Yes. Its about more than guns. Absolutely .
But, one of the first things law enforcement tries to do in a precarious situation is to neutralize the potental for harm... And THEN go from there to address the other issues involved
I dont suspect most peeps could expect to have a rational calm conversation while talking with someone who has an ak15 pointed at them while they chat
But that's the thing... I don't think those conversations will happen. Do you think Hollywood, etc will be willing to tone down violence in movies, videos, songs, games? Do you think govt will be willing to tell them to? They're huge moneymakers. I'm all for strict screening and waiting periods and background checks, but someone who really wants a gun will get one, or use something else.
Look at Chicago's record.... very strict gun control laws and increased shootings... probably no serious discussion of the underlying issues or attempts to do something about them.
I think without addressing the whole moral state of our culture, we will have solved nothing.
I absolutely agree that WAY more needs to be done (if there even is a solution)....I don't even say take all guns away.
I say you don't need a gun that DESTROYS a body....or rips agiant hole out of someone...in order to play guns at the range....OR hunt a deer.
You don't need a cruise missle to shoot quail.
And if anyone is reallyreallyreally so obsessed with protection of property that they need an arsenal to sleep at night (an ARSENAL)...maybe they are a LITTLE too paranoid to own one anyway. just saying....
As I've said before, I know nothing about guns, but it would appear that a lot of other people don't either.... I don't mean you, Barb... I mean a lot of people in general, myself totally included...LOF explained "semiautomatic" in simple terms in a post in the other thread... it is very easy to listen to the news and each other and have very little knowledge about the differences and actually understand that difference... but I'm trying.
Much more in this article here...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/media...ns-and-semiautomatic-firearms/article/2516156
"...‘Semiautomatic’ isn’t really a useful descriptor
The Times writes:
AR-15s are not the only weapons used by rampaging shooters. Semiautomatic handguns are also frequently employed.
Again, “semiautomatic†mostly means “not automatic.†You pull the trigger on a semiauto gun like an AR-15, and one bullet comes out. You pull it again, and another bullet comes out. Unlike a single-shot gun, you don’t need to **** it or load it after each shot.
And semiauto is the norm. As Al Tompkins at Poynter
puts it:
The use of the phrase semi-automatic when talking about guns is like using the phrase “gasoline cars.â€
Using this term is almost useless, unless you’re talking about to outlawing most handguns that are used today...."
"...The AR-15 is not an “assault rifleâ€
Assault weapon/assault rifle, what’s the difference?
One is a meaningless term, as I explained above. The other is a precise term that doesn’t apply to the AR-15 – despite the Times’ article’s suggestion connecting the two. Also, â€assault rifle†describes guns that are already illegal — because they are automatic — and basically never used in murders.
The Pentagon defines the term “assault rifle,†and David Kopel quotes that definition in an article in the
Journal of Contemporary Law. He
writes:
As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book
Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles†are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.â€
[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.
[22]
Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.
The Times article implies that the “assault weapons ban,†which banned the AR-15, would ban “assault rifles.â€
But assault rifles, which are automatic, are already banned. Again, the Times cites these facts only as an opinion “argued†by “Defenders of the firearm....."
Me trying to understand guns is like me trying to understand cars... I DON'T and I don't WANT to, but it would appear to my feeble/doesn't understand gun talk mind that the guns many people are enraged about already ARE illegal. I've been reading up on the Assault Weapons Ban also... it seems to have been too full of loopholes to be meaningful, but I hate to offer opinions without knowing more facts. No, I don't think you need a cruise missile to shoot quail either, but what exactly do people use... i don't know.
Again, I think stricter laws about checking someone who wants to purchase one absolutely makes sense. Yes, gun owners should be responsible and lock them up, but it's impossible to police everything people do.
It's also impossible to know when, why, how something will tip a kid without a police record to commit one of the most horrible crimes in US history. Yes, mental health issues need to be addressed. But is it possible to figure out ahead of time that this kid, whose mom "can't control him" will grow out of that awkward teenage rebellious behavior and that one, whose mom "can't control him" will snap and become a mass murderer?... I don't know how we do that.
