shooting in El Paso today

[tango]

Yeah I see how well that has worked so far

If some nutjob came for me I'd like to at least have a sporting chance to defend myself. Maybe circumstances would be such that I'd rather run and hide but it's nice to at least have the choice to fight back with something useful.

The key thing is that if you have the choice to carry something you might use to fight back you don't have to actually do it. You have the freedom to either take steps to protect yourself, or not take steps to protect yourself. It's up to you. It's one of the things about freedom.

Of course since schools are gun free zones there's only one option available - to run and hide and hope the nutjob doesn't find you. But, hold on, wait a minute here. Schools are gun free zones. Surely people being shot in schools can't possibly happen because, you know, it's illegal to have a gun in a school. You'd almost be forgiven for thinking the criminals don't obey the law.

Hey, maybe we're onto something there.

 

[psalms 91]

And maybe the whole point of limiting the rate of fire and the kills is being swept away. By the way, I am for arming teachers with handguns. I am also not against you carrying one, what i am against is the military style weapons with the fast rates of fire and oversize magazines thagt increase these weapons killing ability. It is rediculous to think anyone should have access to a gun that in less than a minute can kill 20 and injure 50.

 

[tango]

And maybe the whole point of limiting the rate of fire and the kills is being swept away. By the way, I am for arming teachers with handguns. I am also not against you carrying one, what i am against is the military style weapons with the fast rates of fire and oversize magazines thagt increase these weapons killing ability. It is rediculous to think anyone should have access to a gun that in less than a minute can kill 20 and injure 50.

So what sort of rate of fire do you think should be banned? If you think a fast rate of fire should be outlawed, what counts as "fast", and what counts as acceptable? How fast do you think a gun a civilian can legally own without a hugely restrictive license can fire?

 

[psalms 91]

So what sort of rate of fire do you think should be banned? If you think a fast rate of fire should be outlawed, what counts as "fast", and what counts as acceptable? How fast do you think a gun a civilian can legally own without a hugely restrictive license can fire?

That is up to the lawmakers if they ever get any courage to do what is right and I am sure the NRA will have their own ideas as well. The whole thing needs to move past the endless side trips and questions that really answer themselves. Military assault weapons is pretty self explanatory as is oversize magazines but hey we can talk once again as the killing goes on.

 

[tango]

That is up to the lawmakers if they ever get any courage to do what is right and I am sure the NRA will have their own ideas as well. The whole thing needs to move past the endless side trips and questions that really answer themselves. Military assault weapons is pretty self explanatory as is oversize magazines but hey we can talk once again as the killing goes on.

The trouble is that "military assault weapons" isn't self explanatory at all, and neither is "oversize magazines". You're still missing the point that if you want to ban something you need to be able to objectively define it. Vague terms like "it's common sense" and "I know it when I see it" are useless - you can't have an entire industry regulated by the vagaries of opinion.

What would clearly be called a "military assault weapon" is already illegal for civilians to own because they are fully automatic. So since the law you're describing is already in place you really need to come up with something more useful if you want to expand the scope to include rifles in widespread use among the civilian population.

I had hoped your first foray into something remotely useful might yield some specifics, but instead it seems as soon as you were asked to flesh out an idea you reverted to form, commenting about "questions that answer themselves" (hint: they don't, or the discussions would be resolved by now), and acting as if everything were self-evident when it's anything but.

But let's go back to your thoughts on the notion of rate of fire because at least that's something that can be objectively defined. What do you consider a rate of fire that is too fast for a firearm to be acceptable for civilian use? 500 rounds per minute? 250? 150? 50? 5? Even if lawmakers disagree, why not come up with some specific ideas for where you think lines might be drawn.

