Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
The current crisis makes me question my beliefs about firearm laws. I was raised in the Midwest and support guns. I think firearms are neat and target shooting is a lot of fun. Personally I feel safer with weapons, but I don't need to have them to feel safe. Martial arts can do this too. However; I have to wonder if it's really the right school of thought. Many countries have very strict limits on firearms or outright ban citizens from having them and appear to have low crime rates. I am not sure the US's system is fit for citizens to have firearms. We do not have good enough policies in place to prevent the wrong individuals obtaining weapons. Mental care here is poor. The argument will always exist that criminals will get guns if they want them and this I agree with. Yet, what happened in Vegas was not by the hand of someone that we would objectively assume is a "criminal" until it was too late. Until we are able to care for individuals affected by mental illness, provide more in-depth background checks, and facilitate better education and opportunity in regions heavily affected by crime, I don't think the US is mature enough to handle firearms.
Feel free to retort. I am on the boundary of conservative and liberal thought processes so nothing is inherently unwelcome.
Just chiming in here....from the reports I've read, he was using automatic firearms. If true these would have to be either illegally obtained or modified to have. Or possibly pre 1986? (Not 100 percent on the date or what the auto ban entails).
If this is true, the guns he had were already under control. So I'm not sure what more we could have done on that end.
I think a really big issue in the US is the mental health of our citizens. I would speculate that 10 out of 10 gunman/terrorist/whatever you wanna say have severe mental illnesses. That is something that needs to change.
Only recently have I started being actively aware of this kind if thing happening to me when I go out to big events.
Last night I was at a Seahawks game and before the game started I was looking across the field at the crowds and I thought to myself, 'imagine how fucked we would be if someone got in here with a suicide vest on.' I got a text from my wife this morning that she is nervous about going to a big concert next month because of this stuff. I mean it is really incredible how much normalizing has taken place in the last decade or so over this issue.
Ah, interesting. Not sure if we could do anything if he is illegally getting them. However if they are modified then I think my statement stands as anyone could modify something legal.
Profahoben_212Hey dunc.
Just chiming in here....from the reports I've read, he was using automatic firearms. If true these would have to be either illegally obtained or modified to have. Or possibly pre 1986? (Not 100 percent on the date or what the auto ban entails).
If this is true, the guns he had were already under control. So I'm not sure what more we could have done on that end.
I think a really big issue in the US is the mental health of our citizens. I would speculate that 10 out of 10 gunman/terrorist/whatever you wanna say have severe mental illnesses. That is something that needs to change.
What a naïve, knee-jerk reaction. A gun is a tool, to be used for recreation and hunting (and personal protection if appropriate). Similarly, a vehicle is a tool, to be used for recreation and transport. The recent incidents of individuals using vehicles to plow into crowds causing multiple deaths did not yield cries to ban vehicles.
Not really at all. I am a large gun supporter. I am just not sure we have the infrastructure. If you read the last part of my statement I think mental health is a huge problem with all of these events.
iFlipWhat a naïve, knee-jerk reaction. A gun is a tool, to be used for recreation and hunting (and personal protection if appropriate). Similarly, a vehicle is a tool, to be used for recreation and transport. The recent incidents of individuals using vehicles to plow into crowds causing multiple deaths did not yield cries to ban vehicles.
Just chiming in here....from the reports I've read, he was using automatic firearms. If true these would have to be either illegally obtained or modified to have. Or possibly pre 1986? (Not 100 percent on the date or what the auto ban entails).
If this is true, the guns he had were already under control. So I'm not sure what more we could have done on that end.
I think a really big issue in the US is the mental health of our citizens. I would speculate that 10 out of 10 gunman/terrorist/whatever you wanna say have severe mental illnesses. That is something that needs to change.
That said being as legal as guns are makes it even easier to obtain the illegal ones. Massive gun shows etc. Things are regulated but everything is still so open that it's not that hard for people to get things that aren't technically legal.
That said a lot of people are still convinced that having their guns is protecting their freedom.
Profahoben_212Just chiming in here....from the reports I've read, he was using automatic firearms. If true these would have to be either illegally obtained or modified to have. Or possibly pre 1986? (Not 100 percent on the date or what the auto ban entails).
I very much doubt he was using automatic weapons. I imagine he was using semi-automatic weapons, which are very different but the media likely does not have a clue.
