5 killed in mall shooting in Washington

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

1 minute ago, Goosey said:

Isn't that a redundant phrase? "Weapon of death"?

Weapon = "any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon, anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim"

Bitch I'm drunk leave me alone. Go cut "I hate Hillary" into you're wrist or something

[Goosey 3,017]

26 minutes ago, CustomGueseppi said:

Bitch I'm drunk leave me alone. Go cut "I hate Hillary" into you're wrist or something

In my wrist?! 

 

(Don't drink and post. Impaired posting hurts many feelings each day. A message from your local Goosey )

[CyanLights 15,576]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

Reports have said the gun involved is a ".22-caliber hunting rifle".

Weapons of death? 

You can still hurt and kill people. As this person has proven. I think that our laws are way to open and lose and need to be stricter

[Goosey 3,017]

Just now, CyanLights said:

You can still hurt and kill people. As this person did.

No kidding? Guns are dangerous. Not exactly news.

That doesn't make this comment any less silly:

 

"Yes and [violent crime statistics would] fall even more if you didn't give weapons of death to people"

[CyanLights 15,576]

Just now, Goosey said:

No kidding? Guns are dangerous. Not exactly news.

That doesn't make this comment any less silly:

 

"Yes and [violent crime statistics would] fall even more if you didn't give weapons of death to people"

I think they were trying to say that our government shouldn't freely give guns to people who want them. I honestly think that the rules and laws need a serious update. Look at Australia's laws, they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. When there was one (all it took was one) they made their laws a lot more strict. And they havent had a mass shooting since then. Yet we have one almost every other month. 

[Goosey 3,017]

1 minute ago, CyanLights said:

I think they were trying to say that our government shouldn't freely give guns to people who want them. I honestly think that the rules and laws need a serious update. Look at Australia's laws, they haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. When there was one (all it took was one) they made their laws a lot more strict. And they havent had a mass shooting since then. Yet we have one almost every other month. 

1. The US government doesn't hand out guns to people.
2. Australians don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
3. Australian laws permit .22-caliber hunting rifles and much more (this video was produced by an Australian guy)

 

[CyanLights 15,576]

6 minutes ago, Goosey said:

1. The US government doesn't hand out guns to people.
2. Australians don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
3. Australian laws permit .22-caliber hunting rifles and much more (this video was produced by an Australian guy)

 

 

6 minutes ago, Goosey said:

1. The US government doesn't hand out guns to people.
2. Australians don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
3. Australian laws permit .22-caliber hunting rifles and much more (this video was produced by an Australian guy)

 

You make a good point with number 3. Perhaps their society is more mature than our, I'm not sure. And as for Number 1 I misspoke in my previous post, I apologize (Im exhausted lol). I meant to say that our government shouldn't allow the selling of guns and rifles so easily (even with permits and what not). And as for number 2, the right to bear arms was created in our society during a time where the guns were much different. If the guns have been updated, why shouldn't the laws? Look at this video for instance. 

 

[Goosey 3,017]

1 minute ago, CyanLights said:

And as for number 2, the right to bear arms was created in our society during a time where the guns were much different. If the guns have been updated, why shouldn't the laws? Look at this video for instance.

It is not a law, it is a constitutionally-guaranteed right. That answers your question on "why don't they just change it?"

The right to bear arms was created to prevent a tyrannical government. As Noah Webster said, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." That doesn't work with muskets any more.

The Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment covers typical weapons in common civilian use. 

 

    We [. . .] recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” 

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose [. . .] the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon [. . .] handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

 

The 1st Amendment was created in a time where people could not go on the internet and have an audience of millions, yet it still applies there, not only to printed words.

 

 

 

 

 

[CyanLights 15,576]

2 minutes ago, Goosey said:

It is not a law, it is a constitutionally-guaranteed right. That answers your question on "why don't they just change it?"

The right to bear arms was created to prevent a tyrannical government. As Noah Webster said, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." That doesn't work with muskets any more.

The Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment covers typical weapons in common civilian use. 

 

    We [. . .] recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” 

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose [. . .] the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon [. . .] handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

 

The 1st Amendment was created in a time where people could not go on the internet and have an audience of millions, yet it still applies there, not only to printed words.

