Start

Done

Done.

start

ding

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5946127/ns/politics\n/t/congress-lets-assault-weapons-ban-expire/

Is it still too soon?

fake news, tuco.

done

Ionibelle, 1Hammer was correcting the use of military style and automatic weapons as a synonym for the AR-15. The AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, it is semi-automatic. That means you have to pull the trigger for every round discharged as opposed to fully automatic where the gun keeps firing until you either release the trigger or empty the magazine. The 1984 law bans civilians from owning any fully automatic weapon manufactured after 1984. You can still go through a licensing process and if approved you can legally own fully automatic weapons manufactured before 1984.

Tuco, gun don't fire themselves. 'Nuff said.

While we are on the subject of what the AR-15 is not, it is not a high powered rifle.

Ionibelle: there probably don't need to be any laws passed to correct the problem of insane people not being incarcerated. There was no change in the laws that brought the problem about in the first place. It was a change in attitude towards mentally ill people. They are now viewed as mentally healthy people just making alternative choices. This has brought about a policy of not institutionalizing people that we used to lock up. This change in attitude has also aggravated our homeless problem.

Too soon? Here's the problem. The reaction of Penguin, Tuco and others is an emotional one. Of course any mass murder is horrible and tragic and we would like to stop them. However, banning all guns may reduce the incidence of mass shootings but it does little to reduce the overall gun death statistics.

While it is true that the US has had an uptick in mass murders recently, so has the rest of the world, due to Islamic terrorism.

We have a problem with people, not guns.

You are making a great point for getting rid of guns drwho. We have no more mental illness in our country than any where else. What we do have is more guns per capita than any where else. You are right guns don't shoot themselves. So using your logic in order to stop people from shooting themselves or others, take away the guns, or take away the people. You are wrong and no amount of 2nd amendment hooey or personal responsibility crap or you need weapons to defend yourself against a government with the most awesome amount of military power assembled in history will make you right. You are defending a gun industry that uses fear and greed to sell more guns and increase their bottom line. The upshot is more and more people have more and more guns. What the heck do you think is going to to happen. No it is not an emotional reaction, no it is not an uptick. This happens every day. It will reduce the overall gun death statistics because it will reduce the incidence of gun deaths. sheesh I thought you knew math at least.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooti\nng

Is it time yet to have the national debate?

Is it too soon for the loved ones in Nevada?

Is it too soon for Columbine? Sandy Hook, etc.. etc.. etc..

Is it too soon for the families in my home town that had one of the worst mass shootings in history until Vegas? Emotional. I guess. Your acceptance of the deaths in order to keep guns from being more heavily regulated does not speak well for your humanity.

Maybe its still too soon for the Holocaust or the Khmer Rouge genocide or Mao's cultural revolution or Fidel Casto's firing squad victims, and the list could go on.

Not it is not too soon. They had Nuremburg trials. The Khmer Rouge were war criminals. Bad analogy drwho. you are reaching now. Or you are equating gun ownership with mass murders. Not sure.

As impassioned as this discussion is, I still plan on
keeping all of my firearms regardless of the number of
mass shootings just like I plan on keeping all my vehicles
regardless of the number of drunk driving deaths

That is deflection KnightTime and you know it. Yes people die from drunk driving and drunk drivers. No kidding.

As I have already noted, I take a dim view of giving a monopoly on guns to the greatest mass murderer in history, namely government.

That is BS too. They already have it. The government controls the gun industry through regulation or the lack of it.

That is why the NRA lobbies government as heavily as they do. I thought you would have already figured that out.

I understand that an AR-15 is not a machine gun, but most infantry men are not issued automatic weapons, they use M4's which have single and burst options. or semi-automatic pistols. So to me, military hardware means semi-automatic. (army brat, been around guns all my life) I know that civilians can't get machine guns made after 1984, but they are still legal if you have extra thousands around. So his comment was not quite right. Also, at least in Texas and Massachusetts, laws and policies around the mentally ill were, in fact, changed. You would have to change them back to have the legal authority to keep folks locked up. But you are in favor of not allowing violent or mentally ill people access to weapons? or are you only in favor of having better mental health care? would that be enough? what do you think of allowing people to sue gun manufacturers again? carve-outs like that really drive me nuts.

Plus didn't the POTUS just remove the Obama regulations making it harder for mentally unstable people to buy a gun?

lonibelle, being an army brat, what are the regs about weapons on base? Why can't we do that everywhere?

DING. There may have been an easier way, but I solved it with a double unique rectangle. Both URs needed to be solved with one move. Clever. 18.

Maybe you will listen to this guy. "This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."- Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reaganhttps://youtu.be/nG4V_6pCLVo

It used to be that no personal weapons were allowed on base, but I think that may have changed.