Unfortunately their ideal world requires them to apply their reasoning inconsistently and hypocritically. Obviously that's never been an issue for them in the past so they'd have no issue supporting your suggestions. That would just leave rational people to shake our heads at the inconsistencies. It would only be discriminatory when it benefits them.
http://opinion.injo.com/2016/06/256993-im-former-nypd-heres-why-i-suspect-there-was-more-than-one-shooter-in-orlando/
"How did he carry the necessary weapons and ammunition into Pulse Nightclub on a hot Florida summer night without arousing the suspicion of one patron, staff member, or bouncer before firing shots?" He didn't. Weren't there several reports of Mateen exchanging gun fire with security, one of which was an off duty LEO, before entering the club?
So the same guys running the show that apparently can't protect us from mass shooters want to make it so we can't match their firepower. Makes sense.
Wait wut? Do you know how many reports the FBI gets per day? Who are these guys "running the show" that can't protect us from mass shooters anyway?
Yeah it's a shame when the alarm was sounded before the tragedy and it still occurred anyway. The system is over saturated. Surveillance on everyone is as good as surveillance on no one.
First of all RIP to all of the people who were unfortunately killed on this horrific event. What a horrible horrible thing. Whether you think it's right to own pistols, rifles, or whatever, my question to these so-called responsible gun owners would be this.. Do you really need magazines at that size? You wanna own a 12-gauge shotgun and go hunting? By all means. Do you really need an AR-15 with 50 to 100 round magazines that one news analyst described as easy enough to reload that nearly anyone could do it? This is just horrible and whether you want to own guns or not, people like this prove why there needs to be stricter laws on it. There's a reason that things like this happen in states with lenient gun laws and it's unlikely coincidental.
1. An AR-15 was not used in this attack. Not sure why everyone keeps harping on THAT specific gun. Must be because it looks scary and "military". 2. I think NOW the discussion had moved from the actual rifle to clip size. Unless you can now confiscate all clips larger than what you deem reasonable then you have no way to solve the problem because there are a whole host of rifles that can be fitted with massive clips. So is it the actual rifle or the clip size? What if the rifle wasn't scary or military looking but instead looked like a plain old hunting rifle. With a 50 round clip. Is that better? Full disclosure, my brother owns 2 AR-15s. I don't know why he needs 2 of them but he's an ex-Marine fighter pilot, a true patriot, a pilot for FedEx, he lives in Texas, he keeps them locked up and is an incredibly lawful gun owner so I'm not sure who's business it is what he does with his disposable income and spare time. _
Well the last one was in California which is one of the most strict in the country for gun laws. Also, most gun violence in this country is with gang bangers and hand guns and in cities like Chicago that has some of the strictest gun control. People also tend to shoot up "gun free" zones, so that's another thing. The mass shootings are terrifying because they shoot up a bunch of innocent people that were just minding their own business. but in reality it's a small fraction of actual gun violence in this country. As for the massive capacity magazines of 50/100, etc. As a strong 2A supporter I would be fine with those being regulated very tightly, kind of like they do with automatic weapons today. So, you can still get them if it's important enough to you that you're willing to jump through all the hoops and deal with the ATF, but jihadi john can't go order one on amazon prime. I question how much difference there is between having 10 10-round mags and 1 100 round mag though. It takes seconds to swap out mags.
The fact that the gun used was and MCX and not an AR-15 is of negligible consequence. Some gun nut correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that one is an Accord and the other is a Camry.
It takes seconds to swap out mags but it also takes seconds for potential victims to tackle someone swapping out mags...
It's negligible but it clearly points out the scariness aspect. Folks want to ban the AR-15 because it looks scary, that no one needs a scary looking gun like that. The fact is there are dozens and dozens of scary looking guns but the AR-15 has become the generic name for a scary military looking rifle. Like a Kleenex. _
I updated law #1 of my proposal: 1) If you are a convicted felon, or you have a history of mental illness, or you are on any FBI/CIA "watch list", you can not own a gun 2) Implementation on a national, NON-PUBLIC database to perform background checks prior to the purchasing of a gun to see if you are anyone identified in #1. 3) If you live in a home with someone with a mental illness, you are required to keep your weapon locked up at all times when not in use 4) If you commit a crime, and I mean any crime, while in possession of a gun, you receive federally-enforced 10 year prison sentence in addition to whatever sentencing for your crimes. Why would anyone on either side object to these becoming law tomorrow?
