Hanaguma

Senator Feinstein? Not exactly an unbiased source. Rand Corporation disagrees. Inconclusive, according to them. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/mass-shootings.html

No, I am saying the place to start is not simplistic and ineffective things like calling for bans on certain guns. You are right, it is a thorny problem and will require long term and stubborn thinking. Mental health awareness, training, and if necessary hospitalizing people before they can cause havoc. Longer and mandatory prison sentences for crimes committed with firearms or even illegal possession of them. And yes, I would be a fan of background checks too.

Unless you ban every firearm (which no country on earth has done to my knowledge) then "banning" certain types of firearm will do nothing to alleviate the problem. A shooter who is deprived of an AR15 would simply use 2 or 3 extra pistols (same weight to carry) and also easier to use indoors. So removing the AR does nothing to remove the problem. It DOES deprive millions of people their safe and legal property though.

Again, five murders at once or five murders over five days, the same thing. One gets headlines but both are equally bad. City of Chicago had 20 shooting victims this weekend, 21 last weekend, but somehow gets no headlines.

Mass murders, though tragic, are meaningless statistically. Ten individual murders are just as heinous as one mass murder of 10 people. No evidence that the limited ban and buyback in Oz stopped any deaths. The murder rate by firearm had been decreasing before the ban, and continued to decrease at the same rate after the ban.

IF you are the one holding the gun, it sounds like an orgasm. If you are the scumbag burglar crouching in the kitchen of a house, not so much.

There is perhaps no sound in the English language more scary than hearing the "click SNICK" of a shotgun shell being racked.

In the US that horse has long left the barn. How many of the 8 million Americans who own AR rifles do you think would voluntarily surrender them to authorities? Never mind the tens of millions of others with handguns, shotguns, etc? Banning and confiscation are not the answers, they simply won't work.

You are making my point. Even in the UK, firearms are not banned. I asked where on earth they have been banned, and to what effect? Still waiting... and I agree that a 12 gauge can be good for home defence, if you have a short barrel and the right load. Slugs are fun but buckshot may be a better option. And hopefully you arent being robbed by more than 2 people...

,...which as worked where, exactly, on this earth?

Chance of being killed with an AR is the same as with a baseball bat. I am equally scared of both. Or equally not scared.

Shooting and hunting are as valid as baseball as hobbies. There is no evidence that restricting AR type weapons would save any lives at all. But it WOULD give politicians something to crow about. Perhaps THAT is the reason it is pushed so much.

Pathetic presentation. The first scene and others show fully automatic weapons firing. Which are virtually unobtainable and therefore irrelevant. Afterwards, he seems to make the case AGAINST long guns as mass shooting weapons, noting the time it takes to change magazines. Far easier for a bad guy to simply carry multiple handguns, dropping them as they are used.

The AR 15 is not a machine gun. It is just a rifle. A semi automatic rifle. Many people who weigh in on the firearms conversation seem ignorant of the basic traits of firearms. A gun is just a lump of metal. In any case, the speed is not the issue. The numbers are. Bats and rifles kill an equal number of people. So it makes just as much sense, for public safety, to ban one as the other.

Neither are baseball bats, and bats kill as many people as AR15s. So howzabout we get rid of baseball bats too?

So, mass shooters will stop if they cant get an AR 15? Where is your evidence of that? There are more than 8 million long guns in the AR family in circulation. 7,999, 800 are used peacefully and lawfully, and also for legitimate home defence.

...and as the article says, NEVER used by the military. A fifty year old design. Nothing unique or special about it. So old that the patent expired and it can be copied by any company. A weapon that has never been used in any military on earth and has never been used in a war cannot be called a weapon of war. It is akin to a Ford Mustang with a 4 cylinder engine. Looks like a sports car, but performs like a family sedan.

Spending 80% of your time trying to reduce 2% of a problem is stupid. Again, why is the 2% being targeted, not the 80%?

Shouting through a bullhorn in the legislature? Come on. Childish and stupid. How many times have YOU changed your mind on a political issue because someone shouted at you through a bullhorn? This was obviously a cheap political stunt and the media as usual lapped it up.

Nothing says 'I am here to debate the issues' like briging a bullhorn to the floor of tbe state legislature.

According to the US Government, HANDGUNS are used in the majority of mass shootings-77% to be exact. See my above link. Fear of long guns is de facto illogical as they are not the most common weapon used in any kind of shooting- mass or otherwise. So you have to ask why they are the target of gun abolitionists, and not the much more deadly handgun. 7,000 murders with handguns, 350 with long guns.

As soon as the phrase "weapons of war" is deployed, the so-called journalist loses all credibility. There is no military on earth that uses the AR-15. Again, the numbers don't bear out the assertion that AR-15s and other long guns are a particular problem. Handguns are used to kill far more people. Politicians and ignorant journalists are simply scapegoating the vast majority of legal and safe owners of long weapons.

Except, as has been proven, it is not. Handguns are the choice at from 60-75%, depending on the statistics you use. The crazy and unrealistic fear of long guns is simply mystifying to me.

Actually not, according to Statista. Handguns more than 60% of the time. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ The National Institute of Justice says 77% are committed with handguns... https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings But even so mass shootings are a very tiny fraction of overall murders and shootings. Makes no sense to obsess over them when other factors are far more common.

Sure. And a "free press" would only include hand printed sheets of vellum, not the internet or tv or radio. The idea of the 2A was to give free citizens the right to roughly arm themselves in a way equivalent to the standing army.