What law are you proposing that would have stopped the killing? The AWB wouldn’t have, background checks on ammo wouldn’t have.
Having someone feel safe about seeking available help for mental issues would have.
Well I would hope to God I was alerted before they made it into my bedroom. If it came to that I would have to grab my semi-automatic handgun (which is locked up during the day and within reach at night) and hope for the best. Given at least 30 seconds warning, my choice of a home defense weapon would be either a short-barreled shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot, or a compact carbine- maybe a pistol grip AK. The AR-15 is an ok gun but not something I’d prefer to use in tight quarters.
Thank you; that was the point - that claiming the right to own an AR-15 based on a need for self-defense is disingenuous.
Good strawman there.
In my state I do have a constitutional right to own firearms for self-defense.
The fact that they are not a perfect solution doesn’t remove that right.
You might take a look at the thread title. We’re discussing altering or repealing the 2nd. What it says, or is interpreted to say, as it stands today is irrelevant to the topic.
The strawman about using an AR-15 for self defense is your own, btw.
Nothing he said discounted the usablity of an ar15 for self-defense
He gave you his opinion.
One member of a message board deciding he doesn’t prefer his AR doesn’t mean they have no use.
Well, talk about them, then. (Though probably not in this thread.) But I, personally, am not going to say that gun control should be off the table because a whole bunch of interested folk say it wouldn’t work.
I’m not particularly invested in gun control, but I’m not going to rule it out either.
And “At this time” strikes me as a particularly weak condition. It’s being talked about at this time because this time is post a socially traumatic event.
We don’t know if the shooter was mentally ill within any reasonable definition of the word. We do know that the shooter used legal guns and killed a lot of people. That right there seems like a justification to be talking about the laws of guns.
Are you saying you know his mother said it was OK for him to use the guns? Why are they not considered stolen guns? It was not the person who legally purchased the firearms who committed the crime, nor would any of the laws proposed in this thread have stopped her from owning the gun.
So Lumpy said he’d go for an AK. Does that mean AKs are now totally reasonable for home defense? No offense to Lumpy, but I don’t think he’s the arbiter of what is or is not a good self defense weapon.
AR-15 type rifles can be used and have been used effectively for home defense. There is nothing inherently wrong with the rifle and there many other types of rifles that are similar in function. I bet the people in LA during the Rodney King riots would have much rather preferred an AR15 than a pistol or even a shotgun. I think they used AKs though from what I remember of the footage.
A good holographic or red dot site could improve target acquisition in close quarters and have efficacy in a home defense scenario.
I think I’ll leave you to Elvis. You have a similar style.
(bolding mine)
Always comes down to this. Not what’s best for society. Not what’s morally defensible. Not even what’s statistically been shown to do more harm than good. Let’s just pound on the desk and keep yelling about Constitutional Rights. As if they are all infallible and as if the founding fathers who put them down never made a wrong decision… or the supreme court judges in their interpretation, for that matter. <sigh>
Strawman.
Here is a link showing how .223 has less “over penetration” than even 40 s&w pistol rounds, one of the reasons they are good for home defense.
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=26
(assuming you care about the safety of others like your neighbors and want to reduce the risk to them)
No, you were saying that the guns were legal, I was asking why you made that claim.
He had been denied a purchase days before due to the lack of a permit, that makes me think he was not lawful.
And if not, what proposed law would have changed the fact that his mother owned a legal firearm for him to steal?
And congrats on the ad hominem attack.
We already have gun control. What we don’t have is crazy people control. It’s just about impossible to get a nut-job locked up.
Now you can try to make an inanimate object go away for the sake of feeling good or you can do something about a dangerous person who can use in infinite variety of inanimate objects to kill a busload of people. One course of action isn’t likely to remove guns. The other avenue deals with the actual problem at the source and thus eliminating the need for an infinite number of more feel-good legislative measures down the road to make us safe.
If you have a practical, acceptable way to do that, then let’s have it. While you’re at it, please provide a practical, acceptable means of locking up anyone with a tendency to get angry from time to time.
If you can’t, then kindly acknowledge that you’re simply making an excuse for inaction.
A little bit, yeah… <shrug>
But don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to single you out. Any number of pro-gun posts on this subject continue to insist on existing legal right to own a gun while stubbornly refusing to consider whether it’s right from a greater good point of view. I submit that it isn’t and there is considerable evidence to back my position.
So, how much can taxes go up to do this? Who are you going to employ? Is this going to be at a federal level?
Are you going to say okay to having, say, a mental profile done before you can buy a gun? I don’t know if that’s the crazy people control you have in mind, but is it okay?
Lots of people aren’t diagnosed. Does everyone have to go be screened now? What’s the threshold at which you want them to be constrained? If someone doesn’t want meds, can you force them to take them? Is that less of a violation of their rights than outlawing guns would be?
I get that it sounds good to regulate the crazies rather than regulating the guns, but how does it work and how does a country that won’t even pay for major health events for the people who want coverage start paying for mental health for those who don’t?
Oh, and if I really could make the inanimate object go away, we would all agree that there would be no gun crimes, yes? If I could wave my hand and boom, no more guns, then there would be no more gun crimes. So “making an inanimate object go away” wouldn’t be for the sake of feeling good. I realize that you just were using shorthand for making more gun laws, but I’d like to be accurate.
No. It’s for the sake of saving lives. :rolleyes: