Enough is Enough already

If a few muslims commits acts of terror should islam be banned?
No. It is wrong to punish all over the actions of a few.

Now if you really want to target the problem perhaps we should start in the mind of the individual. What makes them want to kill?
There are so many ways to kill unarmed civilians just banning guns would not stop hateful people from killing others. Most mass shooters gets less than 20 kills. A well trained archer could easily get that many. And bows are silent. At night it would be harder for others to see the killings and it wouldn't create the alarming sound of a gun. A truck driver plowing into large crowds could quickly rack up the kills.
Considering that there are millions of guns owners, guns alone is not the problem.

I realize you don't like it when these cases happen. Who does? But banning guns will not solve anything.

Back to their mindset, what causes one to want to go out and mercilessly slaughter innocents?
Figure that one out and you might stop potential killers.

What causes some people to be so desensitized that human life means absolutely nothing to them?
Could it be games like GTA where the player runs around killing anyone they want?
Could it be the media glorifying these bastards making others want to be like them? Making others want to go down as a legendary badass who's name will be feared forever.

My aunt is a social worker and she told of one troubled boy who was excited at the thought of going to jail where a mass shooter is being held. Some young people really do idolize these scum. And the more the media goes on about them, the more these kids will idolize them.
Is it coincidental that many mass shooters had a fascination for other mass shooters who came before them?

Read Dr. Haha Lung's Mind Fist. It discusses what I am talking about.

Who said ban guns?

If democrats don't want to ban guns or reduce them to where they would be completely ineffective, then I am the King of England.

And for the record the ArmaLite 15 aka AR-15 is not an assault rifle. I don't care how many CNN ducks try to demonize it by talking about going "full semi auto", it is not an assault rifle.

Frankly I am curious as to why these guys don't use a shotgun? I mean for close quarters in a building why would anyone go with a rifle that can only shoot one solid shot in one direction over a gun that can fire a powerful spread shot?

If I was tasked with clearing a building of armed hostiles and I was given the choice of an AR-15 or a shotgun I would go with the shotgun.

Because you can’t shoot 100 rounds in a minute with a shotgun

No. But I would dare say you would do much more damage per shot. Possibly, and rather easily, one shot one kill. If it's crowded, maybe more. Spray and pray isn't always the best idea. If it was fully automatic like the M249 then a spray of suppression fire might do more damage rather than just causing people to duck and flee.

AR-15s sometime jam and malfunction. Especially with those big drums and the light gun is already bouncing all over the place while the perp is trying to fire as many as possible. If I was unarmed in a building with an armed hostile I would feel rather be against an AR semi auto instead of a shotgun. A hit with a rifle may not kill you and you may still be able to get out of there or fight back. A shotgun could blow a leg or arm off depending on range. Either way, it will take a good chunk out of you.

According to this site, the AR doesn't fire 100 rounds a minute either.
https://checkyourfact.com/2018/02/24/fact-check-ar-15-bullets-a-second/

This is talking about 150 rounds a minute but there are some good responses here. Scroll down until you see the response in the picture. His response is quite detailed.

Details, details. Semi auto "assault" rifles with high cap mags can shoot WAY more rounds than a shot gun and do more damage/killing. If not why are they the weapon of choice for mass shooters? Shotguns are available right now. Take away this capability and you will see less (deadly) shootings . Sure- other weapons MAY be used to kill but the fact remains these types of weapons kill the most people fastest. Plain and simple. Why not TRY to keep them out of the hands of crazies? There is no need for them other than killing people. No need for huge clips/magazines in hunting or home protection. And limiting a type of gun and/or magazines doesn't infringe on the right of gun ownership. That's a farce.

Bear in mind I am talking about CQB. Of course if I was on our farm, open space, and a squad of insurgents was closing in on me, I would want an AR.
Currently I don't have one. I do have a bolt action 30-06 which I wanted to get good at long range with. And if you have enough open ground around you, I would rather have a gun that can reach out further than an AR.
The purpose of a weapon is to extend your reach. So if I could pick off a few hostiles at over 500 yards, I would feel better about engaging the rest at less than 500 yards. But you probably wouldn't want to take on multiple insurgents possibly armed with automatics at less than 500 yards with a bolt action. Unless you just have a good position.
But then, I have zero combat training. So someone who has been downrange might completely disagree with me.

And yes, knocking the 30 round mag down to 5 or whatever would render it useless against more than one armed attacker. That is an infringement on my rights. I could care less about the 100 round drums. They can keep those jamming things. But the 30 round one is necessary to give the civilian an edge should he need it.

I agree there needs to be ways to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Not just the AR type.

After nearly every mass shooting there is always talks of "red flags". These are details that should be focused on. Perhaps proper action could have stopped a mass shooting by just listening to those "red flags" about the individual.
Forewarned is forearmed.

Also in several cases with mass shooters, the police received multiple reports on the would be killer. Like the one who shot up the Church in Texas, I think. Those are all very extreme red flags. Perhaps more could be done in those regards rather than punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of a few.

Jesus Christ I'd hate to live in your world of paranoia.

Actually your view is worse. Your argument is that civilians shouldn't be able to own 30 round AR-15s.
Why?
Because you think every gun owner is going to become a mass shooter?