 

[Andrew]

Still no point in having weapons that fire multiple rounds automatically unless you are facing an army of men or an army of bears :/
No excuses either, hand guns for self defense and rifles for game only, one less death is worth the regulations, also a waiting period should be mandatory and the game rifles should be kept locked up at the game site [emoji41]

 

[tango]

Still no point in having weapons that fire multiple rounds automatically unless you are facing an army of men or an army of bears :/
No excuses either, hand guns for self defense and rifles for game only, one less death is worth the regulations, also a waiting period should be mandatory and the game rifles should be kept locked up at the game site [emoji41]

You do know that guns that fire multiple rounds automatically (otherwise known as fully automatic rifles) are already illegal, right? There are a very limited number that can be owned if you have the right license but the application fee is high and it takes months to process. You can't just walk into a gun shop and buy a fully automatic weapon. If you can find one for sale they cost five figures.

It's also not even remotely as simple as "one less death is worth the regulations" because as soon as the law-abiding population is disarmed the chances are there will be more deaths as criminals decide to prey on the freshly disarmed populace. So even if you want to try and measure how many lives might be saved (even ignoring the inconvenient truth that criminals don't tend to obey the laws), you also have to consider how many lives might be lost as a result of the law-abiding being prevented from protecting themselves.

Your assertion that game rifles should be locked up at the game site suggests you don't know much about hunting. You know hunting is often about guys taking their rifle, driving out into the woods somewhere, and walking into the woods? Where exactly should they lock up their rifle? There aren't convenient storage lockers beside every gravel pulloff in the woods. Even if designated spaces did exist where the deer showed up at a predictable time, there's not much sport in simply going to the club, unlocking your rifle, and standing in line with a couple of dozen other guys until it's your turn to take the next deer that walks through, only to lock up the rifle again until next year.

The "one less death is worth the regulations" argument is absurd. By that argument we should also ban motor vehicles because the death toll on the roads is comparable to the death toll thanks to guns. The difference is that the death toll on the roads isn't largely comprised of suicides and gang-related violence, and motor vehicles also cause all sorts of other health-related issues thanks to their emissions. But hey, one less death is worth the regulations, right?

 

[Andrew]

You do know that guns that fire multiple rounds automatically (otherwise known as fully automatic rifles) are already illegal, right? There are a very limited number that can be owned if you have the right license but the application fee is high and it takes months to process. You can't just walk into a gun shop and buy a fully automatic weapon. If you can find one for sale they cost five figures.

It's also not even remotely as simple as "one less death is worth the regulations" because as soon as the law-abiding population is disarmed the chances are there will be more deaths as criminals decide to prey on the freshly disarmed populace. So even if you want to try and measure how many lives might be saved (even ignoring the inconvenient truth that criminals don't tend to obey the laws), you also have to consider how many lives might be lost as a result of the law-abiding being prevented from protecting themselves.

Your assertion that game rifles should be locked up at the game site suggests you don't know much about hunting. You know hunting is often about guys taking their rifle, driving out into the woods somewhere, and walking into the woods? Where exactly should they lock up their rifle? There aren't convenient storage lockers beside every gravel pulloff in the woods. Even if designated spaces did exist where the deer showed up at a predictable time, there's not much sport in simply going to the club, unlocking your rifle, and standing in line with a couple of dozen other guys until it's your turn to take the next deer that walks through, only to lock up the rifle again until next year.

The "one less death is worth the regulations" argument is absurd. By that argument we should also ban motor vehicles because the death toll on the roads is comparable to the death toll thanks to guns. The difference is that the death toll on the roads isn't largely comprised of suicides and gang-related violence, and motor vehicles also cause all sorts of other health-related issues thanks to their emissions. But hey, one less death is worth the regulations, right?

There's a big difference between vehicular accidents and murder tho. I believe rifles should be locked away or unloaded when not in use for a season, also I never suggested taking arms away from citizens, it's our right to defend ourselves but maybe we should go with a standard such as the "blade cannot extend the palm size" type of measurement... I see fewer mass murders by hand guns if any..

