[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I see no reason for banning the M4 carbine while keeping comparable guns on the market, so lets assume the Ruger Mini 14 is banned as well. What then is someone like Adam Lanza to do?

I'm not suggesting that an assault weapon (Whiteknight I know you are a stickler for definitions, notice I used "weapon" instead of "rifle" this time) ban is a solution to all gun violence in this country, but looking at this specific issue of mass shootings like what happened in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine ect, and the pattern that emerges from the profiles of the people who are responsible for these types of shootings - people who demonstrate asocial behavior and appear to fall somewhere on the autism spectrum - how are these types of people suppose to acquire the weapons that allow them to inflict the carnage that they are able to inflict if it were illegal to obtain these guns on the open market.

It's one thing to speak in general terms about a prohibition on these weapons, because of course criminals in general will still be able to get these weapons regardless, but those criminals aren't the ones shooting up schools and movie theaters.

-Sun_Tzu-

The fact of the matter here is that the overwhelming amount of people with mental disorders, don't go out on shooting sprees. These shooting sprees are anomalies. By definition, preparing for something that cannot be predicted is impossible.

What matters here is that these shooting sprees will never stop regardless of any legislation preventing the lawful sale of firearms. So long as guns exist, there will be a person who will use them to murder. Implementing gun control that will only ostricize millions of law abiding Americans as the result of rare occurence is wrong.

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The semantics are irrelevant, the question I'm asking is that if the gun Adam Lanza used were illegal to obtain how would he be able to get his hands on one. -Sun_Tzu-

His mother was a gun enthusiest, she would have probably owned an alterative semi auto rifle like a Ruger Mini 14 if AR-15's where banned.

I'm not suggesting that an assault weapon (Whiteknight I know you are a stickler for definitions, notice I used "weapon" instead of "rifle" this time) ban is a solution to all gun violence in this country, but looking at this specific issue of mass shootings like what happened in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine ect, and the pattern that emerges from the profiles of the people who are responsible for these types of shootings - people who demonstrate asocial behavior and appear to fall somewhere on the autism spectrum - how are these types of people suppose to acquire the weapons that allow them to inflict the carnage that they are able to inflict if it were illegal to obtain these guns on the open market.

It's one thing to speak in general terms about a prohibition on these weapons, because of course criminals in general will still be able to get these weapons regardless, but those criminals aren't the ones shooting up schools and movie theaters.

The fact of the matter here is that the overwhelming amount of people with mental disorders, don't go out on shooting sprees. These shooting sprees are anomalies. By definition, preparing for something that cannot be predicted is impossible.

I seem to notice that liberals will believe any study if it favors their views...

mahlasor

I am certain that goes for everyone.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="TonyDanzaFan"]Is there going to be a security guard in every room in the school? A kid could shoot up his entire class before a security guard could reach the class. TonyDanzaFan

Why at every room on campus? Every classroom would have a panic button, as banks do, somewhere inaccessible to everyone except the teacher which would immediately give indication where something is occurring to the guard(s). And no, a shooter could not kill as many in the time it would take security to react in the school as it would for SWAT to get there.

What better solution do you propose?

Whats with all your anger and name calling? I'm sure you must get a nice smug feeling of superiority by calling people names over the internet. The county I live in has one uniformed officer at every school in my county during school hours. I have seen no complaints about it. The proposal isn't to have a swat team on standby for every school day. You are going to extremes.

Can't UPS drivers make as much as 50k a year? What a waste, maybe it's a sucky job.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

The intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the right to bear arms to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Preventing people from owning the firearms that a government has conflicts with the 2nd Amendment.

Storm_Marine

If I was an American in 2012 I'd be more worried about economic and civil collapse than a genuinely tyrannical goverment.

I agree, yet still the 2nd Amendment's principle's still remain.

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Please show me the basis of this alleged constitutional right to bear assault rifles then. Nuck81

The intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the right to bear arms to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Preventing people from owning the firearms that a government has conflicts with the 2nd Amendment.

How is an assault rifle not a firearm?

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] You will still have a choice on whether to buy a gun or not. The NRA has controlling interest in Gun Manufacturing, is it a surprise they told people to buy more guns?Nuck81

If there were an AWB, I wouldn't have the choice to buy an "assault rifle" would I? When did the NRA tell people to buy guns?

Yes I watched it. At no point did I hear them tell me to go buy a gun.

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] There's no constitutionally guaranteed right to an assault rifle. -Sun_Tzu-

Then you have a misguided interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

The intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the right to bear arms to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Preventing people from owning the firearms that a government has conflicts with the 2nd Amendment.

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] I don't understand how Tougher Gun Laws is hurting our freedom. Nuck81

Easy, because it is taking away a constitutionally guranteed choice. Freedom = Choice.

If there were an AWB, I wouldn't have the choice to buy an "assault rifle" would I? When did the NRA tell people to buy guns?