WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[endzone_dave]

Pros of allowing assault rifles: makes gun collectors happy, gives people who hunt more options, allows people to prepare for when our government takes away all our rights and they need to go to war against our military

Pros of banning assault rifles: hinders the ability for psychos to commit mass murders and saves innocent lives

Why is this even an argument?

[alexey]

Pros of allowing assault rifles: makes gun collectors happy, gives people who hunt more options, allows people to prepare for when our government takes away all our rights and they need to go to war against our military

Pros of banning assault rifles: hinders the ability for psychos to commit mass murders and saves innocent lives

Why is this even an argument?

Answer: $$$$$$$

[twa]

Pros of banning assault rifles: hinders the ability for psychos to commit mass murders and saves innocent lives

Why is this even an argument?

How does it really hinder it?

I'm fine with banning them,but ya'll are deluding yourselves

[autoidiodyssey]

And gun ownership has been on a 30 year decline BTW.

Yet the number of NICS checks for 2012 is nearly double what it was in 2000 with a month to go. The chart is here. (Link to FBI pdf file) Checks do not equal sales, but do equal interest.

It could just be fewer people owning more guns. I wonder how they survey to find out the number of households with a gun. If a stranger called your house and asked if you own any guns would you say yes?

[endzone_dave]

How does it really hinder it?

I'm fine with banning them,but ya'll are deluding yourselves

If you think you can kill as many people with a pistol as with an assault rifle, you are deluding yourself.

[alexey]

How does it really hinder it?

I'm fine with banning them,but ya'll are deluding yourselves

Let's not get into the "cannot do everything, so let's do nothing" trap.

I think it would be good to dial down on legality of deadly things that allow one armed person to quickly kill many unarmed people. I think there are many other things that we should be doing, including better protection of vulnerable targets, better social support services, more focus on humans, quality of life, pursuit of happiness... but limiting access to deadliest weapons sounds like a sensible part of the package.

[Painkiller]

Pros of allowing assault rifles: makes gun collectors happy, gives people who hunt more options, allows people to prepare for when our government takes away all our rights and they need to go to war against our military

Pros of banning assault rifles: hinders the ability for psychos to commit mass murders and saves innocent lives

Why is this even an argument?

and this is why nothing will get done. For people like you there can only be one solution. We need to stop trying to change each others minds and find common ground.

[Redskins Diehard]

If you think you can kill as many people with a pistol as with an assault rifle, you are deluding yourself.

It would be useful if you provide your definition of what an "assault rifle" is. If you think that what was used in Newtown and the things that are used by are military are the same thing then you are mistaken.

[endzone_dave]

and this is why nothing will get done. For people like you there can only be one solution. We need to stop trying to change each others minds and find common ground.

No, we need to take away the political power of gun nuts. They are a minority whose assault weapon interests hurt society.

[Thiebear]

Yet the number of NICS checks for 2012 is nearly double what it was in 2000 with a month to go. The chart is here. (Link to FBI pdf file) Checks do not equal sales, but do equal interest.

It could just be fewer people owning more guns. I wonder how they survey to find out the number of households with a gun. If a stranger called your house and asked if you own any guns would you say yes?

Even though i don't own one. Absolutely!

[alexey]

and this is why nothing will get done. For people like you there can only be one solution. We need to stop trying to change each others minds and find common ground.

Let's try to find that common ground... Are you open to any gun control steps at all? If so, which ones?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It would be useful if you provide your definition of what an "assault rifle" is. If you think that what was used in Newtown and the things that are used by are military are the same thing then you are mistaken.

Let's quit the semantics debate...some of us don't know much about guns. As Prosperity said (I'm paraphrasing), let's ban whatever the guns are that can fire dozens of bullets without needing to be reloaded. I don't see any legitimate reason any individual would have to fire off more than 8-10 shots at a time. If you're hunting or, God forbid, need to protect your family from an intruder, that is sufficient.

So, whatever you want to call them, if no one owned guns that could kill 50 people in a matter of seconds, massacres like we've seen will almost certainly end.

[Corcaigh]

A focus on massacres like Newton and Virginia Tech may lead us to conclude that mental health is the only problem here. It's not.

60,000 people have been murdered with guns since the VT massacre. Al Qaeda should forget about creating elaborate plots, and just sell semi-automatic weapons and ammo at low, low prices.

[Redskins Diehard]

Let's quit the semantics debate...some of us don't know much about guns. As Prosperity said (I'm paraphrasing), let's ban whatever the guns are that can fire dozens of bullets without needing to be reloaded. I don't see any legitimate reason any individual would have to fire off more than 8-10 shots at a time. If you're hunting or, God forbid, need to protect your family from an intruder, that is sufficient.

So, whatever you want to call them, if no one owned guns that could kill 50 people in a matter of seconds, massacres like we've seen will almost certainly end.

You think it is semantics because you are not informed on what things are. The questions that are posed...."why would anyone need a military assault weapon" is easily answered. They don't. And they are already banned. If you allow a weapon that can fire repeating rounds then it is no longer a question of weapon functionality and it becomes a question of how frequently you need to reload.

You want to pass legislation that accomplishes anything in preventing these types of things it would be useful to actually develop a base level of knowledge. Pass Bill Clinton's gun control and you accomplish nothing to prevent these. Pass legislation that outlaws every single pistol in the world? Good luck with that.

[DjTj]

It would be useful if you provide your definition of what an "assault rifle" is. If you think that what was used in Newtown and the things that are used by are military are the same thing then you are mistaken.

Automatic weapons like those used in the military are already banned.

The proposed federal assault weapons ban would target semi-automatic weapons with certain designated features (like a flash suppressor and a telescoping stock), and magazines holding over 10 rounds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-one-post/

Would it solve everything? No. Would it cover the guns used in Newtown, in Aurora, and by the DC Sniper? Yes.