Were the rifles used not purchased legally?

Amazing. And I am the one allegedly arguing in bad faith.

How about all guns?


Some good info on what Ikes/KC are talking about regarding what assault rifles, semiauto, automatic, assault weapons are: https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/o...-weapons-but-d

Can we end the semantics now and someone answer the question I previously asked: why not just ban guns?

Forget that a gun ban likely would have or would not have prevented mass shooting x or y. I'm seriously wondering why not just ban them all? Of what utility is there to any legality of guns?

It's not that relevant that I happen to want all guns eventually banned. I know that is very unlikely to happen and I would happily take the small victory of banning the scary looking GI Joe machine gun. Even if it's not functionally different than my redneck uncles hunting rifle. To me, it's a total freeroll to ban those rifles. If best it makes it a little harder to get them and maybe saves a few lives then I'm happy with that. It's progress and hope, which is something I'm desperate for since the NRA has been Steph Currying me for years.

Again, everything is binary. No probabilistic thinking from you.

Here's some binary for you:

01101100 01101111 01101100 00100000 01100111 01110101 01101110 01110011

I'll reply after I get home from the burn ward.
Not at all my argument. Simply pointing out, when the whole of a movement pushes extra hard to get ASSAULT WEAPONS banned, and takes a bunch of hunting rifles out of harmless owners hands, there will inevitably be another Cho who glocks down 20 or so.

My actual point is that definitions are important, and "things that look like military grade stuff" isn't sufficient.

This is my main reservation with aggressive gun control, or worse, repealing the 2nd amendment, because, and I know this is tired and cliche, SLIPPERY SLOPES. If it could somehow be repealed without opening up any doors to further constitutional tinkering, AND the state could effectively get a good chunk of guns off the street, I'd mostly be fine with that. I just don't find it likely.

And my chief concern would be if the 2nd amendment goes, the 1st would be next in line for heavy revising.

They were. You proposed an assault rifle ban. Then you proposed an assault weapon ban. This gun isn't banned by either of those. What types of guns are you looking to ban exactly? Note: all of them is a correct answer, semi auto guns is a correct answer, but I don't see why it's my responsibility to figure out what the **** you mean. You still haven't given us a position other than maybe making this exact gun illegal.
Arguing in bad faith isn't arguing against what you believe in.

I'm glad you found another place where you can be the community savior, ikes.

Basically what I want is this:

There should be one basic design of a handgun, one basic design of a hunting rifle, and one basic design of a hunting shotgun that are approved by law. These should be designed to limit the ability to fire more than a reasonable but very small number of rounds within a short period of time. These 3 guns should be the only guns anyone is allowed to own. Any individual is limited to owning one of each type of gun, and any household is limited to a maximum of 2 of each type of gun. All guns must be registered.

We are dealing with an item that is designed for the purpose of killing things. The fact that we have developed as a society in a way that these items are not the most regulated thing anyone can purchase is unconscionable, and needs to be corrected.

Ya'll got ikes'd

The type of guns used in this shooting.

What do you mean by this? It literally could mean this exact model of gun to all rifles.

Btw, what ikes is doing right now is illustrative of why a plan like mine is necessary. Outlawing something like "assault rifle" means gun manufacturers will just find endless loopholes to sell ridiculous weapons to the public. Instead we need to go the route of simply saying exactly A, B, and C are allowed, everything else is illegal.

It's not my job to write the laws. I'd be happy with the specific models or all rifles. And everything in between.

You know what else was hard? Abolishing slavery!

AMERICA **** YEAH!


Prohibition was reversed and the thing has literally been amended more than a dozen times since The Bill of rights but welcome to the 19th century. Stay a while.


That's an awesome argument for "all of them" as the most sane answer to your question.




OK. I can buy this. Good post.


AWESOME!!!

Yes, and it's easy to come up with what should be allowed. Just bolt or lever action rifles and break action shotguns. Easy.

these are the guns they used in SB





We get it Ikes, they're not classified as assault weapons in the assault weapons ban in Cali, likely because they were semi-auto.

We both know what he means. You're distracting form the point.

Small note, semi-auto rifles can be modified to auto or auto-like pretty easily.

Amending and repealing somewhat different things, and prohibition kind of a special case, given it's historically short lifespan (also interesting choice to bring up, given the parallels). But messing with the actual bill of rights is kind of a different animal, and it would be a major event in American history.

And if this thread is just gonna be cocky gotchas and ****, which aren't even the least bit funny, poignant, or interesting, with very little substance... Then this is basically politics and this thread serves no purpose.

Nope that's not it, literally every ****ing assault weapon is semi-auto.

KC trying to come off like super reasonable mature guy while doing exactly what he's complaining about is pretty rich.

if this isn't a gotcha idk what is

This can be figured out by actual policy makers and experts. I don't need to figure it out. We're so far away from this point that "just do something, anything, please" is a worthwhile goal that we should be fighting for

What? No... No they're not.