K D

That nutjob could go to Tops with a pump shotgun and shoot 10 people easy. Most pumps are 5+1 and then pretty quick to reload. I don't see how that would solve anything unfortunately, especially what happened in this situation

I think banning semi-autos is not a realistic outcome. I think other things can be done like needing to take training courses, proving you are not a physical threat by keeping a clean criminal record, ongoing education, common sense laws around background checks and waiting periods, registration, etc. Banning this or that is too extreme and will just cause division between both sides. I think there is middle ground but how can we get there if one side is saying ban and the other side is saying no? Sounds like we are still pretty far apart

I think we all are just trying to do the right things for ourselves and our families. I think it's sad when some people conclude that if you are on the other side of a political topic that you are the enemy or a bad person. We are all just trying to do the right thing and sometimes it's just not so cut and dry as some people think these issues are. It's pretty disheartening to be called names and such when I say that I own guns and I believe other law-abiding citizens should have the right to as well if they so choose, so I usually just keep my opinions to myself. I wish more people would feel empowered to have open and honest conversations without it resulting in shouting and name calling. That's the only way we will make progress

Lol, well that's not a helpful response. I'm honestly and truthfully just giving the perspective of gun owners when laws like that are suggested. I think both sides just end up getting frustrated and are like oh well, nothing we can do I guess!

I continue to appreciate your rational approach to the matter. Playing devil's advocate - If you take away people's guns for going to therapy then people with mental illness won't seek treatment and they will continue to sit at home and fester and that might be what happened here. He clearly didn't get the help he needed for whatever reason. Someone must have known this kid was spending his life savings on stockpiling this stuff. What 18 year old can afford all of this? I know I couldn't when I was his age. Someone close to him should have seen the signs that this was a troubled youth who was possibly becoming a threat to himself and others

By definition criminals break the law, yes? By banning semi-autos you would just be taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Do you think criminals can't get whatever gun they want if they are willing to break the law? So let's say they do ban semi-autos. We are left with what, pump shotguns and hammer fired revolvers? Do you think a crazy person couldn't go to Tops with a pump shotgun and shoot 10 people? Then they will want to ban shotguns. It doesn't end until law abiding citizens have no guns but the criminals and military do.

Well that escalated quickly. Unfortunately, as I mentioned to the gentleman earlier in the thread, this is how these types of discussions usually go which is why nothing ever gets resolved. There are extreme points of view on both sides of the aisle, and everyone has their heels dug in and not willing to budge. Somewhere in the middle might be some common ground common sense laws that could be enacted but we will never get there if both sides refuse to have respectful dialogue

Now you know at least one. I posted this story earlier in the thread, but to make a long story short a while back my apartment was broken into while me and my then gf (now wife) were home. We hid in the bedroom and called 911. Luckily the criminals left when they figured out we were home because it took the police 2 hours to show up! The 911 operator told my wife to ask the criminals what they wanted and ask if they were in the wrong apartment. There is nothing worse as a man to see your significant other hiding in a closet crying thinking their life is about to end. Needless to say I have ways of protecting my family now

Ok that would be considered a pretty extreme stance. I think that you would get a lot of pushback and that will likely not happen in your lifetime. Pretty much all handguns are semi-automatic so you would want to ban those. I don't think that's a very realistic outcome which is why these discussions never go anywhere and things never change. The reasons for the 2nd amendment are just as true now as it was back then. Our forefathers were trying to gain independence from a fascist monarchy and didn't want any government to have that much power over their citizens ever again. The 2nd amendment was created so that a balance of power existed. It wasn't created so people could go hunting or target shooting. If you are against the 2nd amendment then you are against the fundamentals this country was built on.

Almost every gun is a semi-automatic weapon. Are you saying they need to ban all guns? Please be specific It also sounds like your knowledge on the subject is starting from scratch. There's a lot of good discussion on this if you go 2 pages back in this thread and I'm happy to help answer any questions you may have

The owners of hammers are clearly racist. My dad used to be a member of the rotary club and he said everyone in the 80's had hammers in their toolbox. Enough said

That's part of what I'm trying to explain is that there isn't an easy way for the federal government to ban them. The wording and definition is everything. If they simply say all assault weapons are banned then that could be all guns, knives, hammers, whatever they want. If they say guns that are semi automatic then that is pretty much all guns. It's not as easy as just don't have whatever gun you or someone else thinks shouldn't be allowed. Even in NY there are loopholes to their AR-15 ban. You can buy them in other states as mentioned, you can build them yourself out of parts, you can make the magazine fixed so it doesn't detach, you can make the stock not adjustable. Clearly it didn't stop this kid from getting one. Even with the automatic ban, pretty much all criminals are able to modify a gun to fire automatic. So now the criminals have automatic weapons and the upstanding citizens trying to protect their families don't. Doesn't seem fair

How would you define an assault weapon? Also purchases of AR-15's are illegal in NY so define easy? NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the entire country. I'm sure if a criminal wants to break the law they are able to figure out how to do it, yes I agree. That's why I have guns because I know the criminals do too

What does that have to do with having a discussion about firearms? There isn't one person alive that wouldn't think that. Yes not a simple solution unfortunately. Having discussions like this results in people being trigged like the poster above. If you try and explain to the other side why there is more to it than they are taking into consideration they shut down. That's why things don't change unfortunately

In what way? How can you define an AR style rifle without then setting a precedent to ban all guns? What is an AR style gun that another type of gun is not? Long, black, semi-automatic, accepts detachable magazines, accepts modular attachments and accessories. Just thinking out loud. If anyone wants to try to define an assault weapon I'll help you understand how by doing so you are banning all guns.

It sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions and then resorted to complete dismissal of mine and millions of people's opinion on the matter, which is how these types of conversations often go when people are unable to thoughtfully rebut an argument. They were able to classify automatic weapons by the way they are fired - automatically without pulling the trigger. That one was easy. Now how do you define an assault weapon? Give it a try. There isn't a way to do so without banning all guns

Why not? What's an assault weapon? A weapon used to assault someone. If you throw a frisbee at someone's head you have just assaulted them

Automatic weapons have already been banned. Semi-automatic weapons are legal. It's all in the wording. Now they want to specifically ban "assault weapons." As mentioned, anything can be an assault weapon. A frisbee can be an assault weapon if they so choose. All guns can definitely be assault weapons. That's way too much overreaching power to ever be allowed to be passed and that is what gun rights activists are fighting for. It would essentially be a ban on all guns.

Happy to explain it further if you have any specific questions. You say hogwash but that would set the legal precedent. So we are just supposed to trust the government? When has anyone been able to trust the government to do anything? There are new administrations every 4 years. Even if this administration promised not to ban guns the next certainly could. All you have to do is look at pretty much every other country in the world that has already banned guns. What makes you think they wouldn't here if given the legal precedent to do so?

Yes, I too want more open and honest conversations. You can't get that in many places these days. Once you make your position known, the folks on the other side don't usually care to understand your perspective because they already have their mind made up that they are right and you are the bad guy. It's very sad that this is what the world has come to. I'm happy to answer anyone's questions as I know this is a polarizing topic and there are people on the other side that simply can't understand how I can take such a position but I promise you it is very well thought out and rationale and I'm happy to explain my reasoning. I am not slamming the door as you put it. I'm just stating the facts and the perspective of millions of gun owners in this country. All of us would like to stop such acts. It's absolutely sickening. If there was an easy answer I think something would have been done to stop it by now. This is much more nuanced than some may think. I think when someone makes threats like that it should definitely be taken seriously. It's usually a cry for help or acceptance or both. There were probably many opportunities for someone to step in and they didn't. I look at the parents, family, friends, people at the school. Someone must have known this kid was off the rails and spending his entire life savings on weapons while also threatening to use them in a menacing manner. In a day and age when people are asking to defund police, I think there is probably not enough resources to look into these types of cases even if it was reported to authorities. So the burden is on his immediate circle to see the signs of a mentally disturbed person and to do something about it. I wish there was a simple answer for this. I don't agree that the government should be the ones deciding who does and doesn't get to protect themselves and their family. That is way too much power and why would we think they would do the right thing with that power? History has proven otherwise. I think if the current administration backed off their rally cry to ban guns and both sides worked on implementing common sense laws that would in no way shift power or lead to further bans then maybe they can make some headway. When you have one side so extreme in their thinking it's going to make the other side dig their heels in and not want to give an inch. That's just an expected human reaction. Both sides are too far apart to come to any kind of agreements unfortunately. Extremism is high on both sides maybe more so than ever before in our history. I blame the politicians, the media, big tech more so than the people. Person to person communication like this is a start

"They" meaning the current administration who has already stated they want certain guns banned and they have placed Beto O'Rourke at the head of said movement purposely because that is their stated goal. To be more specific, they want to ban "assault weapons." There's no such thing as an assault weapon. A stapler can be an assault weapon if you assault somebody with it. By placing a ban on assault weapons they can classify anything they want as an assault weapon thus banning all guns. They want to set that legal precedent which then gives them full autonomy to do as they please and I think both sides can agree that a strong government is what the forefathers were fighting to get away from and they didn't want future generations to end up in the same spot. Also, similarly, a limit to the number of rounds in the same regard gives a legal precedent to limit the rounds to whatever they deem fit. Is 1 round enough? Like the old school muskets? What if you are being attacked by 2 people? Can you call a timeout? These scenarios seem silly until you are in them. Common sense laws are a good idea but there are actors in our government who would gladly assume as much power as citizens are willing to give up and that's not a good situation for anybody. This is a very tragic situation and I wish there was an obvious answer to it. It's not as cut and dry as some people would like to think.

Firearm advocate here. The problem is that if you give an inch they take a mile and neither side trusts each other. Most people are for common sense laws like background checks and waiting periods. The problem is that it doesn't stop there. They have already said they want to ban certain types of guns which by law would then give precedent to ban all guns. The 2nd amendment was put in place for a reason. The government works for us, not the other way around. Government should fear a strongly armed militia and it's supposed to be a balance of power. You want to give the government all of the power? How do you know they will do the right thing when history shows otherwise? This kid had mental problems clearly. Maybe focus on that. A gun is just a tool. A crazy person can do just as much or more damage with a bomb which is much easier to get than a gun

Winner winner chicken dinner

Lower 100 seats in the end zone or corner of the field might seem like a good idea because you are close to the action but when the teams are on the other side of the field it's almost impossible to see what's going on so you end up watching the jumbotron half the game. I'd prefer upper deck over anything close to the field that's not between the 20's (somewhat mid field). And the upper deck seats are cheaper so there you go, I saved you some money 💰