It is possible to legally acquire automatic weapons. They fall under NFA Class III items, and take some work and money to obtain, but can absolutely be done so legally. The process to acquire a NFA Class III weapon (or item - think silencer) is to file an ATF Form 5320.4. One must submit two copies to the ATF, and a third copy to one's local Chief Law Enforcement Official. With the Form 5320.4 one must submit two fingerprint cards, two passport-size photos, and a payment of $200. This entire process must be completed for each Class III item one purchases.
Additionally, as you alluded to, only automatic weapons made prior to May 19th, 1986 may be purchased. As there is a very finite number of these out there, they command high prices (think $20K and up). Furthermore, individual states have specific restrictions. Some states, such as NY and Hawaii, completely prohibit the sale of Class III items to citizens. Other states have restrictions based on the particular Class III item.
iFlipWhat a naïve, knee-jerk reaction. A gun is a tool, to be used for recreation and hunting (and personal protection if appropriate). Similarly, a vehicle is a tool, to be used for recreation and transport. The recent incidents of individuals using vehicles to plow into crowds causing multiple deaths did not yield cries to ban vehicles.
Guns are not the problem. Crazy is the problem.
Meh. Somebody could take out a few people with a fork and knife in a restaurant. Obviously a vehicle is a better tool but most of these things seem to involve guns.
I guess with the wide range of hunting in the states it would be difficult to crack down on still. But I don't think you can say that guns aren't a problem.
iFlipI very much doubt he was using automatic weapons. I imagine he was using semi-automatic weapons, which are very different but the media likely does not have a clue.
It is possible to legally acquire automatic weapons. They fall under NFA Class III items, and take some work and money to obtain, but can absolutely be done so legally. The process to acquire a NFA Class III weapon (or item - think silencer) is to file an ATF Form 5320.4. One must submit two copies to the ATF, and a third copy to one's local Chief Law Enforcement Official. With the Form 5320.4 one must submit two fingerprint cards, two passport-size photos, and a payment of $200. This entire process must be completed for each Class III item one purchases.
Additionally, as you alluded to, only automatic weapons made prior to May 19th, 1986 may be purchased. As there is a very finite number of these out there, they command high prices (think $20K and up). Furthermore, individual states have specific restrictions. Some states, such as NY and Hawaii, completely prohibit the sale of Class III items to citizens. Other states have restrictions based on the particular Class III item.
Have you watched the videos? Very clearly automatic. I have a hard time that a man can pull a trigger that fast. I thought it was pretty much the consensus that they were automatic.
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong....but everything I've read heard or seen points to automatic. Grab me a source that shows they arent.
Profahoben_212Have you watched the videos? Very clearly automatic. I have a hard time that a man can pull a trigger that fast. I thought it was pretty much the consensus that they were automatic.
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong....but everything I've read heard or seen points to automatic. Grab me a source that shows they arent.
I had not watched the videos. I just watched one. It does absolutely sound full-auto to me. That's crazy.
Nope, crazy people are the problem. Do you agree we need to regulate crazy people? My thought was as soon as good policies were in place for mental health then guns are fine. But currently there are a lot of wacky people out there haha
I have not, since my family already owns plenty of guns. But I go with friends and have friends that go and there is no checking done about background at all. Kinda sketchy in my opinion.
iFlipOh really? And how many times have you recently attempted to purchase a gun at one?
iFlipThe gun show loophole was closed years ago. The seems not to have registered with the liberal media.
"The liberal media" Ok O'rielly. When ever people dive straight for "The conservative media" or "the liberal media" you know their argument is pretty shit.
iFlipGuns are not a problem. There, I said it.
Never once has a gun on its own killed a person.
Oh my, what a riveting observation. Let's have Oprah hand out guns to the children. Clearly they pose no risk. guns, safer than ham sandwich.
robotdnaNope, crazy people are the problem. Do you agree we need to regulate crazy people? My thought was as soon as good policies were in place for mental health then guns are fine. But currently there are a lot of wacky people out there haha
We absolutely need to regulate crazy people. And I would support legislation and protocols that make it more difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
In the US, guns are here to stay. We may as well all get past that idea. States (and the federal government) have enacted restrictions to make purchasing certain types of guns difficult or illegal. For example, the famous "assault weapons ban." What exactly is an "assault weapon?" There is no definition, nor any type of weapon that was sold as an assault weapon, to either the military or civilians. Instead a crazy definition was created by lawmakers, which essentially came down to any gun that looks scary is classified as an assault rifle. This ban has done absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence.
