mOOsE wrote:So you are only concerned with the death of kids, from a single type of weapon?
This view is exactly the problem. You are stating that the problem is the rifle, and the rifle alone. Nevermind the mental capacity, responsibility of parents, or even the remote possibility that there is a way to help prevent this WITHOUT infringing on others' rights or sacrificing liberty. You are after the gun, nothing more. And somehow, you seem to think that restricting this rifle will solve all future shootings... despite the fact that more mass-shootings occur without such rifle.
Let me ask you this, what law do you propose would help prevent a mentally unstable person, or criminal from performing a mass shooting? Because these laws will only affect the people that WON'T shoot anyone.
To expand on this, I like to point out three examples of conflicting data regarding gun ownership.
1. UK. The UK has banned gun ownership. Not just AR-15s, but completely. And yet, there is still death and violence in the UK, even with guns
2. Switzerland. Every able bodied male of age must do two years of service. When they leave the service, they are given their service weapon, a fully automatic military rifle that would require a difficult to obtain Class 3 FFL if you wanted one in the US, to take home. After that, the Swiss males are expected to keep and maintain the weapon until the age of 45 or so in order for them to be ready and able to be drafted into service if necessary. Violent gun crime is quite low.
3. Israel. Basically the same thing as Switzerland, but it includes females as well. Violence is high, but much of that can be attributed to terrisim and the antagonism of Israel's neighbors.
So if you factor in the US, which has a lot of guns, but also a lot of violence, how do you conclude that guns cause death, and banning them (even a subset) will cause less death? There is no causation relationship, not even a correlation.
erod550 wrote:And all have other primary uses than killing things. Guns do not, especially guns capable of firing off so many rounds per minute. You don't need to be able to fire off 30 rounds a minute to defend your home. You don't need to be able to fire off 30 rounds a minute to hunt.
I could easily fire off 30 rounds minute with a handgun, even with three magazine changes form using 10 round limited magazines. I could even pull it off with a bolt action rifle, but it would likely require a magazine capable of holding all 30 rounds.
Rate of fire is a silly argument. If I was motivated and lucky, I could go get a Class 3 FFL, buy a machine gun with a higher rate of fire than any rifle being considered for ban or restriction. Why are we not talking about banning machine guns?
erod550 wrote:No, THIS view is exactly the problem. That if we can't eliminate all mass-shootings then we shouldn't even bother trying to reduce the number of them at all. No one thinks that tighter restrictions will magically prevent all mass-shootings from happening from here until the end of time. That is not the case at all. But if even one can be prevented, or reduced in scope by a reduced availability of the type of weapon is it not worth it to at least try? If not, you are essentially saying the extra lives lost are a fair price to pay to be able to keep your fun toy that you like so much.
And I believe there are programs out there trying to better assess the mental state of people purchasing guns to prevent those types of people from obtaining guns in the first place, so no, taking away the guns is not the only course of action being pursued here.
No one is saying the rifle is the sole cause of the problem. They're saying it's one cause and it enables people to kill more people when they do snap. So if you reduce the chance that they'll be able to get their hands on one, there's a chance that at least a few lives will be saved. But it's been clearly established here that those lives are an acceptable sacrifice for your personal freedom.
Where is your proof that banning guns reduced crime? Thats part of the problem. You want to take away something that others enjoy in a legal and non-distuptive manner, just to make you feel better, rather than have some actual evidence that it will do some good.
Again back to the cost/benefit analysis, you are proposing a high cost, with no guaranteed benefit, and while you seem to be comfortable with that because you view it doesn't affect you, others clearly are not.
I will say, you touch on something is is key: metal health. Mental health care in the country is atrocious and has been for decades. Improving it would have a wider effect for less cost and meet less resistance.
erod550 wrote:I didn't mean toy in a derogatory sense. A sport, hobby, collectible, memento, is all a toy in my book, again, not derogatory. My car is a toy to me. It's something I have fun playing with. It's something that's not required but is something I choose to have because I enjoy it. Define it however you want.
Really, I didn't much want to go here, but you seem to counter everything else with the same view (its a toy, its only designed to kill). The difference between your car, and a firearm, is that gun ownership is a protected right under the Constitution, and in fact you'll find that under a scholastic analysis into the meaning of the words and sentence structure of the Second Amendment, firearm ownership is basically unrestricted. If you've been through 5th grade, you should know the proper process for changing the Constitution, which is to propose a new amendment.
mOOsE wrote:That's a great understanding actually. More than most people know. I'd be ok with personal sales requiring a background check. But how to enforce it is another question. I'd be willing to go to a dealer and have them to the paperwork to facilitate, it's basically what happens with internet orders anyway. Once thing I don't like is their odd 72 hour law written into the bill. Its too generic, and leaves the law wildly open to interpretation. Is my wife breaking the law when she has the guns at home and I am gone more than 72 hours? Is it illegal for me to borrow my dads rifle for the week? What about hunting trips? What happens to the guns if my dad passes away unexpectedly? Are those items now property of the state because he wasn't able to legally transfer them to my mom? Just too many blanks in the bill, instead of just requiring it for private sales.
As said, your understanding is fairly accurate. If I were at a gun show selling a firearm, I'm still bound by the same requirements as a FFL holder. I can't sell to someone from out of state, I can't sell to someone who is buying the firearm for someone else, I can't sell to felons or other restricted people. I might not be able to run a background check against someone to do the work for me in determining if the person is a valid buyer, but most of this stuff you can determine from a short conversation, and I really should be writing down the information from their ID in case law enforcement comes asking what happened to the firearm I sold. If its been determined that I sold a weapon to a felon, and I can't prove without a doubt that I couldn't have known, then I am screwed.
Background checks are easy to constitutionally justify because in every instance they are required is an instance in which interstate commerce is occurring, in which case Congress has the authority to impose restrictions. A private party sale between two folks residing in the same state is not interstate commerce, so its not easy to justify if it comes to a challenge, which is why private party sales are limited to state law and enforcement regarding background checks.
Depending on the show, there are likely ATF and local law enforcement going around and acting like out of state or otherwise invalid purchasers, and testing sellers at gun shows, and they do catch shady dealers.