 

[tango]

There's a big difference between vehicular accidents and murder tho. I believe rifles should be locked away or unloaded when not in use for a season, also I never suggested taking arms away from citizens, it's our right to defend ourselves but maybe we should go with a standard such as the "blade cannot extend the palm size" type of measurement... I see fewer mass murders by hand guns if any..

Yes, there is a difference between a fatal accident and a deliberate murder. The point is you can't use arguments like "if it saves just one life it's worth it" and then not apply the reasoning consistently. Banning motor vehicles would probably save more lives than banning guns simply based on looking at fatalities and injuries caused by vehicles and the harm caused by vehicle emissions. If the argument "if it saves one life it's worth it" has any merit at all then banning motor vehicles makes more sense than banning firearms.

There may be fewer mass murders with hand guns but I believe that if you look at homicides overall the vast majority are committed with handguns. The AR-15 that is so beloved of the people who call for vaguely defined bans on "any weapon that we think might be kinda-sorta-like a military thing, but we wouldn't recognise a functionally identical gun without the scary looking scope on it" is used in a vanishingly small percentage of homicides. It's easy to see why handguns are preferable to rifles if you want to kill someone - it's pretty easy to hide even a full-size 9mm under even a fairly basic T-shirt. Hiding a full-size rifle is trickier.

The "logic" behind much of the howling about guns like the AR-15 makes no more sense than observing a few times when a Ford F-150 was used in a hit-and-run or ram-raid style attack, declaring the F-150 to be an "assault vehicle" and calling for them to be banned. Perhaps a vehicle like an F-150 makes a lot of sense if you want to ram a business, load it up with as much stolen stuff as you can as fast as you can, and get out within 90 seconds before the police arrive. A vehicle that doesn't draw attention and can haul a load of stuff makes sense for such activities. Banning it is just as absurd because that exact same functionality makes it useful for all sorts of lawful purposes. Just like a rifle like the AR-15 is good for home defense - in many ways it's better than a handgun for home defense for a variety of reasons.

How would you define a gun limitation that's comparable to a knife having to be smaller than palm size? And why would you worry about locking rifles away out of season, when some species can be hunted pretty much any time of year? If I hear a bang in the middle of the night that tells me I have an uninvited guest downstairs I want as much firepower as I can lay my hands on, at least until I know what kind of threat I'm dealing with. The only reason to require keeping firearms locked up is if there are children in the house who might try to play with them.

As you say the 2nd Amendment recognises the right to keep and bear arms. The people who talk about banning this or that type of weapon need to provide objective and specific definitions of exactly what it is they want to ban because a large amount of rhetoric about "common sense" not only makes very little sense but frequently leaves definitions sufficiently vague that they could be used to ban just about any kind of firearm. A term like "rifles like the AR-15" is all well and good but without defining exactly what attributes make a rifle "like an AR-15" in the sense that it needs to be prohibited one could easily argue that a single-shot musket is "like an AR-15" insofar as it has a long barrel, a stock, some form of sight, and is intended to be fired with both hands gripping it.

 

[Josiah]

Still no point in having weapons that fire multiple rounds automatically unless you are facing an army of men or an army of bears :/
No excuses either, hand guns for self defense and rifles for game only, one less death is worth the regulations, also a waiting period should be mandatory and the game rifles should be kept locked up at the game site [emoji41]

I'm NOT one of those opposed to "gun control" per se. I especially think we need to attempt to get a better handle on emotional/mental issues - although I agree that's a VERY difficult (and problematic thing) to do.


But some points I can't evade....


1. IF gun control worked, Detroit would have the least gun violence and Montana would have the most. The OPPOSITE is true. The REALITY is: where gun control is greatest SO IS gun violence. It seems gun control is not the answer; it MAY make a difference but it's obviously NOT the answer. And comparison to Sweden (etc.) is irrelevant: Alabama is not Sweden.


