Amazon.com Widgets

3 dead and 1 wounded in Kansas shooting: Could federal bans on "assault-style" weapons prevent further attacks?

  • Less guns mean fewer people will be killed

    Any sort of a ban on guns will mean that there are less guns in the hands of people. This will reduce the chances of people getting killed. Under the current circumstances, we absolutely need to reduce the number of guns in people's hands. If someone needs a gun they should have to jump through multiple hoops to get one.

  • It's a start

    I'm not saying assault weapons would magically disappear, but doing nothing isn't going to help either. Many assault weapons are obtained legally, and the moment that option disappears, you will save lives. Sometimes it just comes down to being in a mindset where one life is worth saving. When we get there, we'll save many more.

  • It obviously wouldn't stop gun violence, but it definitely wouldn't hurt.

    There's no legitimate reason for an average citizen to have an assault weapon. It makes no sense that they would be legal. Yes, if they were made illegal, there is still a chance that people would have them and use them to do terrible things. However, a nationwide ban would likely do a pretty good job of keeping them out.

  • Further Gun Requirements Could Save Lives

    Federal bans on "assault-style" weapons already exists. The problem is deeper than the guns themselves. People should complete background checks before purchasing guns. Additionally, those who sell guns should be held to high standards to follow these rules. By imposing harsh punishments on violators of these laws, violence can hopefully be curbed.

  • Banning the weapons does nothing to prevent extremists and criminals from getting them

    However, proper screening and identification documents should never be looser, at least then they are now.
    Some people are just a parking ticket away from a rampage....It's rare but it happens. And not that people with no criminal record or mental health records can't do it either... But being jailed multiple times for assult or having a documented violent personality disorder greatly increases the chances that it could happen.
    I'm also for having a waiting period after a person has divorce.... If you don't plan on doing anything illegal with it, then you shouldn't mind waiting. Isn't there other important things to do after a divorce anyways?

  • Learn what you are talking about

    An assault STYLE weapon is not any more dangerous then a regular weapon.

    An assault STYLE weapon is not any more dangerous then a regular weapon.

    An assault STYLE weapon is not any more dangerous then a regular weapon.

    Please, learn how to shoot, and shoot both STYLES. A gun that's colored black and has features for an easy flashlight attachment is no more dangerous then many hunting rifles. The dangerous part is its user, and the ability to handle high capacity clips, and that can only be minimized since after the ban, people could simply carry more clips with them for "non-assault style rifles" which they already do. It takes less then a second to reload a clip after a little practice.

    Hopefully someone noticed the word STYLE, because that's all these assault STYLE weapons are. If you want to try banning something, maybe you should start with the more dangerous weapons that aren't merely "assault style".

    Actual assault weapons are already banned to an extent. Any transferable full auto weapon that is legally in the US has been here since 1986. There is a fixed amount of something less then 250,000 (.08-.1% of Legal firearms) registered guns, and they are very expensive because of rising demand and stagnant supply. If you were to buy some in 1985 you could reliably have had a 1000-3000% return on investment. Because of their rarity, price, and other factors even bad guys typically won't use full autos.

    Another factor to think about here, is that the majority of gun crimes come from repeat offenders, a population in the united states that does not have the right while convicted. With state approval by whatever process it takes by state, they can again have their rights renewed and have full access to America's markets. I'm not saying that's entirely wrong, as some of these processes take more then ten years of good behavior, but there is definitely a stronger correlation with convicted felons and violence even when they can't legally have guns. I'm personally unaffected by assault style weapons, as I prefer guns with craftsmanship, but I believe our time would be better spent elsewhere at the moment if the goal is saving lives.

    Banning Assault style weapons would have little to no affect beyond legal headaches, and angry gun owners. I believe a null effect would commonly unify the gun owners' views of anti-gunners as having an inability to make meaningful policy, and ultimately would not build momentum for future gun bans, slowing progress on gun control in general. I am Pro-Gun control and therefore against the proposed ban.

  • Such a federal ban would be the attack

    What value do we place on our ability to do what we are doing in this forum - debating the role of government in our society of laws and freedoms?

    The Second Amendment is not some "2nd class citizen" in the founders' recognition of our God given rights, it is the teeth for We the People.

    When the voters' booths, pen and paper, telephone, and electronic communications are ineffective to bring a tyrannical government to heel, individuals are not only free to act, but divinely/naturally endowed with the obligation to do so.

    The spirit behind this acknowledgement in our unique society was not to ensure citizens were "permitted", after careful screening, to carry cute pocket knifes and target practice pea shooters. Nor was it so that citizens could put food on our table by means of hunting.

    No, it was intended to continue the global revolution of the Protestant Reformation that released citizenry from ideological serfdom and ensure that the people were individually empowered to band together to resist their own government when that day came (the founders were very close to the reality of a People's Revolution and understood well that the likelihood it would happen again was high).

