On 2/23/2018 12:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:28:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/23/2018 8:01 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:59:44 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:14:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:33:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/22/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:57:24 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote:

Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not
a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to
guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line,
not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope
of thought.


It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most
high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background
check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21.
And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in
this state doesn't require any state paperwork.

Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and
the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is
limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the
Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their
expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less.
A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely.

That is simply rationalizing. Plenty of mass shootings have happened
with 9mms, usually pistols but your assault rifle would do just fine.
The "military style" thing is really a red herring. Your CZ is
certainly "military style" and they will sell you a tactical style
stock for just about anything. You can certainly make a very
"military" looking weapon out of a Mini14 or even a 10-22.


What part is "rationalizing"? The AR-15 is the school shoot up weapon of
choice. Any idiot can buy a long gun privately in many parts of this
country without any background check or waiting period. I didn't mention
"military style." You did.


Richard is stuck on the military thing, along with most of the left.


Yes, I am sure some moron can shoot up a school with a CZ Scorpion, but
a $900 9mm rifle is not a weapon of choice for that sort of "fun."

If that is what they had, that is what they would use. The Columbine
boys used a similar Hi Point carbine.


I am not stuck on the "military thing". The military should have the
most lethal weapons available.

I am stuck on military type AR-15s available for civilian purchase
because they have a record of being the weapons of choice for these mass
shootings more often than not. I don't know why they hold such a
fascination for nut cases who want to go kill a bunch of people but they
do. Maybe it's because they are cheap, heavily marketed and available
as you have pointed out.


===

I think the high capacity magazines have a lot to do with it, along
with relatively small size, high power and reliability.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I'd have no problem with outlawing them also. Again, I don't think it would be effective, but it
would be 'perceived' as taking action.



More than a ineffective perception, it might be the start of an
awareness that not all guns are suitable or designed for civilian
recreational use. It could be the beginning of a more rational attitude
about firearms without risking 2nd Amendment "rights". I know this
offends many here but I can't think of a legitimate use of a AK-15 style
rifle by recreational shooters other than they are "COOL" to have and
the government, in the interest of the rest of the population, can't do
a damn thing about having one ... or two... or three.


I could make the same argument about just about any car except a 4
cylinder family sedan. Would you ban sports cars? They have no
function except being cool to have and they kill many times more
people than AR 15s.
Should people have to justify having a truck or SUV with a specific
need?
I guarantee you there are plenty of environmentalists who would sign
on to that legislation. Hard core greenies would ban cars altogether
to save the planet.
The slope really starts getting slippery when you start banning
things, simply because of perceptions,.



Yep, as President Reagan said, "There you go again".

You're comparing a car that's purpose is transportation and/or enjoyment
with a AR-15 that's purpose is to shoot things and, too often, people.
When a fatality in a car occurs it's called an "accident".

Like I said. Let's have a *rational* discussion.