2. The reason for the Second Amendment is so NOT so folks can kill turkeys for Thanksgiving dinner or even protect one's family from bad guys. What I was taught in civics, it was as a defense from evil government. It IS what enabled the American Revolution. One may question this in our modern world, but even in the midst of extreme gun control, enough people had guns in Hungry in the 1950's and Poland in the 1990's to make the Soviet Union take notice (the first rebellion ultimately lost, the second ultimately won), but only because guns bought BEFORE the Soviets walked in were not all taken away. I admit this is very limited today, but there is nothing dictators want more than to eliminate the people having any means to rebel.


3. San Diego just became yet another city to REQUIRE guns to be locked up. I "get" the rationale here..... but the proponents ADMITTED they could not give ANY evidence that ANY jurisdiction that enacted such a law experienced ANY reduction in gun violence, accidents, etc.... NOTHING that shows this makes ANY difference AT ALL. They admitted it. And.... it means that any bad guy knows that the owner having a gun will make no difference: he knows that gun is unavailable. The proponents also admitted the law is not enforceable; there simply is no way the police can know if this house has a gun and it's locked up. So.... liberals (the city council only has one Republican on it) act like liberals do: DO something that accomplishes nothing good but makes people FEEL better; liberalism is all about FEELINGS - even if it just makes things worse.



IMO, this is a complicated issue. It's NOT as easy as the liberals want: if we just follow the lead of Detroit and Washington DC - all will be just swell and we'll all join hands and sing "Kumbyah." Singing "What the world needs now is love" may make you feel better but it won't do a thing about the problem. Guns have been with us since the founding of the USA - much LESS so now than historically. Gun control didn't exist AT ALL for over 150 in our history - during which there were almost no mass shootings (indeed, "hate" murders were done by hangings, not by shooting). In the past 50+ \, something has changed in our CULTURE - especially in certain areas and subcultures. THAT'S what we need to identify..... THAT'S what we need to address. And THAT may be very difficult. Symbolic actions meant only to make liberals FEEL better while accomplishing nothing just keeps us from getting to the problem.


IF I had the "answer" I'd share it. I don't. Personally.... other than people being better people (and especially better parents), I don't even have a suggestion. But I know this: There are subcultures in our modern society where a LOT of kids don't know the name of their father.... we live in a country where some subcultures have a HUGE percentage of the men in prison.... we live in a culture of death where killing who seem inconvenient or unwanted has been turned into a secular sacrament (that the liberals venerate); life is not a value... there are some (IMO, especially liberals) who are OBSESSED with dividing everyone by race, color, gender, ethnicity, language - a whole "us vs. them" mentality that diminishes others... the ME-ism that has taken over our culture; the idea that MY feelings need to prevail .... I SUSPECT all this is contributing.

 

[Andrew]

Yes, there is a difference between a fatal accident and a deliberate murder. The point is you can't use arguments like "if it saves just one life it's worth it" and then not apply the reasoning consistently. Banning motor vehicles would probably save more lives than banning guns simply based on looking at fatalities and injuries caused by vehicles and the harm caused by vehicle emissions. If the argument "if it saves one life it's worth it" has any merit at all then banning motor vehicles makes more sense than banning firearms.

There may be fewer mass murders with hand guns but I believe that if you look at homicides overall the vast majority are committed with handguns. The AR-15 that is so beloved of the people who call for vaguely defined bans on "any weapon that we think might be kinda-sorta-like a military thing, but we wouldn't recognise a functionally identical gun without the scary looking scope on it" is used in a vanishingly small percentage of homicides. It's easy to see why handguns are preferable to rifles if you want to kill someone - it's pretty easy to hide even a full-size 9mm under even a fairly basic T-shirt. Hiding a full-size rifle is trickier.

