17 Dead in Florida. GOP does nothing.

[America Needs R'hllor]

As a start to gun control in this country, we need to ban any and all assault (most auto and semi-auto) weapons to people in the general public. There is absolutely no reason for people to own these weapons. They are designed for one thing and one thing only .... to kill people en masse.

Its not that you get one and want to use it. You'd rather have one in the event you really need one than really needing one and be left to your own devices

I can absolutely say that I would never want to own a gun of any sort. Like countless other people, I've struggled with depression and anxiety in the past, and there have been days that I honestly believe the only reason I'm here right now is that I didn't have an easy method to do something very stupid. I'm absolutely terrified to think about what I would have done if there'd been a gun nearby.

When you have a device whose sole purpose is to destroy things, you're much more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love, even if by accident. Even in a person with no history of mental illness, a temporary episode could prove devastating.

Should people have the right to own firearms? If it's there in the constitution, I suppose so. But can we PLEASE stop enforcing this idea of a hero fantasy? Or that everyone's going to need one at some point in their lives? It's just totally disingenuous.

You may not ever need one, but what if you do? Theres no telling if or when youll face somebody who wants to hurt or kill you who's bigger and stronger than you. Wouldnt you want a way to level the playing field and give yourself a chance to live?

People have survived break-ins without guns, and people have been killed despite having one. Claiming that being armed is the only way to survive such an encounter is absurd.

Burglar has a gun, you have nothing. You die. Burglar has a gun, you have a gun. You can kill him before he kills you. You have a gun, burglar has a crowbar. He runs away

Or... you can buy a home security system, and it notifies the police (or better, scares away the burglar), while giving you enough of a heads-up to hide. Revolutionary concept: there are conflicts that can be averted or mitigated without lethal weapons!

I had a home security system once.  It was during a time where my oldest son was into the drug scene and had questionable associations.  We had several alerts on this system where police responded while my wife and I were out.

Because we had "excessive alerts", our local municipality fined me $100.  I appealed this to a 7 member board.  Two (2) board members listened, the other five (5) wanted my money.  The money grubbers lambasted me for not having a "key person"; a neighbor that would have a key to my house that could turn off the alarm.  (I'm not kidding; this is what it was.)  There was no concern for the fact that folks may well have been breaking into my home, and that the alarm had frightened them away.  (Daytime burglaries in my neighborhood are not uncommon; it's when folks are not home, and burglars can hide in plain sight.)

So I can have a gun, carrying concealed, that will give me some protection, particularly if I come home to an intruder, or I can have a home security system and pay fines to my local municipality because police respond to it and they consider it excessive. 

Ok, you shouldn't be fined for it. You're right. It doesn't change the simple fact that the "self defence" argument for letting everyone have guns without proper training and screening is not a good argument, to say the least. I also think that security systems is not a good argument against it, because it costs a lot of money and not everyone can afford it. That's why we have law-enforcement: to protect us. The simple thing is that even with strong gun control like in the rest of the western world, if you're a decent person who really wants a gun you can easily get it via a process that tries to make sure you really are responsible enough to own it and know how to properly use it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

We should repeal the 2nd Amendment, seize everyone's guns and do what Australia did. Ordinary people do not need guns.

If they refuse to give up their guns and pose a threat to the army/police they should be labeled as traitors to America and charged with treason, and if they fire their weapons, then all means necessary should be used to stop them.

I cannot begin to tell you how offensive these ideas are.

The millions of lawful, law-abiding gun owners, of which I am one, are not the problem here.  Never have been.  Never will be. 

Oh that's offensive to you? Boo hoo, go cry me a river. Yes, the fact you own a gun is a problem. If you want a gun, you should have been in the army or police. You, a civilian do not need a weapon and it should be taken from you. Most civilized nations do not let their civilian populous own weapons.

And why should it be taken from me?  I have not committed a crime, and I wish to have it to defend my family in the event of a home invasion or carjacking.  There are folks who are unarmed who are injured and killed in home invasions.  If they didn't need a firearm, what, exactly, did they need?

strawman, no one needs a firearm, why must we have so many shootings? Your side of the aisle even thought it was ok for people on the TERRORIST WATCH LIST to own weapons and voted against their ban. Why should we as a nation allow the senseless murders to continue, almost every day we have a shooting of some kind, Canada/U.K/rest of Europe/Australia do not have this issue. I should not have to fear that my little sister will get shot up in school because you are afraid of someone breaking into your home. Your fears do not justify the needs for there to be over 300+ million guns in this country.

