Greenwood park mall shooting

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by indy_317

The term "assault weapon" fits the definition, at least for me, of any magazine feed, semi-automatic rifle. Gun forums will quickly bash anyone who calls their semi-auto AR-15 an "assault weapon," but at the same time, those same posters will absolutely tell everyone if an assault is eminent, one wants a semi-auto AR-15, AK-47, etc. type firearm over a pistol for self-defense. These forums are full of the saying, "One's handgun is there to fight their way back to their rifle." There is a reason magazine fed rifles are used in the military vs handguns. If the primary arm to go on the defensive assault to defend one's self is a semi-auto rifle, then why doesn't the term "assault weapon" apply? I know, some federal definition defines that term as fully auto weapons. I guess some of us will just agree to disagree.

The first ban wasn't much of a ban at all. There were plenty of workarounds, like adding thumb-hole stocks, fixed stocks, etc. The first ban didn't just automatically ban the semi-auto feeding function of the rifle, they had to have a specific cosmetic feature, which manufactures just worked around. There were plenty of semi-auto AR-15 and AK-47 rifles available for sale during the first AWB.

While the genie might be out of the bottle, limiting an item makes it harder to get. If we ban the future sales, importation, and transfer of assault weapons, some will still find their way into the country. However, just in the Indy metro area alone, there are likely 100+ AR-15s for sale at any given time at the many gun stores just in this one area.

Like it or not, semi-auto, magazine fed rifles seem to now be the go-to weapon for these spree killings. If this trend continues, I predict that eventually non-AR owning types will vote in people who will eventually start passing laws banning semi-auto, magazine fed rifles.

I've shopped at Greenwood Park Mall hundreds of times in my life. I've eaten in that food court where the shooting took place. I'm a big supporter of people being allowed to carry reasonable means of self-defense, like handguns. If the one victim hadn't had his own gun to stop the killer, the number of people killed could've been much higher.

You, rightly so, pointed out the ban wasn't really a ban but you want it back? Is this correct? What good is this virtue signaling?

[sheerbliss]

Originally Posted by MortonR

I don’t think either of these are unrealistic or onerous. We had firearms in the house when I was growing up, and I can still recall my Dad making each one of us attend an NRA sanctioned classroom course on basic firearm safety and handling. That was an absolute before you ever got to touch a firearm in our house.

These won’t eliminate events like this one, but they’ll go a long way in reducing accidents and thefts, I believe. I believe that most firearm owners are responsible and would welcome these sorts of requirements.

RM

I missed this part of your post. I disagree that this isn't an onerous requirement. My immune-compromised neighbor, for instance, wouldn't be able to attend such a course, nor would a lot of people who work two jobs, act as a caregiver, don't have a ride, or barely make ends meet. Why can't they just watch a YouTube series like this one?

[indy_317]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

You, rightly so, pointed out the ban wasn't really a ban but you want it back? Is this correct? What good is this virtue signaling?

If these mass killings continue, with the killers using semi-auto, magazine fed rifles, a much stronger law will come about. I see too many of the my friends and relatives, many of whom are more conservative, Republican leaning, wanting something done about this specific type of firearm.

It is about limiting the availability of the tool. If the law is the same as the last one, nothing will change. The law will have to be different. It will have to ban the specific type of firing mechanism. The current bill in Congress will do this. I don't support the current bill because it will also likely ban certain handgun models because some are "A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm."

Originally Posted by MortonR

1.) In depth training on handling a firearm. Not a $50, 4 hour class such as those for concealed carry. A real, curriculum based face time, cheeks in the seat classroom experience with validation required for completion.

2.) A requirement the firearm owners store and maintain their firearms in a safe and responsible manner.

I don’t think either of these are unrealistic or onerous.

I'm not sure if I could support either of these. It would depend on the specifics of the law. I could see government doing whatever it takes to make both as costly as possible, thus limiting firearm self-defense to those who have enough money. Government will also likely try to make the course as hard as possible, even trying to make it harder than what they will require of their law enforcement academy recruits, hoping to further restrict people from owning firearms.

