After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Sometimes there is more than one intruder threatening to take your life in a break-in. And in a situation like that, it's moving target, possibly amped up on something. Some people think there's no reason to have more than 5 or 6 rounds...

Until they're in that situation. Then, some still blame the gun instead of the intruder.

 

And now we have the Tennessee waffle house shooting--four dead and several injured, again by an AR15. Travis Reinking could have use a pistol, a knife, or a machete, but he chose an AR15, probably because it enabled him to make bigger holes in more people at a safer distance for himself. If one of the targets hadn't wrestled the gun away from him, who knows how many more would have died. Yes the victims would have been just as dead if they slipped in the shower or died of old age, but they didn't. They were minding their business in a restaurant, exercising due care eating their waffles or whatever else they had ordered. They didn't contribute to their deaths. Of course, once again, mental illness seems to have played a part. I deduce this from the fact that Mr. Reinking was half naked, and had been involved the previous year in jumping over invading the White House grounds. However, I'll go out on a limb in predict nothing much will be done by way of improving mental health. The perpetrator must share blame with the law enforcement authorities who returned his arsenal to his father, and above all, with his negligent father, who violated his agreement with the authorities by turning them over to his son. I hope at minimum the dad will be the defendant in four wrongful death suits which will leave him penniless and wearing the same lack of attire as his son at the time of the shootings. Score another one though for the NRA and its army of mindless defenders.

 

Bigger holes. Lol. .223/5.56 is a lot smaller than even a 9mm. There is really no advantage for an active shooter to use an AR at that distance.

 

People have the right to have rifles with an ammo capacity that is suitable for self defense.

If everyone in the restaurant had been armed, who knows how many lives would have been saved.

 

So, as long as their are disturbed people, AR-15s should be banned? And if he had used another type of gun, would you be so zealous?

 

I guess I just don't see it that way. It's not that you don't have the right to bear arms. It's that you don't have the right to bear all arms. There's a difference you know.

 

of course I've already explained about bazookas, so why do we have to do it all again.

 

That sums up a consensus of law enforcement personnel as well.

 

We have the right to keep and bear arms that are suitable for self defense against criminals.

We have the right to keep and bear all arms that there is no justification for banning.

Restrictions on bazookas can be justified with a good reason.

Restrictions on bazookas do not impede people's ability to defend themselves against criminals.

 

wrong. You don't see anyone toting a bazooka or an m16. next to go, ar-15 and similar.

 

and so you see why other restrictions make perfect sense.

 

The fact is that he didn't. It depends on what other type of gun you're talking about.

 

Source?

 

He might have used a six-shooter. And would you then be here condemning that gun?

 

Sure. Here you are. Number 19.

http://police-praetorian.netdna-ssl.com/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

 

Could you quote whatever it is so that we don't have to download something storch?

 

91.2% of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable

 

thank you. I completely disagree with that but ok.

 

Not wrong. That rights can only be restricted if there is a good reason for the restriction is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence.

People can provide a good reason for restricting those.

Not when there is no reason for banning them.

Although it is very convenient when you to waste all of your energy on an impossibility. It guarantees yet another NRA victory.

They only make sense if they can be justified with a good reason.

 

Why does that matter? Someone killed with an AR-15 is no less dead than someone killed with a different rifle with a large magazine.

The gun itself doesn't matter much. A rifle with a large magazine is a rifle with a large magazine.