I do not care if you have not committed a crime, you as a civilian do not deserve a gun and had I been in charge would have the police come seize it from you like what that did in Australia.

What an incredible statement from a guy who's user name is LibertarianRepublican.

[Fuzzy Bear]

As a start to gun control in this country, we need to ban any and all assault (most auto and semi-auto) weapons to people in the general public. There is absolutely no reason for people to own these weapons. They are designed for one thing and one thing only .... to kill people en masse.

Its not that you get one and want to use it. You'd rather have one in the event you really need one than really needing one and be left to your own devices

I can absolutely say that I would never want to own a gun of any sort. Like countless other people, I've struggled with depression and anxiety in the past, and there have been days that I honestly believe the only reason I'm here right now is that I didn't have an easy method to do something very stupid. I'm absolutely terrified to think about what I would have done if there'd been a gun nearby.

When you have a device whose sole purpose is to destroy things, you're much more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love, even if by accident. Even in a person with no history of mental illness, a temporary episode could prove devastating.

Should people have the right to own firearms? If it's there in the constitution, I suppose so. But can we PLEASE stop enforcing this idea of a hero fantasy? Or that everyone's going to need one at some point in their lives? It's just totally disingenuous.

You may not ever need one, but what if you do? Theres no telling if or when youll face somebody who wants to hurt or kill you who's bigger and stronger than you. Wouldnt you want a way to level the playing field and give yourself a chance to live?

People have survived break-ins without guns, and people have been killed despite having one. Claiming that being armed is the only way to survive such an encounter is absurd.

Burglar has a gun, you have nothing. You die. Burglar has a gun, you have a gun. You can kill him before he kills you. You have a gun, burglar has a crowbar. He runs away

Or... you can buy a home security system, and it notifies the police (or better, scares away the burglar), while giving you enough of a heads-up to hide. Revolutionary concept: there are conflicts that can be averted or mitigated without lethal weapons!

I had a home security system once.  It was during a time where my oldest son was into the drug scene and had questionable associations.  We had several alerts on this system where police responded while my wife and I were out.

Because we had "excessive alerts", our local municipality fined me $100.  I appealed this to a 7 member board.  Two (2) board members listened, the other five (5) wanted my money.  The money grubbers lambasted me for not having a "key person"; a neighbor that would have a key to my house that could turn off the alarm.  (I'm not kidding; this is what it was.)  There was no concern for the fact that folks may well have been breaking into my home, and that the alarm had frightened them away.  (Daytime burglaries in my neighborhood are not uncommon; it's when folks are not home, and burglars can hide in plain sight.)

So I can have a gun, carrying concealed, that will give me some protection, particularly if I come home to an intruder, or I can have a home security system and pay fines to my local municipality because police respond to it and they consider it excessive. 

Ok, you shouldn't be fined for it. You're right. It doesn't change the simple fact that the "self defence" argument for letting everyone have guns without proper training and screening is not a good argument, to say the least. I also think that security systems is not a good argument against it, because it costs a lot of money and not everyone can afford it. That's why we have law-enforcement: to protect us. The simple thing is that even with strong gun control like in the rest of the western world, if you're a decent person who really wants a gun you can easily get it via a process that tries to make sure you really are responsible enough to own it and know how to properly use it.

But I WAS fined for it.  That local ordinance is still in effect.

Why are folks so concerned about me, a law-abiding citizen, owning a firearm?  Folks here whine constantly about how them getting an abortion isn't my business, so why is my "choice" in this matter YOUR business?  That's a legit question, is it not?

To the moderator who complained about references to abortion here:  a great many responses to this tragedy in this thread go to the issue of gun control.  This goes to the issue of Constitutional Rights, and the issue of choice.  Those pro-choicers on abortion seem to wish to deny me a choice on something that doesn't affect them directly.

Everyone loves and reverences "The Constitution" when it supports their arguments against public policy (Democrats in the W era, Republicans in the Obama era).  To this, I would suggest that the Constitution doesn't apply EXCEPT in special circumstances; it applies ESPECIALLY in special circumstances.  This is the difference between the Rule of Law and something far less.