In the end, the moment a future USSC allows for a manufacture lawsuit to proceed, that will likely be the end of legal firearms as we know it. Every U.S. based company will be sued out of existence. It will be hard to obtain firearms made by overseas companies because if their country is an ally to the U.S., those firms could get sanctioned and thus I could see strict controls for Glocks made in Austria, HKs made in Germany, etc.. Plus, those companies will still keep a US presence to sell to the LE market.

In the end, we are likely heading toward more gun control from what I'm seeing. One is best to get what they want now, because it might not be available in the near future.

[MortonR]

Originally Posted by sheerbliss

I missed this part of your post. I disagree that this isn't an onerous requirement. My immune-compromised neighbor, for instance, wouldn't be able to attend such a course, nor would a lot of people who work two jobs, act as a caregiver, don't have a ride, or barely make ends meet. Why can't they just watch a YouTube series like this one?

I'm OK with that as long as there is some sort of assessment that has to be completed and passed before they can own a firearm.

RM

[My Name Is]

Originally Posted by MortonR

I'm OK with that as long as there is some sort of assessment that has to be completed and passed before they can own a firearm.

RM

So, pass a test before a specific civil right can be granted. Wow, you are absolutely 1000% correct in your self assessment of not being pro 2A.

[MortonR]

Originally Posted by My Name Is

So, pass a test before a specific civil right can be granted. Wow, you are absolutely 1000% correct in your self assessment of not being pro 2A.

Yes I am. That was very astute of you (look it up.)

RM

[hapaleeretired]

Originally Posted by Kluch

My exact thoughts. No matter how hard we make it for people to get weapons the "bad guys" will always get access to them sooner or later.

Chicago: Proof positive that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

[Kluch]

Originally Posted by hapaleeretired

Chicago: Proof positive that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

Chicago: "We're going to be cracking down on our gun laws so that our city is safer!"

Chicago Businesses: "We're moving out of state because the crime is just getting out of control and our employees don't feel safe here anymore"

[MortonR]

Better trained, more knowledgeable owners make for safer use. That’s just common sense.

As for it “preparing” someone for an assault or mass shooting, or making them more proficient, that’s just silly. A person who plans action like this is just as likely to take the time to be more proficient if their ultimate desire is to affect as many people as possible.

And we don’t know about the Good Samaritan’s proficiency, but it’s clear they were very proficient based on the shots they took and the result of such.

Taking this to a full circle logically, it would benefit both sides based on their intended outcome. Truly a double-edged sword, but something that the benefits would probably outweigh the negatives.

For what it’s worth, I had dinner at the mall on Thursday evening and it was pretty busy.

RM

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by indy_317

If these mass killings continue, with the killers using semi-auto, magazine fed rifles, a much stronger law will come about. I see too many of the my friends and relatives, many of whom are more conservative, Republican leaning, wanting something done about this specific type of firearm.

It is about limiting the availability of the tool. If the law is the same as the last one, nothing will change. The law will have to be different. It will have to ban the specific type of firing mechanism. The current bill in Congress will do this. I don't support the current bill because it will also likely ban certain handgun models because some are "A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm."



I'm not sure if I could support either of these. It would depend on the specifics of the law. I could see government doing whatever it takes to make both as costly as possible, thus limiting firearm self-defense to those who have enough money. Government will also likely try to make the course as hard as possible, even trying to make it harder than what they will require of their law enforcement academy recruits, hoping to further restrict people from owning firearms.

In the end, the moment a future USSC allows for a manufacture lawsuit to proceed, that will likely be the end of legal firearms as we know it. Every U.S. based company will be sued out of existence. It will be hard to obtain firearms made by overseas companies because if their country is an ally to the U.S., those firms could get sanctioned and thus I could see strict controls for Glocks made in Austria, HKs made in Germany, etc.. Plus, those companies will still keep a US presence to sell to the LE market.

In the end, we are likely heading toward more gun control from what I'm seeing. One is best to get what they want now, because it might not be available in the near future.

We have all the laws we can without being unconstitutional. Heck, we have laws that already are and are slowly being overturned.

We need to make law abiding able to carry and no nut job will even try something like this because multiple people will return fire.