The "logic" behind much of the howling about guns like the AR-15 makes no more sense than observing a few times when a Ford F-150 was used in a hit-and-run or ram-raid style attack, declaring the F-150 to be an "assault vehicle" and calling for them to be banned. Perhaps a vehicle like an F-150 makes a lot of sense if you want to ram a business, load it up with as much stolen stuff as you can as fast as you can, and get out within 90 seconds before the police arrive. A vehicle that doesn't draw attention and can haul a load of stuff makes sense for such activities. Banning it is just as absurd because that exact same functionality makes it useful for all sorts of lawful purposes. Just like a rifle like the AR-15 is good for home defense - in many ways it's better than a handgun for home defense for a variety of reasons.

How would you define a gun limitation that's comparable to a knife having to be smaller than palm size? And why would you worry about locking rifles away out of season, when some species can be hunted pretty much any time of year? If I hear a bang in the middle of the night that tells me I have an uninvited guest downstairs I want as much firepower as I can lay my hands on, at least until I know what kind of threat I'm dealing with. The only reason to require keeping firearms locked up is if there are children in the house who might try to play with them.

As you say the 2nd Amendment recognises the right to keep and bear arms. The people who talk about banning this or that type of weapon need to provide objective and specific definitions of exactly what it is they want to ban because a large amount of rhetoric about "common sense" not only makes very little sense but frequently leaves definitions sufficiently vague that they could be used to ban just about any kind of firearm. A term like "rifles like the AR-15" is all well and good but without defining exactly what attributes make a rifle "like an AR-15" in the sense that it needs to be prohibited one could easily argue that a single-shot musket is "like an AR-15" insofar as it has a long barrel, a stock, some form of sight, and is intended to be fired with both hands gripping it.

I'm NOT one of those opposed to "gun control" per se. I especially think we need to attempt to get a better handle on emotional/mental issues - although I agree that's a VERY difficult (and problematic thing) to do.


But some points I can't evade....


1. IF gun control worked, Detroit would have the least gun violence and Montana would have the most. The OPPOSITE is true. The REALITY is: where gun control is greatest SO IS gun violence. It seems gun control is not the answer; it MAY make a difference but it's obviously NOT the answer. And comparison to Sweden (etc.) is irrelevant: Alabama is not Sweden.


2. The reason for the Second Amendment is so NOT so folks can kill turkeys for Thanksgiving dinner or even protect one's family from bad guys. What I was taught in civics, it was as a defense from evil government. It IS what enabled the American Revolution. One may question this in our modern world, but even in the midst of extreme gun control, enough people had guns in Hungry in the 1950's and Poland in the 1990's to make the Soviet Union take notice (the first rebellion ultimately lost, the second ultimately won), but only because guns bought BEFORE the Soviets walked in were not all taken away. I admit this is very limited today, but there is nothing dictators want more than to eliminate the people having any means to rebel.


3. San Diego just became yet another city to REQUIRE guns to be locked up. I "get" the rationale here..... but the proponents ADMITTED they could not give ANY evidence that ANY jurisdiction that enacted such a law experienced ANY reduction in gun violence, accidents, etc.... NOTHING that shows this makes ANY difference AT ALL. They admitted it. And.... it means that any bad guy knows that the owner having a gun will make no difference: he knows that gun is unavailable. The proponents also admitted the law is not enforceable; there simply is no way the police can know if this house has a gun and it's locked up. So.... liberals (the city council only has one Republican on it) act like liberals do: DO something that accomplishes nothing good but makes people FEEL better; liberalism is all about FEELINGS - even if it just makes things worse.



IMO, this is a complicated issue. It's NOT as easy as the liberals want: if we just follow the lead of Detroit and Washington DC - all will be just swell and we'll all join hands and sing "Kumbyah." Singing "What the world needs now is love" may make you feel better but it won't do a thing about the problem. Guns have been with us since the founding of the USA - much LESS so now than historically. Gun control didn't exist AT ALL for over 150 in our history - during which there were almost no mass shootings (indeed, "hate" murders were done by hangings, not by shooting). In the past 50+ \, something has changed in our CULTURE - especially in certain areas and subcultures. THAT'S what we need to identify..... THAT'S what we need to address. And THAT may be very difficult. Symbolic actions meant only to make liberals FEEL better while accomplishing nothing just keeps us from getting to the problem.