[America Needs R'hllor]

As a start to gun control in this country, we need to ban any and all assault (most auto and semi-auto) weapons to people in the general public. There is absolutely no reason for people to own these weapons. They are designed for one thing and one thing only .... to kill people en masse.

Its not that you get one and want to use it. You'd rather have one in the event you really need one than really needing one and be left to your own devices

I can absolutely say that I would never want to own a gun of any sort. Like countless other people, I've struggled with depression and anxiety in the past, and there have been days that I honestly believe the only reason I'm here right now is that I didn't have an easy method to do something very stupid. I'm absolutely terrified to think about what I would have done if there'd been a gun nearby.

When you have a device whose sole purpose is to destroy things, you're much more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love, even if by accident. Even in a person with no history of mental illness, a temporary episode could prove devastating.

Should people have the right to own firearms? If it's there in the constitution, I suppose so. But can we PLEASE stop enforcing this idea of a hero fantasy? Or that everyone's going to need one at some point in their lives? It's just totally disingenuous.

You may not ever need one, but what if you do? Theres no telling if or when youll face somebody who wants to hurt or kill you who's bigger and stronger than you. Wouldnt you want a way to level the playing field and give yourself a chance to live?

People have survived break-ins without guns, and people have been killed despite having one. Claiming that being armed is the only way to survive such an encounter is absurd.

Burglar has a gun, you have nothing. You die. Burglar has a gun, you have a gun. You can kill him before he kills you. You have a gun, burglar has a crowbar. He runs away

Or... you can buy a home security system, and it notifies the police (or better, scares away the burglar), while giving you enough of a heads-up to hide. Revolutionary concept: there are conflicts that can be averted or mitigated without lethal weapons!

I had a home security system once.  It was during a time where my oldest son was into the drug scene and had questionable associations.  We had several alerts on this system where police responded while my wife and I were out.

Because we had "excessive alerts", our local municipality fined me $100.  I appealed this to a 7 member board.  Two (2) board members listened, the other five (5) wanted my money.  The money grubbers lambasted me for not having a "key person"; a neighbor that would have a key to my house that could turn off the alarm.  (I'm not kidding; this is what it was.)  There was no concern for the fact that folks may well have been breaking into my home, and that the alarm had frightened them away.  (Daytime burglaries in my neighborhood are not uncommon; it's when folks are not home, and burglars can hide in plain sight.)

So I can have a gun, carrying concealed, that will give me some protection, particularly if I come home to an intruder, or I can have a home security system and pay fines to my local municipality because police respond to it and they consider it excessive.  

Ok, you shouldn't be fined for it. You're right. It doesn't change the simple fact that the "self defence" argument for letting everyone have guns without proper training and screening is not a good argument, to say the least. I also think that security systems is not a good argument against it, because it costs a lot of money and not everyone can afford it. That's why we have law-enforcement: to protect us. The simple thing is that even with strong gun control like in the rest of the western world, if you're a decent person who really wants a gun you can easily get it via a process that tries to make sure you really are responsible enough to own it and know how to properly use it.

But I WAS fined for it.  That local ordinance is still in effect.

Why are folks so concerned about me, a law-abiding citizen, owning a firearm?  Folks here whine constantly about how them getting an abortion isn't my business, so why is my "choice" in this matter YOUR business?  That's a legit question, is it not?

To the moderator who complained about references to abortion here:  a great many responses to this tragedy in this thread go to the issue of gun control.  This goes to the issue of Constitutional Rights, and the issue of choice.  Those pro-choicers on abortion seem to wish to deny me a choice on something that doesn't affect them directly.

Everyone loves and reverences "The Constitution" when it supports their arguments against public policy (Democrats in the W era, Republicans in the Obama era).  To this, I would suggest that the Constitution doesn't apply EXCEPT in special circumstances; it applies ESPECIALLY in special circumstances.  This is the difference between the Rule of Law and something far less.

