[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

I concur with your point that we live in a violent culture with all it's implications. I'll just add that it logically follows that places with more guns are likely to have more gun deaths.

To address your question;
1.I believe the reason there is so much focus on automatic and semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines is because their potential for mass carnage is exponentially greater than that of handguns.

2. They are almost exclusively the weapons of choice in mass shooting incidents.

3. Mass shooting incidents attract intense media coverage for extended perioids of time and have a huge impact on the national psyche due to their horrific nature. Of course these tragedies also have a devistating and lasting impact on the local communities in which they occur.

4. Though the number of homicides committed with these types of firearms and accessories may be less in real numbers than homicides committed with handguns, I would argue their impact on society is disproportionately greater when used in mass shootings, which in my opinion jusitfies the scrutiny.

EDIT: i forgot to address your comment about more guns = more gun deaths. Logic does point to that conclusion. However, when comparing deaths per gun there are 47 other countries who have FAR LESS guns than the US but do have a higher rate of homicides per gun than the US. So speculation alone is not conclusive.

1) Fully automatic weapons have not been used in any recorded mass shooting in the US. They are VERY difficult to obtain there by very scarce. If a rifle and hand gun shoot a projectile every time the trigger is pulled, why is there greater potential of "mass carnage" with rifles?

2) In mass shootings since 1983 to present time, there were 35 rifles used compared to 88 hand guns and 19 shotguns. If you're quick with math, you'll see that totals 142 weapons and quickly figure out that most mass shootings involve more than one weapon since there were 63 incidents. In fact, the most deadly mass shooting in the last 30 years, at Virginia Tech, where 33 were killed 23 were injured, was perpetrated with 2 hand guns.

As a side note i'd like to point out that in the last 30 years a total of .0000005% of the weapons in America were used in a mass shooting. OVER THE LAST THIRTY YEARS COMBINED.... it's actually .00000048% but when you're talking about 142 of the 300,000,000 million firearms in existence i figured i'd round up to give a pro gun control advocate's argument the edge.

3) This is true, we all know the media is always looking for the best angle, the most dirt, first story, all in an effort to gain ratings. It should not be a surprise that they sensationalize these tragic events for their benefit. I would argue that they are part of the problem by offering the potential of HUGE notoriety of a perpetrator in their death by taking several innocent people with them.

4) This is part of the problem as well. The public's refusal to recognize and accept the "real number" facts. This is due to politicians and media pushing their own agenda with propaganda against the weapons they don't like. Facts are facts. I get all my statistical data from pro gun control websites. I don't believe that gun owners would be giving so much push back if the facts said that every week someone with an AR-15 killed 25 people.

But those aren't the facts. The facts show that by and large, including mass shootings, the weapon to inflict the most harm is in fact a hand gun. In addition the facts show that the vast majority of gun-violence in America takes place in inner-citys, not college campuses, not movie theaters, not elementary schools, or malls etc... But rather run down, dark, drug infested inner-cities.

As stated before, the only reason the government would want to go after rifles more than hand guns is because: 1, they want to give half the population a false sense of security or 2, they want to disarm law abiding citizens for a separate agenda.

In my opinion this should scare all Americans. Our government is focusing on something that is minuscule part of the problem in order to sooth people and possibly to buy votes for their party. Or they are motivated strictly by their own agenda regardless of the facts. Either way, having a government that would do either of those things is not something i'm comfortable with. They clearly don't have my rights and interests at heart and a government that places the rights and interests of one sect above others is one that is way out of whack or self motivated.

[OldArmy]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Sorry, I thought it was understood the solutions being sought are for the problem of gun violence in our society. My question to you was to find out if you agree with the premise that there is a problem in our society with gun violence. If you do then please tell how you articulate the issue and what you think the solutions are if any.

Gun violence is not a solvable challenge. Too diffuse, too widely defined, no particular act or legislation can possibly address it. It fits right up there with hunger, poverty, ignorance, sloth, greed, bad parenting, etc...there's just no way to get our arms around it UNLESS one is willing to take away all the guns from all the people. That's the only way to stop it. I guess I am trying to get some truth into the discussion.

Since I know the records show that, statistically, we don't have even a small problem, I don't have a recommendation and I sure can't articulate a challenge that can actually be worked to a worthwhile end.

I do know I don't want to give up anything. Not one right, not one weapon, not one big magazine, not the ability to purchase what I want when I want. Not for uncertain and feel good reasons that just won't solve anything.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

the facts show that the vast majority of gun-violence in America takes place in inner-citys, not college campuses, not movie theaters, not elementary schools, or malls etc... But rather run down, dark, drug infested inner-cities.

You know, I think that actually DOES explain some of the publics appetite to focus on mass shootings.

We all know that if you choose to associate with people in the gang/drug world, your risk goes way up. But that's your choice to do that, you know the risks going in. If you live lawfully, but get nailed at the movie theater, that will instill more fear. Going to see Batman, or attending first grade, should not be in the same category of "risky life choices" as associating with crack dealers, or trying to pass a gang initiation. People think: if I play with fire, I could get burned, fair enough. But, if I choose to not play with fire, and I still could get burned, OK now I want that fixed.

I could see the general public having a higher tolerance for gang violence, and a lower tolerance for random mass shootings, if they believe that such a situation is a reflection of outcomes being more connected to personal choices than chance. If I said, I could wave a magic wand, and guarantee you that your risk of being an innocent victim in a mass shooting were cut in half, but the cost of that would be that gang-on-gang homocides were to double; I bet most people with be more OK with that tradeoff than if you said, lets change nothing.

Fact is, many people believe that mass shooting = rifles, and gang shootings = handguns, so as long as they believe that, of course they will be more inclined to support a focus on rifles. The media doesnt help, but obviously they are not in the business to inform people, they are really in the business to maximize ratings and thus advertising revenue. The NRA doesnt help either, but then they too are not in the business to represent the interests of gun owners as much as they are in the business to represent gun makers. I'd argue both of those very influential players are a bigger part of the problem than the government is.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Who is typically involved in shootings? See here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

** NOTE: These are Dept of Justice statistics. since a surprising number of posters here appear convinced their Gov is out to get them, I suppose it would be consistent to discard these numbers as propaganda to mislead the populace.. if so, well, stop reading right now I guess, I got nothin for ya.

Read the whole thing, but some highlites are:

• Males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males was 3 times higher than the rate for females. The offending rate for males was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females.

• Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group.

• Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks was 6 times higher than the rate for whites. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites.

• 78.1% of victims were classified as "Nonstrangers" with respect to the assailant. (ie: not random mass shootings)

What story does the data tell? If you are a black male 25 or under, you are statistically far more likely to be involved somehow in a gun fatality than anyone else. If it does happen, it probably wont be part of a mass shooting of innocent strangers.

However, a very tiny percentage of voters can relate to being in that high risk position (black + male already reduces you down to less than 10% according to the census, regardless of economic position)

A MUCH larger percentage of voters can relate to having a child in school, regardless of race or income.

Thus, it should come as no surprise at all that it's much easier to find folks worked up over something like Newtown, that they could imagine themselves being caught up in, compared to gang shootings that they can't picture themselves in, even if the latter event happens more often.

[TexasZed4MC]

Let me share this:
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.
This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats’ feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

Read more: http://newsninja2012.com/fbi-more-pe...#ixzz2JUz82nD9

Gun bans, will never solve the problem. As you can see above, our WONDERFUL Federal Bureau of Investigation has that data, show that to the idiot in the oval office.
Maybe he'll want to make an executive order banning HAMMERS and CLUBS. