Many reasons, but one method: a semi-automatic weapon. Every time.

[lindysalsagal]

Every time innocents die we nash our teeth about "why? "

Pointless discussion.

How is the only detail that matters, and this will continue until we outlaw automatic weapons.

It's that simple.

But the networks won't make enough money reporting that, and so we lap up the endless irrelevant details and never get to the heart if it: our reluctance to insist on gun control.

[niyad]

1. well, that and who is firing those weapons.

[Travis_0004]

2. Automatic weapons were banned in 1986.

[ManiacJoe]

3. "why" is not pointless. "Why" is how the problem is solved.

Don't lose focus by blaming the tool used in the killing.

[lindysalsagal]

4. Try killing 50 people with a knife. It's apologists like you who killed those kids.

Ban automatic weapons. Anything less is inexcusable.

[ManiacJoe]

6. If only I was an apologist.

Educate yourself. There were no automatic weapons used in this attack or any other.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. Automatic weapons are already banned n/t

[Marengo]

8. Automatic and semi automatics are terms with different definitions...

I believe you mean to use semi automatic. A word of advice, if you are advocating legislation be technically literate of what you wish to be legislated.

[lindysalsagal]

14. Innocents are dead and you're arguing terminology. That's why more will die. Bickering.

We all own these deaths until we change the laws.

[Marengo]

19. Echoes of a anti-pro choice argument.

[malaise]

24. 49 more people did not have a fucking choice

to live

[Marengo]

25. Again, echoes of the arguments opposing pro-choice based on ignorance...

Convincing arguments and effective legislation are based on correct scientific and technical knowledge.

[Bonx]

40. But it's easier to just post outrage on DU !

[lindysalsagal]

41. I'm starting a gunz ignore list and you're first. Troll.

[Marengo]

42. LOL! I'm not sure life is worth living now...

[Adrahil]

31. The details matter.

If you can't even detail what you want to ban, how on earth do you expect to be successful?

[lancer78]

5. Are you willing

to repeal the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to save the 500 annual lives lost to rifle fire?

[villager]

9. Justice Scalia, you live!

We missed your "unique" interpretations of the Constitution!

[Rex]

13. Well you know if you take a finger, might as well take the entire arm off too.

I will never get this regressive line of thinking. We ban people from having all kinds of things, but you know the kill kill pow pow fun toy has an importance. The million other fun toys are not enough as you know, they want a tank!

[Rex]

12. Some fun toy you cannot get so now it means freedom is in peril? How silly.

You can still have all the other types of firearms, just gotta itch that scratch? I think there are far too many stubborn people that value a certain type of firearm over human life. A lot of examples of that going around.

[boston bean]

17. A free and open society is at risk. The right to live free of fear.

Without that, not one god damn other right exists.

[Marengo]

20. Is freedom from fear an enumerated right?

[boston bean]

22. Wow.

[Adrahil]

32. Just a point....

You can't live without risk.

You are are WAY more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than to be killed with a gun.

You are WAY WAY more likely to die of some random household accident than to be killed by a gun.

If you spend your life "in fear," that's up to you. I think that fear is misplaced.

[treestar]

30. Why the 4th and 5th?

but you are close to admitting the 500 lives don't matter as much as the guns do.

[Adrahil]

33. Does booze matter more than all the lives of drunk-driving victims?

Just sayin'.... that's kind of a weak argument, IMO.

[Lizzie Poppet]

37. In the case of the 4th, it would be necessary for enforcement.

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)

A ban on semi-automatics would be largely ignored without aggressive enforcement...and aggressive enforcement would require eliminating or greatly modifying the 4th Amendment in order to make the process even remotely workable over any reasonable timeframe.

Of course, that leaves the question of just who is going to do that confiscating: there are c. 800k law enforcement officers in the country with arrest powers (that is, armed cops of one type or another). There are at least 80 million gun owners.

[treestar]

38. why would it require that?

they'd still need probable cause that the person had a gun they weren't authorized to have.

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. It's a logistic issue.

With the 4th's protection in place, obtaining and documenting probably cause in order to obtain a search warrant from a judge is a somewhat time-consuming process...and as previously mentioned, there are tens of millions of these firearms in circulation.

[sarisataka]

10. How about this,

to buy an automatic weapon you will need to:

- submit an application to the ATF
- include a full set of fingerprints and two photos
- pass a background check taking 6-12 months to be thorough
- get approval of you chief law enforcement officer for your area
- if approved, pay a $200 transfer fee to take possession and have the gun federally registered
- the gun must always be kept in a locked container and the owner must have the registration on them whenever they take the gun out of their residence. Police or ATF agents may demand to see the registration papers at any time.

Good?

[Recursion]

11. And yet, our party's signature legislative push is to keep them legal but regulate their grip shape

It's beyond stupid...

[Adrahil]

34. Seriously. The "assault weapons" ban was a joke.

The ONLY thing it did that had any effect is the banning of 30 rd magazines. And that part would do no good now because there are hundreds of millions more of those things out there these days.

[Recursion]

35. And that part I think is fine. It was pretty much the only decent part of the law.

Definitely not worth it, though.

[aikoaiko]

15. In part because semiauto rifles and handguns are very popular among law abiding folks.

Except for the occasional hunter checking his scopes aim of fire and the occasional wheel gunner, almost everyone shoots a semiauto.

The things that make them great for collectors, recreational shooters, competitive shooters, and the self-defense minded also makes them useful to criminals.

[pintobean]

16. He didn't use automatic weapons

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:58 AM - Edit history (1)

[yardwork]

26. False equivalency. Nobody cares if he represents gun owners or not.

It's time to make the gun he used illegal, though.

[pintobean]

36. Lol. You read DU and say nobody cares?

And, your idea is ridiculous. There's no way a law like that would pass, much less survive the courts.

[lindysalsagal]

44. Please don't post his face online.

That's what he wanted.

[Vinca]

18. General Stanley McChrystal said these guns are for one thing: killing people.

There's no need for them in the hands of private citizens.

[Crepuscular]

23. There is no need for a lot of things

yet need is not the metric used to dictate the legality of things.

[yardwork]

27. Sometimes people's recreational whims have to give way to public safety.

[Crepuscular]

28. ...

a very arbitrary argument that has no basis in law. You want to ban guns? Change the constitution. easy peasy.

[lindysalsagal]

43. +1000 n/t.

[Recursion]

21. And yet our party's one legislative push keeps them legal

And tries to regulate the shape of their grip. And whether or not they can mount a bayonet.

[ellenrr]

29. Exactly right! nt