    The assault rifles are the weapons of today that households should have on hand for that civic duty. Begging the government to tear out these crucial and definitive fibers of this nation is the attack that we should be defending against.

    As for defense against the "assault style" guns being used in crimes against fellow citizens, generally our laws are not created to remove free will to pre-empt bad acts (remarkably, the more secular this nation becomes, the more it turns to this totalitarian idol in hope of containing the dark side of human nature).

    Common sense tells us that in this escalating culture of self-importance, zero self-control, zero accountability, demand for instant gratification, demand to be seen as the sufferer/victim, these attacks are going to continue despite the form of weapon. Common sense also tells us that the bad guys will still have access to what we have denied the law abiding.

    Common sense also tells us that the attention this issue is getting is way out of proportion with it's impact on society. For example (and just one example), drunkenness destroys more families and kills more people every year than gun attacks do - that's not just a talking point, those are tens of thousands of households deeply impacted. Yet media outlets have openly committed to indiscriminately attacking constitutionally conscious gun owners along with the few gun wielding criminals.

    Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

  • Such a federal ban would be the attack

    What value do we place on our ability to do what we are doing in this forum - debating the role of government in our society of laws and freedoms?

    The Second Amendment is not some "2nd class citizen" in the founders' recognition of our God given rights, it is the teeth for We the People.

    When the voters' booths, pen and paper, telephone, and electronic communications are ineffective to bring a tyrannical government to heel, individuals are not only free to act, but divinely/naturally endowed with the obligation to do so.

    The spirit behind this acknowledgement in our unique society was not to ensure citizens were "permitted", after careful screening, to carry cute pocket knifes and target practice pea shooters. Nor was it so that citizens could put food on our table by means of hunting.

    No, it was intended to continue the global revolution of the Protestant Reformation that released citizenry from ideological serfdom and ensure that the people were individually empowered to band together to resist their own government when that day came (the founders were very close to the reality of a People's Revolution and understood well that the likelihood it would happen again was high).

    The assault rifles are the weapons of today that households should have on hand for that civic duty. Begging the government to tear out these crucial and definitive fibers of this nation is the attack that we should be defending against.

    As for defense against the "assault style" guns being used in crimes against fellow citizens, generally our laws are not created to remove free will to pre-empt bad acts (remarkably, the more secular this nation becomes, the more it turns to this totalitarian idol in hope of containing the dark side of human nature).

    Common sense tells us that in this escalating culture of self-importance, zero self-control, zero accountability, demand for instant gratification, demand to be seen as the sufferer/victim, these attacks are going to continue despite the form of weapon. Common sense also tells us that the bad guys will still have access to what we have denied the law abiding.

    Common sense also tells us that the attention this issue is getting is way out of proportion with it's impact on society. For example (and just one example), drunkenness destroys more families and kills more people every year than gun attacks do - that's not just a talking point, those are tens of thousands of households deeply impacted. Yet media outlets have openly committed to indiscriminately attacking constitutionally conscious gun owners along with the few gun wielding criminals.

    Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

  • Such a federal ban would be the attack

    What value do we place on our ability to do what we are doing in this forum - debating the role of government in our society of laws and freedoms?

    The Second Amendment is not some "2nd class citizen" in the founders' recognition of our God given rights, it is the teeth for We the People.

    When the voters' booths, pen and paper, telephone, and electronic communications are ineffective to bring a tyrannical government to heel, individuals are not only free to act, but divinely/naturally endowed with the obligation to do so.

    The spirit behind this acknowledgement in our unique society was not to ensure citizens were "permitted", after careful screening, to carry cute pocket knifes and target practice pea shooters. Nor was it so that citizens could put food on our table by means of hunting.

    No, it was intended to continue the global revolution of the Protestant Reformation that released citizenry from ideological serfdom and ensure that the people were individually empowered to band together to resist their own government when that day came (the founders were very close to the reality of a People's Revolution and understood well that the likelihood it would happen again was high).

    The assault rifles are the weapons of today that households should have on hand for that civic duty. Begging the government to tear out these crucial and definitive fibers of this nation is the attack that we should be defending against.

    As for defense against the "assault style" guns being used in crimes against fellow citizens, generally our laws are not created to remove free will to pre-empt bad acts (remarkably, the more secular this nation becomes, the more it turns to this totalitarian idol in hope of containing the dark side of human nature).

    Common sense tells us that in this escalating culture of self-importance, zero self-control, zero accountability, demand for instant gratification, demand to be seen as the sufferer/victim, these attacks are going to continue despite the form of weapon. Common sense also tells us that the bad guys will still have access to what we have denied the law abiding.

    Common sense also tells us that the attention this issue is getting is way out of proportion with it's impact on society. For example (and just one example), drunkenness destroys more families and kills more people every year than gun attacks do - that's not just a talking point, those are tens of thousands of households deeply impacted. Yet media outlets have openly committed to indiscriminately attacking constitutionally conscious gun owners along with the few gun wielding criminals.

    Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.