beowulf

Are you aware that it's not possible to buy automatic weapons from FFL in the US? Sure you can from a Class 3 FFL. They are really expensive and you have to pay a fee to the ATF and go through some special paper work and back ground check. I think there has only been like one or two crimes committed by a legal owner of a full auto weapon with said weapon since this went into effect and it's been that way for a long time. Not sure how long.

For a modern example just look at the "War on Drugs". It hasn't made illegal drugs harder to get. Instead it has wasted billions of dollars, incarcerated millions and killed millions. That is what banning something does!!! It doesn't get rid of it.

Does no one remember how Prohibition went?? It boosted organized crime like nothing else ever did before that. Banning semi auto weapons isn't a solution. It will only make things worse. There are just way too many of them in circulation right now.

No. The goal is to get them out of the hands of crazy people and limit the amount of death a crazy person can cause with one if he gets his hands on it. You do that by making them harder for the crazy people to get ahold of to begin with and limiting the amount of destruction a weapon can do over time. And what you are proposing won't make them harder to get. Black markets won't require back ground checks. Even if it were harder to get it would stop anyone determined to get them. it won't limit anything regarding the destructiveness of the weapon. Black market won't care how powerful the ammo is. And what you're suggesting is doing . . . nothing. Or, did you have something to contribute? So you think doing something that won't work is better then nothing???? Here was my suggestions. You must not have read them. I think the only real solution is to allow CHL holders to carry in schools, some teachers will be among them. It will be those that feel they have what it takes to be responsible CHL holders. Posting armed security in the form of paid security guards or LEO at all schools. "Gun Free Zones" are the targets of these crazies. End them, they are just free fire zones for crazy people.

No. The goal is to get them out of the hands of crazy people and limit the amount of death a crazy person can cause with one if he gets his hands on it. You do that by making them harder for the crazy people to get ahold of to begin with and limiting the amount of destruction a weapon can do over time. And what you are proposing won't make them harder to get. Black markets won't require back ground checks. Even if it were harder to get it would not stop anyone determined to get them. it won't limit anything regarding the destructiveness of the weapon. Black market won't care how powerful the ammo is.

Really when I was in High School I could buy it from other students. Just had to know who to go to. Where are the cigarette machines in High School? It wasn't that hard to figure out who the stoners were in school.

I don't know about that, but there will be a black market. The goal is to get the guns out of the hands of criminals and you seem to think it's get them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Some currently responsible gun owners will give up their guns and others won't. What the the percentages will be I don't know. But it won't stop the criminals or crazy people wanting to shoot up schools.

The only reason I don't have any Meth is because I don't want any. Not because it's not available.

It does, however, prevent it from being sold openly at Walmart, which is not nothing. Yes it is nothing. Kids can buy marijuana easier then they can buy tobacco. Banning something only creates a black market and in the end makes it easier to obtain.

I think throwing up your arms and saying nothing can be done doesn't make the problem go away either. I think you have to start with the assumption something can be done. Not to completely eliminate, because that probably isn't possible, but to do something in the direction of helpful rather than fuck it. I didn't say nothing could be done. I proposed a solution. Banning something does not make it go away. Just look at illegal drugs.

So you really think banning semi automatic weapons would make them go away?

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

I don't have a problem with background checks. As for the private sale of guns, requiring people to go through an FFL isn't a bad idea, but I don't think it will make that much of a difference. People will still do private sales without going through an FFL. I don't see any new regulations as having any real effect in minimizing the possibility of this happening again. Laws are only as good as the number of people that follow them and it only takes a very few for it to be unacceptable. I think the only real solution is to allow CHL holders to carry in schools, some teachers will be among them. It will be those that feel they have what it takes to be responsible CHL holders. Posting armed security in the form of paid security guards or LEO at all schools. There is no way to know who the next crazy shooter will be.

What you propose would end hunting. Most AR 15's are .223 caliber and that isn't a very high powered round. It's not suitable for hunting deer.

Ha, will that come with an invisible barrier that will stop all guns from entering? They need to post signs saying DEFENSELESS CIVILIAN AREA No Guns allowed!!!!

You are right.

I disagree. Preventative measures would also work on mass shootings in locations other than schools. Hence, spending the same effort and finances on preventative measures will have a much broader reach then just defending schools. And for the millionth time, I will clarify that preventative measures does not mean banning guns. There is much more involved than just guns. And that is why nothing you propose will make any difference. Preventative measures don't work. Defensive measures are needed.

I have no idea if high capacity magazines were used in the Columbine shootings. It doesn't matter. They still killed a lot of people. So banning them won't make any difference. I only used the term "assault weapons" because that is what was used in the ban. It was mostly cosmetic. It's not likely that any ban on semi automatic rifles will even come close to being approved. That would be pointless since there are so many in the US already. They would have to start confiscating all semi auto rifles to make a ban even remotely effective and that will pretty much never happen.

Wow that qualified for a warning? Kind of picky aren't you.

Your idea has already been tried and it doesn't work. They already banned high capacity magazines and certain types of guns that they called "Assault Weapons". That ban wasn't continued. It didn't make any difference. Why do you think it would be any different this time around?

My lack of experience in murdering people? At one point no cars had seat belts. Not all bans are useless, none are 100% effective. Hey if you want to make no changes at all, that's fine. Just come out and say it. Lack of experience with guns. Kind of slow aren't you. Have armed guards in school, possibly LEO, and allow CHL holders to carry in schools. Some teachers will most likely get their CHL and then should carry in the schools. That will work more then banning future sales of guns or high capacity magazines that lots of people already have.

And not JUST felony theft, he killed his own mother to obtain the weapons. You do realize the absurd contradiction in your statement, I hope. I don't think I contradicted myself. He committed felony theft and first degree murder. Two separate crimes and that was what I was pointing out.

Sounds like you are in favor of a smaller Federal Gov. I am with you on that.

Huh.. Really? You must be seeing something I don't

Your response doesn't make any sense. I didn't tell you to not read or not to say anything. If you don't care what he had to say then why bother to read it?