Stop trying to regulate what decent firearms owners may purchase and own. Let's shift our focus to keeping any and all weapons out of the hands of those who are mentally ill.
I agree. I just don't know how we effectively regulate this. What do you propose?
iFlipWe absolutely need to regulate crazy people. And I would support legislation and protocols that make it more difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
In the US, guns are here to stay. We may as well all get past that idea. States (and the federal government) have enacted restrictions to make purchasing certain types of guns difficult or illegal. For example, the famous "assault weapons ban." What exactly is an "assault weapon?" There is no definition, nor any type of weapon that was sold as an assault weapon, to either the military or civilians. Instead a crazy definition was created by lawmakers, which essentially came down to any gun that looks scary is classified as an assault rifle. This ban has done absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence.
Stop trying to regulate what decent firearms owners may purchase and own. Let's shift our focus to keeping any and all weapons out of the hands of those who are mentally ill.
robotdnaNope, crazy people are the problem. Do you agree we need to regulate crazy people? My thought was as soon as good policies were in place for mental health then guns are fine. But currently there are a lot of wacky people out there haha
Why does it have to be 1 option or the other? We need to do something about mental health in this country. That said, it shouldn't be a reason why we don't do anything about the gun issue.
Also the idea that we're just going to magically make people not crazy, and everything will be rainbows and unicorns.
eheathThe amount of guns we have is a problem. We have so many guns that serve no purpose.
So you want to restrict how many firearms I may own? Or do I need to rationalize each? Would you limit me to 3 firearms? 10? Two dozen? Or, if I have a valid reason for each and every one of my firearms, is it ok for me to own 200? Let's break this down a little, and pretend that each of these apply to me:
A .22 for small game hunting
A bench-rest .22 for competition target shooting
A lightweight but long-barreled .22 for 3-gun competitions
A specialized .22 for biathlon competitions
A .223 for larger small-game hunting (coyotes, foxes, etc.)
An AR-style .223 for 3-gun competitions
A bench-rest .223 for competition non-rimfire shoots
A .270 for hunting situations out West where I need a flat-shooting round
A lightweight .270 for mountain hunting situations (sheep, ibex, etc.)
A 30-06 for big game hunting
A 45-70 for bear protection
A 12-gauge over/under for trap shooting
A 12-gauge semi-automatic for waterfowl hunting
A 12-gauge side-by-side for upland hunting
A short-barreled semi-automatic 12-gauge for 3-gun competitions
A 20-gauge for dove hunting
We are only getting started, and haven't gotten into handguns for competition, self-defense, etc. I could make a very valid case for why I personally "need" 30+ guns. This also hasn't touched on collectability, having spares, guns with sentimental value that have been passed down, having loaner guns for getting new shooters into the sport, and more.
Don't tread on me and ma freeeeedoms!!! These colors don't run! Dang liberals wanna come in here and try an take over the country. Well Ill just tell them. They ain't nerrr gonna take ma guns away!
iFlipSo you want to restrict how many firearms I may own? Or do I need to rationalize each? Would you limit me to 3 firearms? 10? Two dozen? Or, if I have a valid reason for each and every one of my firearms, is it ok for me to own 200? Let's break this down a little, and pretend that each of these apply to me:
A .22 for small game hunting
A bench-rest .22 for competition target shooting
A lightweight but long-barreled .22 for 3-gun competitions
A specialized .22 for biathlon competitions
A .223 for larger small-game hunting (coyotes, foxes, etc.)
An AR-style .223 for 3-gun competitions
A bench-rest .223 for competition non-rimfire shoots
A .270 for hunting situations out West where I need a flat-shooting round
A lightweight .270 for mountain hunting situations (sheep, ibex, etc.)
A 30-06 for big game hunting
A 45-70 for bear protection
A 12-gauge over/under for trap shooting
A 12-gauge semi-automatic for waterfowl hunting
A 12-gauge side-by-side for upland hunting
A short-barreled semi-automatic 12-gauge for 3-gun competitions
A 20-gauge for dove hunting
We are only getting started, and haven't gotten into handguns for competition, self-defense, etc. I could make a very valid case for why I personally "need" 30+ guns. This also hasn't touched on collectability, having spares, guns with sentimental value that have been passed down, having loaner guns for getting new shooters into the sport, and more.