I'm not concerned about you owning a gun. Hell, I'm not concerned about any U.S. resident owning a gun because I don't live there. But is it so hard to understand that pro-gun control people are not concerned by the fact that decent citizens like you can buy guns, but by the fact that non-decent citizens can do that, and use it to shoot down teenagers in schools or take guns with them when they go to do even petty crimes?
It's extremely simple- by giving you a "choice" the U.S. government gives this choice to potential criminals, and then you have dozens of school shootings every year and teenagers get murdered. By giving women a choice in the issue of abortion... the govenment just lets them control whether they give birth or not? It doesn't hurt anyone (and no, we shouldn't get into the usual abortion argument. You may believe fetuses are persons if you want). This is why, for example, we have law enforcement and intelligence agencies which sometimes hurt the freedom of everyone- not because of law-abiding citizens, but because of the small but loud minority who will commit crimes if not for these agencies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a start to gun control in this country, we need to ban any and all assault (most auto and semi-auto) weapons to people in the general public. There is absolutely no reason for people to own these weapons. They are designed for one thing and one thing only .... to kill people en masse.

Its not that you get one and want to use it. You'd rather have one in the event you really need one than really needing one and be left to your own devices

I can absolutely say that I would never want to own a gun of any sort. Like countless other people, I've struggled with depression and anxiety in the past, and there have been days that I honestly believe the only reason I'm here right now is that I didn't have an easy method to do something very stupid. I'm absolutely terrified to think about what I would have done if there'd been a gun nearby.

When you have a device whose sole purpose is to destroy things, you're much more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love, even if by accident. Even in a person with no history of mental illness, a temporary episode could prove devastating.

Should people have the right to own firearms? If it's there in the constitution, I suppose so. But can we PLEASE stop enforcing this idea of a hero fantasy? Or that everyone's going to need one at some point in their lives? It's just totally disingenuous.

You may not ever need one, but what if you do? Theres no telling if or when youll face somebody who wants to hurt or kill you who's bigger and stronger than you. Wouldnt you want a way to level the playing field and give yourself a chance to live?

People have survived break-ins without guns, and people have been killed despite having one. Claiming that being armed is the only way to survive such an encounter is absurd.

Burglar has a gun, you have nothing. You die. Burglar has a gun, you have a gun. You can kill him before he kills you. You have a gun, burglar has a crowbar. He runs away

Or as is far more common, you have guns; you aren't there; now burglar has guns to share with his criminal buddies.

[7,052,770]

The arguments in favor of gun ownership are kinda logically similar to the arguments against wearing seat belts. You could come up with scenarios that a seat belt could be harmful - people have choked on seat belts, and there have been fire situations where the second it took to take off the seat belt was the difference in living and burning to death.

But statistically, seat belts are far more likely to save lives than take them, so everyone is better off wearing a seat belt, even if they're personally connected to a freaky story where the lack of a seat belt saved lives.

Similarly, there are lots of situations where guns save lives. (Blue avatars and the like always let us know when one happens.) But statistics consistently show that any of these situations are far more likely that the gun actually saving a life:

• Gun goes off accidentally
• Owner uses it to commit suicide
• Owner, who was formerly sane and law-abiding snaps, and uses it to kill
• Gun is stolen and used for one of the above

Just remember that when you're arguing that you need a gun for self-defense, that's like arguing that you don't wear seat belts for safety reasons (people do that some). Yes, technically you could be right one day, but you're far more likely to be wrong.

[Koharu]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

[kyc0705]

And in any case, kyc talked about assault rifles, whose sole purpose is mass murder.

I'd like to clarify that I was talking more generally about an obsession about guns in general—i.e. the claim that everybody will need one at some point to defend themselves. I wasn't talking specifically about assault rifles, because to me, the argument that private citizens don't need them is so obvious that I rarely even think about it. But considering how circular even any single facet of the gun debate turns out to be, it turns out that's fantastically optimistic.

So let me state my beliefs on this for general reference: The belief that EVERYONE needs to own a gun is dangerous. The belief that ANYONE needs to own an AR-15 is ludicrous.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

[America Needs R'hllor]

And in any case, kyc talked about assault rifles, whose sole purpose is mass murder.

I'd like to clarify that I was talking more generally about an obsession about guns in general—i.e. the claim that everybody will need one at some point to defend themselves. I wasn't talking specifically about assault rifles, because to me, the argument that private citizens don't need them is so obvious that I rarely even think about it. But considering how circular even any single facet of the gun debate turns out to be, it turns out that's fantastically optimistic.

So let me state my beliefs on this for general reference: The belief that EVERYONE needs to own a gun is dangerous. The belief that ANYONE needs to own an AR-15 is ludicrous.

Oh, seems like I got that part wrong by reading into the entire exchange. In any case, I agree with these points, it's just that the reply of "You'd rather have one in the event you really need one" about ProudModerate's post on assault rifles left me completely dumbfounded, because, as you said, it's extremely ludicrous that you'd need one of these mass murder weapons to defend your property.