There are millions of gun owners. If we was the problem you would know it.

Why do you not comment on the red flags and police warnings I mentioned? Is it because it isn't about restricting guns for law abiding citizens?

You're so paranoid about citizens owning guns that you don't want to think other methods besides restricting guns for civilians might result in less shootings.
And then you call me paranoid.

Well few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. And communism is even worse. People think dictators are a thing of the past, that it could never happen.
With the amount of power happy politicians who already try to restrict freedoms are quite capable of going full authoritarian. And disarming citizens of the firepower to fight back would be the logical first step.

Thing is, we both have our concerns. You just want to make fun of mine.

I am a gun owner. Multiple guns. And I am not saying to ban or take any guns from anyone. I just think we need to make guns REALLY hard to get and we need to make sure gun owners are licensed and all guns are insured. We to take measures to get guns off the streets and out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them.

"Assault" rifles are pointless for protection from who you claim they will. But OK fine. Keep them. The high-capacity mags/clips are useless against the US army. 5 round clips are plenty for protection. Home invasion? nah- you never pull out a rifle. Pistol. 15 round clips is plenty. Probably too many (will find their way into more mass shooters hands) but whatever.

I am not paranoid of legitimate gun owners at all. YOU have paranoia of being oppressed by a tyrannical government. And you think assault rifles will protect you. Governments have missiles. Drones. Jets. MORE guns. All these weapons do is help angry people kill innocent people.

Again- don't ban any guns. Just make stricter laws, better records, and harsher punishments for those that break the laws like gun runners, etc. Over time illegal guns will be scooped up and taken out of circulation. I am also for eliminating the high capacity mags/clips though as you can tell. It's the common denominator for all these insane mass shootings we see all the time here. If they aren't made illegal there should be a HUGE tax and registry of all purchasers and THOROUGH background checks and a waiting list of 6 months to buy one. You can buy the rifle. FINE. But you're gonna work for that magazine/clip.

New law in CA kept 100+ people from buying ammo. GOOD. No guns being banned.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-05/california-ammo-check-law-block-sales

"Home invasion? nah- you never pull out a rifle. Pistol. 15 round clips is plenty"

Actually my Vaquero has 6 and it is a single action revolver. And I have a SR9c that holds 10. I would grab either if I needed to squeeze off a few rounds. But go back and read my other comment. A shotgun is plenty for home defense too. Now if your home area (I live on a farm) is being invaded by several insurgents then you better be a damn good shot with your 15 round pistol.
Which is also why I said I would want to be a good shot with a gun that can shoot further than an AR. So I can drop a few before retreating into a building to engage them with a shotgun or hand to hand. Yes, I am the crazy type who would bring a knife or a fist to a gun fight in the right circumstances. A punk with a gun in a building against me unarmed is not guaranteed to be victorious.

"The high-capacity mags/clips are useless against the US army"

I never talked about taking on the US army. The US is not tyrannical. Therefore the US army will never be a force of tyranny. If the US becomes tyrannical, either by external conquest or internal political failure, then the US will cease to exist.
But since you brought it up, why are we having a hard time with Islamic insurgents? Do they have jets, drones, and missiles? I'm pretty sure we are well beyond them in military technology, weapons, armor, and the whole shebang. So again, why was we not able to steamroll them in the first few weeks and our troops able to come home a long time ago? Many brave men and women have died fighting in the years we spent over there.

"Again- don't ban any guns. Just make stricter laws, better records, and harsher punishments for those that break the laws"

Agreed. If shooters captured faced a public and painful execution it might deter other youth from idolizing them. Please refer back to my very first comment here.

"I am also for eliminating the high capacity mags/clips though as you can tell"

I support the 30 round ones. But do whatever you want with the hundred round drums. Or however many they hold.

Back to the paranoia. I am not paranoid about this subject. But I am quite certain I do have paranoia about something else. I have not been diagnosed by a doctor for paranoia but if it isn't paranoia I would hate to know what paranoia is really like. Other than being busy the paranoia I speak of is part of the reason why I took so long to reply.
It really gets in the way of my daily activities. I think, sometimes dwell, about it daily. I get anxious and worry when I think about it. I am nearly shaking while typing this out for thinking about it. It often weighs me down.

Talking about guns and how to deal with shooters in various scenarios is interesting. And while I may be concerned about a tyrannical takeover I do not worry about it. As long as there are people who loves freedom and are willing to fight for it I know nothing like that will happen. If it does happen, I will join the Americans fighting for freedom. It can be fought and I can engage and fight oppression too.

But what I fear, what my paranoia is about, I can not fight. Such a thing is beyond my control. I witnessed it happen to someone firsthand. And I am terrified in knowing there is things like that out there that can happen to people. A year ago, I had no idea such a thing existed.
I don't mind talking about guns, shootings, or tyranny. They don't scare me. What does scare me, I find it hard to talk about. I just worry to myself about it.
So I would appreciate it if you stop using paranoia to describe me on this subject. I do not have extreme or irrational fear of dictators. Perhaps one should but I don't.
And I am not saying that to sound tough because I certainly have my Achilles heel when it comes to "extreme fear" of certain things.

Wrong again