IF I had the "answer" I'd share it. I don't. Personally.... other than people being better people (and especially better parents), I don't even have a suggestion. But I know this: There are subcultures in our modern society where a LOT of kids don't know the name of their father.... we live in a country where some subcultures have a HUGE percentage of the men in prison.... we live in a culture of death where killing who seem inconvenient or unwanted has been turned into a secular sacrament (that the liberals venerate); life is not a value... there are some (IMO, especially liberals) who are OBSESSED with dividing everyone by race, color, gender, ethnicity, language - a whole "us vs. them" mentality that diminishes others... the ME-ism that has taken over our culture; the idea that MY feelings need to prevail .... I SUSPECT all this is contributing.

Both make solid points, I personally never shot a gun nor do I own one, so I'm a bit ignorant concerning anything guns lol
I'm not sure but I think it might have been Ted Nugent who said something along the lines of 'the problem is the promise to these mass shooters that their name will be known nationwide throughout the media, they could care less about the lives they spent or even of their own as long as they become infamous'.... this along with many other realizations could eventually be used to stop mass shooters in their tracks, I support Trumps decision on capital punishment for mass shooters but like I mentioned, people today seem to have a more egocentrical reason and motivation for commiting these crimes rather than the motives we suggest to ourselves was the cause. We agree that they are sick and will get the attention they seek by commiting outrageous violent acts, what if Trump passed a law that mass shooters names will not be released or glorified by the media? Could it be at least a step?
For instance the columbine kids were hyped up and motivated by the thoughts of which actors would play them and who would direct a movie based on their killings! They wanted fame, the same fame that media has given Manson!

 

[tango]

Both make solid points, I personally never shot a gun nor do I own one, so I'm a bit ignorant concerning anything guns lol

My experience with guns is somewhat limited but I do know enough to ridicule the people, usually on the political left, who talk as if an AR-15 is fully automatic, or that it can fire hundreds of rounds a minute or similar. There are certain comments that instantly lower the credibility of the speaker, and not knowing the most basic facts about guns suggests that there's unlikely to be much value in the words wrapped around that.

I'm not sure but I think it might have been Ted Nugent who said something along the lines of 'the problem is the promise to these mass shooters that their name will be known nationwide throughout the media, they could care less about the lives they spent or even of their own as long as they become infamous'.... this along with many other realizations could eventually be used to stop mass shooters in their tracks, I support Trumps decision on capital punishment for mass shooters but like I mentioned, people today seem to have a more egocentrical reason and motivation for commiting these crimes rather than the motives we suggest to ourselves was the cause. We agree that they are sick and will get the attention they seek by commiting outrageous violent acts, what if Trump passed a law that mass shooters names will not be released or glorified by the media? Could it be at least a step?
For instance the columbine kids were hyped up and motivated by the thoughts of which actors would play them and who would direct a movie based on their killings! They wanted fame, the same fame that media has given Manson!

I think it would be a huge step if it were well known that the victims would be remembered and the perpetrator would be quietly executed (if they survived at all - many either commit suicide directly or "suicide by cop") and their name never even mentioned. The trouble is that the media would have to be complicit because a law banning mention would potentially fall foul of the notion of a free press. And, for now at least, it appears the free press wants to push the left's agenda of gun control at any cost even if it achieves nothing and publishing pictures of the guy who could easily be your neighbor or your child's classmate is the kind of thing that can trigger the knee-jerk reaction that Something Must Be Done, even if that something will completely fail to achieve the stated aim while causing huge collateral damage in the process.