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

Or maybe don't let dozens of teenagers die every year because of your paranoia.

[Koharu]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

I'm a woman. I know that's a possibility. A gun isn't going to save me. In fact, it's more likely to be used against me.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Assault weapons ought to be banned. The risks are just too much to justify the potential positives from keeping them legal.

'Assault weapons' is a very unclear and imprecise term. ANY semi-automatic in the hands of a homicidal maniac is exremely dangerous. We need much better limits on access to firearms in general, not just some arbitrarially hyped subclass.

 (Do the hands of President Donald "The Grabber" Trump (R-Moscow) count as assault weapons?)

[Strudelcutie4427]

Guns are a dangerous liability. Toddlers kill more people in the United States than foreign terrorists. Having teachers armed? Be prepared for more of this, only with injuries and death: http://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-3rd-grader-fires-police-officers-gun-school/story?id=52866888

A firearm in a home is more likely to be used against you than to defend you.

And you know what? I'd rather let a burglar take my stuff than murder him. I have insurance. Items can be replaced. That life cannot. And the actual lives of children being shot up at school who now are dead are worth a hell of a lot more than my TV in the very unlikely and theoretical situation of a burglary.

Who says he wants your stuff. Maybe he wants to rape your wife or daughter... you don’t know what his motive is

I'm a woman. I know that's a possibility. A gun isn't going to save me. In fact, it's more likely to be used against me.

Wouldn’t you rather be able to hurt, kill, or atleast scare the guy away? Anyone who says they’d rather be raped than shoot the rapist is whack

[Joey1996]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

[Badger]

We should repeal the 2nd Amendment, seize everyone's guns and do what Australia did. Ordinary people do not need guns.

If they refuse to give up their guns and pose a threat to the army/police they should be labeled as traitors to America and charged with treason, and if they fire their weapons, then all means necessary should be used to stop them.

I cannot begin to tell you how offensive these ideas are.

The millions of lawful, law-abiding gun owners, of which I am one, are not the problem here.  Never have been.  Never will be.  

Denial is a magnificent river, but it is not a magnificent state of mind, Fuzzle.  Your defense of your 2nd amendment rights has led to a proliferation of guns unseen in human history and is resulting in horrific crimes that are occurring at increasing rates with no end in sight.  

Indirect responsibility might not be criminal, but it certainly enables them.

Here's a little tip:  Florida's schools are "gun-free zones".  Even the police that serve as "resource officers" at schools do not have firearms.  And, yes, the shooter knew that.  Indeed, every mass shooter in America felt confident that they would be firing into an unarmed populace.

I say give the resource officer their guns back.  Train teachers that wish to learn tactical shooting and allow them to carry open, and serve as limited law enforcement officers.  These attacks are planned, and the perpetrators plan on unarmed victims.  

The responsibility here does not fall on lawful gun owners.  Not in the least.

The fact that your "cure" involves tactical training of teachers for a firefight, is utterly indicative of the madness.

[Joey1996]

Gun control should focus on: universal background checks (including social media posts), ending the gun show loophole, banning modifications that turn semi-autos into machine guns, and stricter laws on moving guns across state lines.

[Joey1996]

We should repeal the 2nd Amendment, seize everyone's guns and do what Australia did. Ordinary people do not need guns.

If they refuse to give up their guns and pose a threat to the army/police they should be labeled as traitors to America and charged with treason, and if they fire their weapons, then all means necessary should be used to stop them.

I cannot begin to tell you how offensive these ideas are.

The millions of lawful, law-abiding gun owners, of which I am one, are not the problem here.  Never have been.  Never will be.  

Denial is a magnificent river, but it is not a magnificent state of mind, Fuzzle.  Your defense of your 2nd amendment rights has led to a proliferation of guns unseen in human history and is resulting in horrific crimes that are occurring at increasing rates with no end in sight.  

Indirect responsibility might not be criminal, but it certainly enables them.

Here's a little tip:  Florida's schools are "gun-free zones".  Even the police that serve as "resource officers" at schools do not have firearms.  And, yes, the shooter knew that.  Indeed, every mass shooter in America felt confident that they would be firing into an unarmed populace.