I could care less what "you" can justify, you sound like a very unique individual. Basically every gun you just listed is also not the problem, and you know that. I don't wish to argue much about this as I agree with the 2nd amendment right of owning a firearm (I own a shotgun for sport) but I think its ludicrous how many guns (not for sport or hunting) exist and I think there are too many.
iFlipWhat a naïve, knee-jerk reaction. A gun is a tool, to be used for recreation and hunting (and personal protection if appropriate). Similarly, a vehicle is a tool, to be used for recreation and transport. The recent incidents of individuals using vehicles to plow into crowds causing multiple deaths did not yield cries to ban vehicles.
Guns are not the problem. Crazy is the problem.
Holy false equivalence batman. Of course crazy is a problem, but you are clearly lying to yourself if you don't see the difference between a tool that is a purpose built weapon that puts a hole in almost anything and one that is used to move people around. Are you telling me that if an attacker was running at you with a knife (or insert weapon of choice) and you had a loaded run lying next to you and a running car pointed at the assailant, that you would be unable to decide what to defend yourself with?
The use of a weapon and this misuse of a transportation device are not the same thing and this is why no one is calling for a ban on trucks or cars.
You're right. Often I am too black and white. Part of me just wants to do the "parent" thing and say since we aren't able to control these things more we. Should really have much much more regulation. However, working on both mental health and regulation simultaneously will give the best results. Our government has tried to do this and it didn't seem to work well as nobody agrees on anything.
theabortionatorWhy does it have to be 1 option or the other? We need to do something about mental health in this country. That said, it shouldn't be a reason why we don't do anything about the gun issue.
Also the idea that we're just going to magically make people not crazy, and everything will be rainbows and unicorns.
eheathI could care less what "you" can justify, you sound like a very unique individual. Basically every gun you just listed is also not the problem, and you know that.
How much less could you care? Because it sounds like you already care quite a lot.
What guns, specifically, ARE the problem according to you? What specific guns can we ban that will magically make gun violence go away? Also, several of the guns I listed already have been banned by various states.
As long as we are banning things, let's look at crime statistics. If we ban the sale of guns to individuals who have incomes of less than $40K per year, then theoretically we have just eliminated 98% of all gun violence. Next perhaps we should ban the sale of guns to individuals who earn less than $200K per year. Now we have eliminated 99.9% of gun violence. Or we could break it down racially. Or maybe based upon education.
How exactly would you like your banning to take place?
onenerdykidHoly false equivalence batman. Of course crazy is a problem, but you are clearly lying to yourself if you don't see the difference between a tool that is a purpose built weapon that puts a hole in almost anything and one that is used to move people around. Are you telling me that if an attacker was running at you with a knife (or insert weapon of choice) and you had a loaded run lying next to you and a running car pointed at the assailant, that you would be unable to decide what to defend yourself with?
The use of a weapon and this misuse of a transportation device are not the same thing and this is why no one is calling for a ban on trucks or cars.
I personally would get into the running vehicle and drive away from the situation.
iFlipHow much less could you care? Because it sounds like you already care quite a lot.
What guns, specifically, ARE the problem according to you? What specific guns can we ban that will magically make gun violence go away? Also, several of the guns I listed already have been banned by various states.
As long as we are banning things, let's look at crime statistics. If we ban the sale of guns to individuals who have incomes of less than $40K per year, then theoretically we have just eliminated 98% of all gun violence. Next perhaps we should ban the sale of guns to individuals who earn less than $200K per year. Now we have eliminated 99.9% of gun violence. Or we could break it down racially. Or maybe based upon education.
How exactly would you like your banning to take place?
I don't think banning guns is the solution. TBH i don't think anyone knows the solution here, its a dark day.
eheathI don't think banning guns is the solution. TBH i don't think anyone knows the solution here, its a dark day.
Good statement. No one has the solution. Perhaps there is no solution. It's the radicals (on both sides of the issue) who jump to extremes who are only exacerbating the issue. The solution is not banning guns. The solution is also not arming every individual. As a nation we have a truly massive mental health crisis. It's much easier (and sells more stories) to blame guns, or fast food, or whatever else. If as a nation we would buckle down and spend the time, money, and effort to get to the root of the mental health crisis, more good would be done for more people (both directly and indirectly).
robotdnaYou're right. Often I am too black and white. Part of me just wants to do the "parent" thing and say since we aren't able to control these things more we. Should really have much much more regulation. However, working on both mental health and regulation simultaneously will give the best results. Our government has tried to do this and it didn't seem to work well as nobody agrees on anything.