One thing about guns used in self protection that proponents of small capacity magazines never seem to consider is that in a situation like a home invasion you don't know how many rounds you will need. As a rule a homeowner isn't going to want to be firing rounds all over the place because each one causes real damage to their home and possessions that will take time, money and inconvenience to fix. And yet if your pulse is racing because you're in a full-blown emergency situation you may not be the world's finest marksman, especially in the half-light or near-darkness of the night. It's entirely possible that you will take several shots to drop the intruder, which is a problem if you find there are two or three more of them and you're limited to 10 rounds because someone with a security detail packing automatic weapons decided that was all you were allowed (of course they are allowed far more). Hopefully you've got a few magazines filled ahead of time that you can access in a hurry. Needless to say the intruders aren't going to care about any of the laws you're expected to follow - if you're willing to commit robbery why not armed robbery; if you're willing to commit rape why not aggravated rape, and why not murder? The ability to use a magazine with a larger capacity is just one reason why a rifle is often better for home defense - the largest regular magazine I've seen to fit in a handgun holds 17 9mm rounds but I think it's pretty easy to find a magazine for an AR-15 that will hold 40-50 .223 rounds. You can get a .22 conversion kit that uses a round magazine holding something like 75 rounds, but it's fiddly to use, incredibly fiddly to load, and prone to jam. Another reason for using a rifle for home defense is because it has multiple points of contact with the weapon. A handgun is typically held either in one hand or, more usually (especially for larger caliber weapons), in both hands (i.e. two points of contact with the body at a maximum). A rifle is held with one hand positioned with a finger on the trigger, the other hand further along the barrel, the stock against the shoulder, and most likely the side of the face against the side of the rifle to look through the sight/scope. That makes four points of contact, and it's remarkable how much more stable that can make the firearm. From personal experience my shot grouping with an AR-15 is much tighter than my grouping with a 9mm handgun, at a comparable range. For what it's worth an advantage of a pump action shotgun for home defense is that the sound of the shotgun being racked with a shell is very distinctive and the chances are any burglar who wasn't as high as a kite would know that their best course of action upon hearing that sound is to find somewhere else to raid.

 

[psalms 91]

The trouble is that "military assault weapons" isn't self explanatory at all, and neither is "oversize magazines". You're still missing the point that if you want to ban something you need to be able to objectively define it. Vague terms like "it's common sense" and "I know it when I see it" are useless - you can't have an entire industry regulated by the vagaries of opinion.

What would clearly be called a "military assault weapon" is already illegal for civilians to own because they are fully automatic. So since the law you're describing is already in place you really need to come up with something more useful if you want to expand the scope to include rifles in widespread use among the civilian population.

I had hoped your first foray into something remotely useful might yield some specifics, but instead it seems as soon as you were asked to flesh out an idea you reverted to form, commenting about "questions that answer themselves" (hint: they don't, or the discussions would be resolved by now), and acting as if everything were self-evident when it's anything but.

But let's go back to your thoughts on the notion of rate of fire because at least that's something that can be objectively defined. What do you consider a rate of fire that is too fast for a firearm to be acceptable for civilian use? 500 rounds per minute? 250? 150? 50? 5? Even if lawmakers disagree, why not come up with some specific ideas for where you think lines might be drawn.

50 rounds per minute and even less is to much and as for the weapons that need to be banned lets start with the AR=15, the AK 47, and whatever else the lawmakers can decide upon

 

[tango]

50 rounds per minute and even less is to much and as for the weapons that need to be banned lets start with the AR=15, the AK 47, and whatever else the lawmakers can decide upon

Why does the AR-15 need to be banned? You're very good at making blanket statements but have yet to back them up with, well, anything at all.

If you think 50 rounds per minute is high enough to be banned you'd need to ban just about every single semiautomatic handgun as well. That would effectively gut the 2nd Amendment and render keeping of firearms for personal protection an exercise in futility. You wouldn't reduce crime at all, you'd just render the law-abiding population defenseless against criminals.