I propose banning the manufacture and sale of Machine guns.

I know FACTS may be annoying to some people, as they get in the way of their fantasies, but here are the FACTS nonetheless:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Gavin Newsom, Lt Gov of California and former mayor of San Francisco, is reminding people of the 93 other people who have died in the US in the last 72 hours in separate "gun violence" incidents.

He doesn't cite his source but the figure matches with reports from the Gun Violence Archive.

Five people died in a mass shooting in Roswell, New Mexico. Four of those were girls aged between three and 14.

Juan David Villegas-Hernandez, 34, is now charged with murder.

He is accused of killing his 34-year-old wife Cynthia Villegas and their four daughters - Yamilen, Cynthia Janeth, Abby and Ida.

Mass shooting is defined by the Gun Violence Archive as a situation where four or more people are shot and/or killed in a single incident, at the same general time and location. The shooter is not included in this number.

These figures don't account for suicides where a gun was involved.

The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with 0.1.

Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and 10% in the UK.

Shootings are an "everyday" occurrence for the surgeons who treated the wounded in Orlando over the weekend.

In an interview in the US with CBS News, the team which operated on many of the injured was asked if the victims' gunshot wounds were "different from the kind of Saturday night gunshot wounds" they typically see.

"Well, certainly they are different than what we used to call civilian gunshot wounds, which are typically slower bullets, smaller bullets," said one of the surgeons, Michael Cheatham.

"But increasingly we're seeing gunshot wounds from high velocity, military-type weapons almost on a daily basis.

"So this type of injury is something we see every day, it is just not 44 patients."

It won't work. Too many people need guns now because they are afraid every bad guy with a gun is lurking around the corner waiting to kill them. The pro-gun lobbyists were very successful in their fear campaign, so much so that America is viewed (and sometimes acts) as a gun culture.

Being Canadian, all I ever see or hear from the news coming out of the US, is gun violence. Usually with an automatic weapon of some sort, never hear about the revolver mass shootings.

In my opinion, for home defense (if people really felt they needed it) a shotgun is sufficient. For hunting, a rifle (and handgun if needed). Automatic weapons? They are only made to kill people. It's a fear culture, not a gun culture.

a reply to: network dude

Unfortunately we have no say so but I believe Machine Guns were heavily taxed and regulated back in the Bonnie & Clyde days but...you know me, I agree for more regulation on those but I would like to keep a warehouse open for our soldiers.

However, semi-automatic weapons...that's another story. Do they cause more harm than good?

(I think so)

a reply to: network dude

I didn't read the entire thread. I read the title and the opening post.

Maybe if you're joking you should make it more clear from the beginning instead of accusing others of lacking comprehension.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Maybe if you're joking you should make it more clear from the beginning instead of accusing others of lacking comprehension.

Maybe if you're going to participate in a conversation, you should make yourself aware of the parameters of said conversation instead of accusing others of authoring a misleading thread.

This is a perfect example of the type of knee jerk reactions that most anti-gun people exhibit, which was one of the main points the OP has been hoping to make with his series of recent threads. He is looking to draw in people who look only at the surface of issues (from both sides) and start in on rhetoric without applying any critical thought prior to advancing their agenda.

What you did is just as bad as what anyone who is trying to turn the horrible situation that recently occurred in Orlando in to a debate about gun restriction and use it to push for more laws. It's not like this was a dozen page thread and would take an inordinately large amount of time to read and digest before jumping in with what you perceive as a defense of your position on the issue.

I've said it in a few other threads and it applies here, there are two areas in which mitigation might affect violence amongst humans for reasons other than self defense:

Motive and the environment in which such ideas (that killing for a God can bring about some sort of reward) are fostered.

More gun laws are not going to have any effect on the cause because they merely address a tool used to accomplish a heinous act; even if guns were made to all magically disappear, the overall number of people killed by other people would not be affected one iota.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Everything you need is in the OP. Machine guns are already regulated to the point I brought up, so everything is redundant. I just figured it would pacify those who have no clue, like the ones that think every scary looking black rifle is an "automatic". I had hoped the folks that understand all this would find the humor, most did.

a reply to: network dude

You do know there is already a ban on "machine guns" (by which I assume you mean full auto, noting none of the weapons used in the last several attacks were) So banning what is already banned is going to help how? Ohh and what is to keep this banned item from criminal hands? Last I checked criminals do not follow laws.

a reply to: sycomix

The Original Post was meant to be ironic.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ahh ok, my bad, must have missed it. Hard to catch somethings in text being as there is no clear way to emote or convey sarcasm. My fiance and I complain about that a lot.

a reply to: sycomix

Do what I do, whenever you see Network post, never, ever take him seriously. He is like ATS's version of the Three Stooges except he is only big enough to be two of them.


Probably Shemp and Curly Joe since those are the two no one really likes.

a reply to: Kryties

Who needs to go to America when all I have to do is turn on my computer and open a news website?

Absolutely PRICELESS.

originally posted by: darkbake
I think assault rifles that are semi-automatic are used more than machine guns in mass shootings. In fact, I'm not sure anyone has ever used a fully-automatic weapon in a mass shooting... maybe I have my definitions wrong.

Thats easy since if its a SEMI AUTO its NOT A ASSAULT RIFLE or machine gun. its a one pull per round rifle with a deep magazine.

a reply to: yuppa

Military ARs have semi auto capacity and the semis can be altered to be full auto.
en.wikipedia.org...

Your definition is incorrect.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: yuppa

Military ARs have semi auto capacity and the semis can be altered to be full auto.
en.wikipedia.org...

Your definition is incorrect.

MIlitary versions ARENT SOLD TO CIVIES.(unless you are a class 3 registrar) Your point is moot.

And I said the rifle is SEMI AUTO,AKA one trigger pull equals ONE ROUND FIRED. My definition was correct youre just padding your post count.

a reply to: yuppa
Heh, no I'm not. Do you know what selective fire is?

originally posted by: ksiezyc
Heh, no I'm not. Do you know what selective fire is?

You cannot purchase a new select fire weapon as a civilian nor can you convert an older one to select fire.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I've always been under the impression you could. Hmm, I'm no gun expert though. Thanks for the information.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
I've always been under the impression you could.

It has been illegal to do so since 1986.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Illegal. That means a lot to law abiding citizens. To others not so much.

a reply to: ksiezyc

It does not matter to anyone. A civilian cannot walk into a gun shop and buy a new select fire weapon.