I say give the resource officer their guns back.  Train teachers that wish to learn tactical shooting and allow them to carry open, and serve as limited law enforcement officers.  These attacks are planned, and the perpetrators plan on unarmed victims.  

The responsibility here does not fall on lawful gun owners.  Not in the least.

The fact that your "cure" involves tactical training of teachers for a firefight, is utterly indicative of the madness.

Both sides of that little back and forth sound completely ridiculous

[America Needs R'hllor]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Assault weapons ought to be banned. The risks are just too much to justify the potential positives from keeping them legal.

'Assault weapons' is a very unclear and imprecise term. ANY semi-automatic in the hands of a homicidal maniac is exremely dangerous. We need much better limits on access to firearms in general, not just some arbitrarially hyped subclass.

 (Do the hands of President Donald "The Grabber" Trump (R-Moscow) count as assault weapons?)

We need to avoid having gun regulations that prevent rural people from having access to guns that they constitutionally have the right to have, and need more than city dwellers. We also need to avoid casting the net so widely that people in the cities suffer. Just because a weapon could hypothetically be used by a homicidal maniac doesn't mean the solution is 'BAN IT! BAN IT! BAN IT!'. We need a more measured approach.

[Joey1996]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are plenty of non-automatic rifles that would let you hunt without being also efficient at killing lots of people?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

We should repeal the 2nd Amendment, seize everyone's guns and do what Australia did. Ordinary people do not need guns.

If they refuse to give up their guns and pose a threat to the army/police they should be labeled as traitors to America and charged with treason, and if they fire their weapons, then all means necessary should be used to stop them.

I cannot begin to tell you how offensive these ideas are.

The millions of lawful, law-abiding gun owners, of which I am one, are not the problem here.  Never have been.  Never will be. 

Oh that's offensive to you? Boo hoo, go cry me a river. Yes, the fact you own a gun is a problem. If you want a gun, you should have been in the army or police. You, a civilian do not need a weapon and it should be taken from you. Most civilized nations do not let their civilian populous own weapons.

And why should it be taken from me?  I have not committed a crime, and I wish to have it to defend my family in the event of a home invasion or carjacking.  There are folks who are unarmed who are injured and killed in home invasions.  If they didn't need a firearm, what, exactly, did they need?

They needed a society that produces less criminals.

The reason I don't want you to have a gun (particularly a self defense handgun) is because (with near certainty) YOU CAN'T USE IT PROPERLY much less use it effectively to defend yourself and your family in a high-stress, close quarters confrontatation. I've done defensive and practical shooting practice and competitions. It's hard. Really hard. And that's without the added stress of a real-life confrontation. And you have to stay in practice or your skills and reflexes rapidly degrade.

Guns are fascinating and powerful tools, but they are also very dangerous. They are not magical talismans of protection, and the tendency of people to treat them as though they are is both dangerous and frustrating.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

[Joey1996]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are plenty of non-automatic rifles that would let you hunt without being also efficient at killing lots of people?

Using bolt-action rifles for hunting is archaic and makes it far more difficult, but sure. My point is semi-automatic rifles do serve a purpose outside of being used to gun people down. I think we need to focus on bump stocks that turn them into machine guns. That also goes for magazine adaptors on 100 round drums that turn handguns into submachine guns.

[Joey1996]

Semi-automatic rifles are no more dangerous than semi-automatic hand guns, they are more likely to jam and are less concealable.

For 9 years the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, Virginia Tech, was executed with the use of a 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun. Handguns were also exclusively used in Kileen, Texas (1991) 23 killed; Edmond, Oklahoma (1985) 15 killed; Binghamton, New York (2009) 14 killed; and Fort Hood (2009) 13 killed.

Banning semi- automatic rifles specifically doesn't make any sense.

Yes, shootings happen because of other guns too. But please explain to me why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle? Yes, gun control should focus on other issues too, but semi-automatic rifles should definitely be banned. There's just no single legit reason to keeping them so available.

Hunting.

If you're going to ban rifles you might as well ban handguns too because they're equally efficient at mass killings. Las Vegas is the only incident I can think of where the use of rifles made a difference.

Haha

Anyone who hunts with a semi-automatic weapon is a loser. Seriously, how bad at hunting do you need to be to have a weapon that assists you in any way? If you need one of those to hunt, you shouldn't be allowed to go hunting because you're already probably a tremendous failure at it.

Ok