporting weapons are fairly common. In other words, I’m questioning the gun culture and the culture of fear, not necessarily the legality of firearms.
Also, when people fought with swords, there were no innocent bystanders. One had to be man or woman enough to stand toe-to-toe with one’s opponent. That’s neither here nor there.
About sporting weapons, is it really allowed/possible to take multiple shots at sporting clays and such? Don’t the animals run away at the first sound of a shot? Also, why are people shooting animals for fun in the first place? Nobody needs to eat meat, so that argument is irrelevant.
I still don’t understand why this is being rolled into the Newtown deadline. Plaintiffs have another full year to decide to sue Bushmaster. It is the deadline to sue Newtown that is up today. That cannot be coincidence.
It may indeed be that families plan to announce that they’re suing Bushmaster, but a careful read of the original Guardian article shows that no family member or Bushmaster spokesperson confirmed that allegation.
Sure. I’ll reiterate for you. When you assert an opinion that someone else is asserting an opinion, you’re contributing absolutely nothing to a discussion. A roll-eyes smilie actually contributes well more to the discussion than what you posted.
There is another take on the situation altogether:
“The shooter was not born a mass murderer, nor did his mental issues predicate disaster. Seemingly, he was cultivated into a killer by his environment.” (Scarlett Lewis, Schools Miss the Mark, NY Post, November 22, 2014).
That’s it! That’s the C above high C note of outraged superiority that proclaims “this one is ready for the big show!” You definitely add value to every gun thread in which you participate.
Do you intend to contribute any content to the thread, or just to make meaningless comments obsessing about me? I’d suggest you take the latter to the pit.
Thanks for explaining this in a way that I can understand.
It seems to me that the the problem, if the case gets past a grand jury, is the ‘reasonably prudent person’. In this case, could Bushmaster as the defendant ask for a bench trial instead of a jury trial?
False premise. I own several firearms. None of them were purchased for the primary purpose of self-defense, they are used for hunting or target shooting.
Agreed, this comment is valueless.
Sporting clays simulates hunting birds and occasionally, rabbits. It is completely normal to have the opportunity to fire multiple times at such game.
First: no grand jury. A grand jury is impaneled to assess cases for the requisite probable cause prior to a criminal trial by a petit jury.
The potential case here would be a civil trial.
Civil law isn’t my specialty, but I believe that in a civil case a jury trial is equally the right of both plaintiff and defendant, so both would have to waive a jury if the issue were tried to the bench.
