Quote:Lol, I was hoping you'd repost your thoughts I this thread from the other thread.


To me, reducing the number of mass killings by 33% or whatever the amount may be is worth the loss of choices of arms to bear.


I agree with you and out conservative friends that barring entire groups of people that are but on "a list" which is not transparent and open to public scrutiny is an awful idea and clearly is unconstitutional based on due process alone.


So I circle back to military style or modern sport rifles, or whatever cute term one may want to attach to these arms...


As we all know, there are already restrictions on the type of arms one can buy. Let's look at fully automatic guns, they are illegal. Are you less free because you don't have one? Next, consider the argument that if you make it illegal, then only the bad guys will have them.


In regard to mass shootings, how many of the shooters or terrorists used an automatic? I believe the number is very close to zero. So that argument does not hold water to me.

At the end of the day, if a military weapons and ammo ban lessens the number of mass killings by any significant amount, it's worth doing.


In the previous iteration of the weapons ban, a small group of folks could own these arms. Why not allow gun ranges to own these weapons, that way people could go shoot them when they wanted to?

Living in New Mexico, I know a ton of guys that hunt. None of them go out with their tactical arms to hunt elk or other game they get licensed for.


Therefore, if one is only using these types of arms at the range, why not make them range only weapons that must stay with the business?


That's my take on it...

 

No it isn't.  Your first part saying that an AR-15 or a Sig Sauer MCX are "military weapons" is just false, so stop.  While yes, someone in the military, specifically Special Forces might choose to use one of those weapons as their "weapon of choice", neither one is "issued" to any military member routinely.  If that military member chooses that weapon, it's usually customized to fit the need including enabling automatic firing.

 

Ponder this for a bit.  How many AR-15's are legally owned and used by law abiding citizens (including myself) right now?  Of those, how many are used for malicious reasons?

 

To give an analogy, how many people own some kind of computer?  A computer is routinely used for malicious deeds including identity theft, defacing websites or just plain stealing among other things.  Should we ban certain computers because they are more powerful or have larger capacity for storing data?

 

Regarding your second point, a few things come to mind off the top of my head.

 

First of all, firearms can be dangerous to the user if not maintained properly.  I would not use a "public" weapon on a shooting range because I have no idea how previous users treated it, and I don't know how the weapon is maintained.

 

Second of all, people don't own firearms strictly for hunting.  Some shoot for sport, others have them for protection, some collect them, etc.  I don't need the government telling me that if I want to own a certain model or style of firearm it must be for an "approved" reason.

 

Finally, not all shooting, including sport shooting takes place at a gun range.  Here's a little secret that I'll let you in on.  The last few times I've done some shooting it's been at a friend's place which is located in a very rural area on 40+ acres of property.  He happens to be a Law Enforcement Officer.  Some people enjoy shooting their multi-round, pistol-gripped rifles at places other than public shooting ranges.

---