It may be emotionally satisfying, but it's ultimately unproductive.

It's not a hardware problem. At least in the sense you can draw some arbitray line between types of guns and say "problem"/"not a problem".

Actually, blaming "assault weapons" is a useful tool because the politicians and pundents can pretend there is a solution to a pretty much solutionless problem.

Homicidal beserker decides to kill a bunch of people in a random building in a random city in a random state. He (and they are all "he" ) does it at a random time on a random day of a random month, and he does it for a reason that ONLY MAKES SENSE TO HIM. And even a quick police response time gives a minimum of 180 long, long seconds to the beserker to kill and kill and kill

There is no organization to dismantle. Theere are no members to arrest, no leaders interrogate, no finances to freeze, no supporters flip, no headquarters to seize.

It's called "stochatic terrorism", and it's what the purveyers of chaos and hate stoke deep in the world of the anonymous internet. Incels and MAGAts and Qanon and white nationists and Christian nationists and others insulate themselves from reality and delve deep into their own little bubble of reality.

Rerun the Boulder attack, but give the guy pretty much any "lesser" gun, and you'd still have 10 dead innocents. 180 seconds is a long, long time to run through a store shooting anybody that you want.

I mean, I guess you could decide to completely disarm the entire civilian population but that presents its own problems.

So, banning assault weapons and magazine-capacity limits. "This way, they can't kill as many people at the next mass shooting!" is the reasoning, which implicity says the problem of mass shootings is here to stay but they're going to limit the damage and that's a workable solution.

The background check bill that the Democrats passed in the House a few weeks ago... that might actually cut down on both mass shootings and normal, run-of-the-mill shootings.

The assault weapons ban? Not a chance.

It most certainly is a "hardware issue." The overwhelming, non-stop slaughter of innocents in this country in mass shootings coincides with the popularity of military-styled, high-capacity, semi-auto weapons, both pistols and rifles. The clunky old bolt-action Winchester Model 70's and Remington Model 700's remain in gun cases, awaiting deer season---not enough firepower to take out a class full of schoolkids. Anything to be done about this shameful situation? You're right, probably not one fucking thing. It's nothing to be proud of.

1991-2004. The revolver is in decline, the semi-auto pistol is ascending. Semi-automatic rifles are replacing bolt and lever action guns. And yet, despite an uptick in mass shootings, the homicide rate falls 40%.

So, it's not a goddamn hardware issue! "Oooo, oooo, it's military-styled! BAN IT!" is getting extraordinarily old.

For every person killed in a mass shooting over a hundred are shot and killed in non-mass shootings. Obviously, focusing on yearly TOTALS is far more important than high-profile but rare occurrences.

"But they're not rare anymore!"

Someone is murdered every 32 minutes in this country. Every THIRTY TWO MINUTES. Over 44 per day! And virtually none of them make the national news and dominate the headlines with all the hand-wringing and "we have to do something" lamentations.

During my lunch break, somebody in this country was murdered. Abused wife, gang fight, store clerk, whatever. Where's that news?

It's not a hardware problem. We're in extraordinary times because of Covid-19 and Trumpism and all the other shit stresses we've been dealing with for months and years.

It's probably going to be a bad year for crime in general.

Even if the enemy is an inanimate object. The list is well represented: alcohol, pot, drugs in general, now guns. In my opinion, one of the greatest services a government can provide to the people is a variety of productive opportunities. Without enough positive and responsible pursuits, people will eventually find an innate talent they can apply to their advantage, even if it may sometimes involve assault and robbery. People tend to continue doing something they're good at.

I recently came across a news story about someone who recognized that basic truth:

Year 1. We will buy your gun. Full market value, half value --- whatever.

Year 2. We will accept your gun but with no penalty.

Year 3. We are not coming after your gun but if it is found in conjunction with another crime, random stop or whatever, the penalty is fine and/or jail or prison.

...with ~$200,000,000,000 than buy up guns?
Then there's the expense of keeping a few million more uncooperative folks in prison.

Maybe get Ken Lay to consult on the financing for that.

is why we don't get good gun laws

But... 'no-one is coming for your guns'....

But your ass is in a sling if you are found with one.

You ARE 'coming for (our) guns'....

Just slowly.

a different problem.



Cocaine is illegal. Cops do not go door to door, searching houses. But if the cop comes into my house to execute a warrant for my failure to show up for my pee test last month and the cop sees my blow on the table,----

...you're in favor of drugs (or at least cocaine) being illegal?
Which drugs?

4473's they have on file, so they won't know who has any guns, just to be fair???

There is no justifiable reason for an everyday American to possess Military grade weapons.

I will never understand gun nuts who misunderstand the 2nd Amendment Totally.

Name a shooting in the last, oh, say, 80 years, that was committed with a legally owned machine gun. I am getting tired of the "military grade" handle being thrown around, as the military has used everything from flintlocks to electric powered gatling guns. If a shooter goes on a rampage with an 8-shot M-1 Garand, Gen. Patton's "greatest battle implement ever devised", should we ban it? Only made millions of them, now scattered throughout the US, in private hands, currently going for over $1,000/pc. Buyback on just this system alone would be quite impressive. Or, just take them? I don't think I would like to be in on that mission.

I think maybe 2.

The hoops to go through, and cost of a legal machine gun purchase weeds out most of the riff raff. Most likely, someone waiting to go through the process of a purchase, doesn't have any criminal intentions at all.

This is the post I was responding to.

"There is no justifiable reason for an everyday American to possess Military grade weapons.

I will never understand gun nuts who misunderstand the 2nd Amendment Totally."

Please give me your definition of "military grade" weaponry, and we'll pull up the BATFE rulings, and see how they compare. I believe that my post will be a lot closer to current law/rule than yours. I also believe that your definitions will probably be more in line with the above poster of whom I quoted. While you're composing this, your breakdown of the 2d amendment would be appreciated, also. Again, I feel it will be in line with previous poster.

Did you know that EVERY commonly available firearm is a former military design, or directly derived from one, or was adopted into military use?

Every bolt-action, pump-action, lever-action, revolver and semi-auto-action firearm, and every SINGLE-shot firearm? Yes, even the muzzle-loaders of the time.

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

Did you know that the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment is to preserve and protect Citizen ownership of militarily useful weapons of ALL types?

I own actual military-surplus firearms. Are my Springfield, Mauser, Eddystone, Mosin-Nagant, Enfield and Garand rifles suitable for Citizen ownership, under the Second Amendment? Why or why not?

That's "gunsplaining".

compensate for their shortcomings.

You need some education... or some counseling.