 

 

 

 

 

Its still a constitutional right that is outdated in my opinion. Whatever it is, its not working. The problem is that the violence needs to be stopped. I understand that Congress has already tackled this type of situation in DC v. Heller (could be wrong on that) that weapons are used for protection, they are still used (in excess) for the wrong reasons. I understand Congress has said that weapons are for self protection in their homes and properties but many weapons are literally created for death. An Assault rifle for example were created in WWII for the purpose of war. And the gunman in the Pulse nightclub used an MCX .223-caliber rifle in his massacre. These types of weapons are literally designed to kill and are completely unneeded and excessive. 

 

PS. Thank you for keeping this conversation mature. I have been involved in this topic before on this site and it hasn't gotten ugly for no reason. So I genuinely thank you. 

[Goosey 3,017]

3 minutes ago, CyanLights said:

Its still a constitutional right that is outdated in my opinion. Whatever it is, its not working.

It might be your opinion, but you will have no luck removing an American constitutional right. No political party suggests such a thing. Obama himself said "I believe in the Second Amendment".

8 minutes ago, CyanLights said:

I understand Congress has said that weapons are for self protection in their homes and properties but many weapons are literally created for death. An Assault rifle for example were created in WWII for the purpose of war. And the gunman in the Pulse nightclub used an MCX .223-caliber rifle in his massacre. These types of weapons are literally designed to kill and are completely unneeded and excessive. 

PS. Thank you for keeping this conversation mature. I have been involved in this topic before on this site and it hasn't gotten ugly for no reason. So I genuinely thank you. 

It wasn't Congress, it was SCOTUS.

1. New assault rifles have been banned since 1986
2. SIG MCX civilian version is not an assault rifle, it's a semi-automatic .223 rifle with a standard 30-round magazine. Is there a big difference? Not really.
3. Many guns are designed to kill. Hunting rifle, kill big game. Shotgun, kill everything. Handguns, kill people. That's why using a gun is called "lethal force".
4. Who decides what is unneeded and excessive? Some say "assault weapons" are "unneeded". Some say handguns are "unneeded". Some say everything is "unneeded".
5. Yes, it is effective at "killing people", but that is the reason it is also very useful for home defence, and the capabilities make it suitable for other things as well. MCX and similar rifles are appropriate for hunting, home defence, target shooting and practically any rifle task. Why is this? Why are they popular? Modularity: since this and similar rifles are modern designs you can add or remove parts to configure the gun for various roles. It can be set up for hunting deer and then changed for home defense. It is a "jack of all trades". Affordability: SIG MCX is quite expensive, but many similar rifles are not, in fact many are available for $500. Furthermore, the .223 ammunition is small and cheap so people can afford to practice regularly. Recoil: .223 has little recoil making it easy for new or young shooters and more effective for self-defence. Capacity: standard 30-round magazines are nice for home defence or range shooting. Mechanism: semi-automatic does not require working a bolt, pumping the action or opening the gun to fire another shot. It works like a handgun, pull trigger, fires one bullet. Clearly useful for home defence, but also for hunting animals in groups like coyote or prairie dogs, or simply for fun. Safety: .223-caliber rifles fire small bullets. These often break into pieces when hitting a wall. This means the .223 penetrates less walls than a shotgun, a pistol or most hunting rifles, making it safer for neighbours and family members in a home defence scenario.

NSSF estimates there are currently 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 AR-15-style rifles already in circulation in America. Not including AKs and others, just AR-15.

Furthermore: these "assault weapons" are used in few crimes and murders. Why? Because it's kind of hard and inconvenient to hide it in your clothing or elsewhere. What class of weapon is responsible for most murders? Handguns.

What about the Assault Weapons Ban?

When there was the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004, people looked at the crime and homicide statistics. What did they find? Well, the decade-long Assault Weapons Ban proved to have zero visible effects on the murder rate in America. There was no clear indications of any reductions in gun deaths. It was, therefore, a supremely useless law. A "feel good" solution for the Democrats which only angered many others.

And that was in 1994. Nowadays these guns are more popular than ever... so a new ban would have even less effect. As I said, there are already 5 to 10 million out there, and no one is proposing to grab the existing guns from their owners.