Looks like the media is in a conundrum now

Ransom said:
qwerty said:
Paris has bans against similar weapons and it has worked well for them. People who break laws by killing someone would have no issue breaking laws by the possession of something illegal.
Click to expand...

Hm. I assume you mean, "has not worked well for them"? The terrorists who shot up Paris last November supposedly used AK-103 assault rifles. Which, being automatic, are illegal for civilians in France. As you say, a criminal isn't going to balk at breaking a gun law if he's conspiring to break a greater law (e.g. commit mass murder).
Click to expand...
My sarcasm did not come through as I intended. My apologies.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
THE LAST GUN-MURDER massacre in Australia happened in April 1996.

<snip>

What happened next was astounding. The senior leaders of both major political parties, at both the federal and state levels, faced down opponents and enacted far-reaching and effective new gun laws.

What came to be called the National Firearms Agreement banned the importation, sale, and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns (most handguns were already illegal) and enacted a compulsory gun buy-back scheme.

The new agreement for gun ownership allowed guns to the military, police, and those employed to shoot feral animals. The new federal laws were enacted unilaterally across state rights. Controversially in light of Second Amendment rights in the U.S., the act specifically stated ?that personal protection not be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing, or using a firearm.? However, genuine reasons included ?sporting shooters? with valid club memberships, hunters with proof of permission, and ?bona fide collectors of lawful firearms.?

The new gun laws were passed quickly, accompanied by an amnesty for any unlicensed firearms.

<snip>

Somehow, without political coercion or public commentary, Australians decided that gun ownership should become marginal, not mainstream. The legislation merely reflected the national mood: Only soldiers, cops, and farmers needed to own guns. The mythos of the historical outlaw-hero, like bushranger Ned Kelly, remained. However, like Kelly, gun ownership was now part of Australia?s past, not our future.

<snip>

Since my wife and I returned to Australia in 1998, I have worked as an Anglican priest in Sydney?s inner-city neighborhoods. Alternatives to violence, I?ve learned, are often more popular with street-involved people than with my educated, middle-class peers. From the streets I?ve gained perspective about the justice of Jesus Christ: a justice that reconciles, a justice that renounces retaliation, a justice with repentance, and a justice with repair.

The Port Arthur massacre changed Australia. My teenage children are spared the horrific gun violence experienced in the U.S. ?I feel free because we are not always in lockdown, worried about people coming into the school,? Nick, age 14, told me. Anna, age 12, said the freedom to go unafraid to the local park with friends was an important difference between growing up in Australia vs. the U.S.

In Australia, we will continue to pray for you in America: for courageous politics, for a ?national moment,? for Americans to decide that gun ownership should be marginal, not mainstream.
Click to expand...


Guns N' Aussies: How Australians decided that gun ownership should become marginal, not mainstream.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great place for you to move to.




https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE
 
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
This tragedy didn't happen because the shooter was Muslim, it happened because the victims were gay. Also because the shooter had an assault rifle.

I am for people owning guns but not assault rifles.

Orlando: AR-15
Aurora: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Umpqua Community College: AR-15
Click to expand...

So what makes it an "assault rifle"?
Click to expand...

Here is a little presentation with many citations that help answer your question.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/
 
62f132d1cd47f795639fce6d3b98a45d.jpg
 
subllibrm said:
Route_70 said:
4everfsu said:
What you are saying you are against people owning semiautomatic rifles.  An AR 15 is a semiautomatic rifle.
Click to expand...
SC can speak for himself.  I cannot see why an ordinary citizen should own a gun, which is clearly designed for killing other human beings.
Click to expand...
Sad to say, there will be times when it is necessary to kill another person. That is not why I own firearms but any of them would do the job if I found myself in such a situation.
Click to expand...

If this Islamic terrorist would have used a knife (to get in the door) and a pressure cooker bomb like the Boston Brothers or several pipe bombs, all 300 people in the club might be dead. If these nuts switch from guns to explosives, as they use in most of the rest of the world, things will get bad very quickly.

If someone in that club would have been armed this nutcase might not have killed so many and he surely would not have walked away. I don't care if its security, off duty police, the owner or a trained legally carrying citizen, I want a good guy to have a gun in these situations. 
 
If I believed banning the AR15's would reduce these types of killings I would have to agree giving up this one very high quality weapon would be worth it. The truth is it would not make one bit of difference. A terrorist will get some type of weapon but will we be armed to protect ourselves.

In much of the world terrorist use fully automatic AK47 not AR15. 
 
The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was instead a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62?39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.
 
Baptist City Holdout said:
Prophecy fulfilled there, my friend.
Click to expand...

There have been enough acts of terrorism that we know how this plays out.

Fella named "Muhammad" or "Omar" or "Abdul" opens fire on a room full of Westerners. He makes a call to 911 or leaves a manifesto in his apartment (next to his arsenal and bomb-making supplies) in which he declares allegiance to ISIS or al-Qaeda. As he perpetrates his act of mass murder, he shouts "Allahu achbar."

In other words, he does and says nothing that might give the authorities or the media a clue as to his motives.

Therefore, they quite reasonably conclude, the violence must have been due to easy access to "assault rifles," or right-wing Christian extremism. The latter is especially easy to spot if the shooting happens to take place within two miles of a Planned Parenthood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top