Letting it ride hasn't really worked out that well either.
iFlipI personally would get into the running vehicle and drive away from the situation.
I hope we all would, but that also proves a point that you knew what the car was primarily for. You didn't try to drive the gun or blatantly use the car to run him over and then walk home.
This is a cheesy line, but I do think it rings true: with great power comes great responsibility. If we make pilots undergo hundreds if not thousands of hours of education and testing before they earn their pilot's license, why do we not do the same for someone wanting to own a deadly weapon? Moreover, how about we have post-license and post-sale mental health exams and operating exams for all gun owners? This would definitely catch a lot of the problem without taking away one's constitutional right to own a gun.
onenerdykidI hope we all would, but that also proves a point that you knew what the car was primarily for. You didn't try to drive the gun or blatantly use the car to run him over and then walk home.
This is a cheesy line, but I do think it rings true: with great power comes great responsibility. If we make pilots undergo hundreds if not thousands of hours of education and testing before they earn their pilot's license, why do we not do the same for someone wanting to own a deadly weapon? Moreover, how about we have post-license and post-sale mental health exams and operating exams for all gun owners? This would definitely catch a lot of the problem without taking away one's constitutional right to own a gun.
And we still fall short, even with pilots. Example: MH370.
If we are going to implement recurring exams for gun owners, then I would ask that we do the same for all drivers. If we have exams every 5 years for drivers that tested their eyesight, their reaction times, and their mental ability, we would save untold lives by revoking licenses of senior drivers who just can't seem to stop driving, even though they have absolutely no business being behind the wheel.
iFlipAnd we still fall short, even with pilots. Example: MH370.
If we are going to implement recurring exams for gun owners, then I would ask that we do the same for all drivers. If we have exams every 5 years for drivers that tested their eyesight, their reaction times, and their mental ability, we would save untold lives by revoking licenses of senior drivers who just can't seem to stop driving, even though they have absolutely no business being behind the wheel.
Short answer: yes.
Just because some instances are not prevented, it does not mean that we shouldn't try to do a better job. I don't think anyone is expecting a perfect solution that does away with all gun violence, or violence in general. But there is assuredly more that we can do and ought to do in order to ensure that our citizens are better protected. This is in fact one of the main jobs of any government- protect its citizens.
Just because some instances are not prevented, it does not mean that we shouldn't try to do a better job. I don't think anyone is expecting a perfect solution that does away with all gun violence, or violence in general. But there is assuredly more that we can do and ought to do in order to ensure that our citizens are better protected. This is in fact one of the main jobs of any government- protect its citizens.
The difficult question is where we can draw the line, if indeed a line should be drawn. How much should the government protect us from...us? In the not-too-distant past, a class-based system did a phenomenal job of protecting the citizens. The wealthy proletariat had the rights, and everyone else had specific roles within the feudal society, with set guidelines. We could return to a feudal state, and it would be great for the few.
As I said in my tongue-in-cheek post to eheath, if we regulate certain things such as guns based largely upon income level, or education level, then we can solve all kinds of problems. However, this is unjust, according to our current societal norms. We do have solutions available to us, we just don't like them.
We could do away with massive financial drains by requiring pre-birth testing for genetic and mental illnesses, with government-mandated abortions for "problems." We could "allow" reproduction based upon ability to provide for the child or children, again looking toward income level. Obviously these examples would not fly for a second in our current society.
Why is this, the worst mass shooting in US history, not being called a terrorist attack. How long would it take for the topic of mental health to come up if it was being labeled terrorism, if at all?
Brown/middle eastern dude = terrorism
White guy = mental health
saskskierWhy is this, the worst mass shooting in US history, not being called a terrorist attack. How long would it take for the topic of mental health to come up if it was being labeled terrorism, if at all?
Brown/middle eastern dude = terrorism
White guy = mental health
Here's another ignorant, knee-jerk response to the horrific Vegas incident. Way to twist it and try to make it about white privilege. This has NOTHING to do with race.
iFlipThe difficult question is where we can draw the line, if indeed a line should be drawn. How much should the government protect us from...us? In the not-too-distant past, a class-based system did a phenomenal job of protecting the citizens. The wealthy proletariat had the rights, and everyone else had specific roles within the feudal society, with set guidelines. We could return to a feudal state, and it would be great for the few.
As I said in my tongue-in-cheek post to eheath, if we regulate certain things such as guns based largely upon income level, or education level, then we can solve all kinds of problems. However, this is unjust, according to our current societal norms. We do have solutions available to us, we just don't like them.
We could do away with massive financial drains by requiring pre-birth testing for genetic and mental illnesses, with government-mandated abortions for "problems." We could "allow" reproduction based upon ability to provide for the child or children, again looking toward income level. Obviously these examples would not fly for a second in our current society.
But I don't think it's as slippery of a slope as many pro-gun people think it would be. Requiring citizens to pass a pilot's-license-level amount of education and testing with post-sale mental health exams would be a sound policy for letting ordinary citizens own deadly weapons and in many places carry them in public. That common citizens without any sort of training or education can own a deadly weapon should legitimately concern each and every one of us. And it's not hard to argue that our government can do a better job in keeping us safe in doing so, without taking away any of our existing rights. Austria has something similar to this. You want to live here and own a gun? Great, you are allowed to but you need to undergo lots of training and yearly mental health exams & safety exams in order to do so. Fail them and you lose your right to own a gun. If more people took owning a deadly weapon this seriously, then it would be a very mature and honest step in the right direction.
saskskierWhy is this, the worst mass shooting in US history, not being called a terrorist attack. How long would it take for the topic of mental health to come up if it was being labeled terrorism, if at all?
Brown/middle eastern dude = terrorism
White guy = mental health
Where is the line between murder and terrorism? Is eventually every murder going to be lumped or blurred into the category of "terrorism"? In almost all ways that terrorism can be defined there is a political, religious, or ideological motive given for the violence. As far as I am currently aware, there haven't been any such motives given for this shooting (if I am wrong, feel free to correct).
Until it's known that he was spouting Biblical scripture or any other such motive, then this is pure mass murder and not terrorism.
iFlipHere's another ignorant, knee-jerk response to the horrific Vegas incident. Way to twist it and try to make it about white privilege. This has NOTHING to do with race.
Would CBS write the same article if the attacker was middle eastern? Guaranteed all news headlines would be 'suspected terrorist attack in Vegas'. They definitely wouldn't be writing articles about how it's too soon to label it as terrorism.
saskskierWould CBS write the same article if the attacker was middle eastern? Guaranteed all news headlines would be 'suspected terrorist attack in Vegas'. They definitely wouldn't be writing articles about how it's too soon to label it as terrorism.
Conjecture is not a strong argument. The San Bernardino, CA incident was not called a terror attack for quite a while, until the motive was actually known. This did involve your hot-word "middle eastern" individuals.
Anti-gun rhetoric is just hollow virtue signaling. You can't ban guns. That's just the end of the argument and I'm not even approaching it from a pseudo-libertarian second amendment point of view, I'm speaking practically. You cannot ban guns, it's not even possible.
Thank God the NRA is a thing and will protect my rights from buffoons like you who try to infringe on them. Way to make it political hours after a terrorist attack, classy
.frenchyThank God the NRA is a thing and will protect my rights from buffoons like you who try to infringe on them. Way to make it political hours after a terrorist attack, classy
Legitimate question, how are stricter gun laws going to limit access to fully automatic rifles with high capacity mags? Current legislation doesn't seem to be stopping people from obtaining the tools for doing maximum damage, what would tougher laws do?
And everyone saying "but muh guns" needs to shut the fuck up and recognize that the US has a serious gun problem and we need to do something about it. But what?
TheHamburglarLegitimate question, how are stricter gun laws going to limit access to fully automatic rifles with high capacity mags? Current legislation doesn't seem to be stopping people from obtaining the tools for doing maximum damage, what would tougher laws do?
And everyone saying "but muh guns" needs to shut the fuck up and recognize that the US has a serious gun problem and we need to do something about it. But what?
You can't do much. Unified national gun laws, licensing, and harsh penalties for people modifying guns are the only things that might actually make a difference but it's unlikely that even those measures would have stopped an attack like this. If bad people want guns, they'll always get them.
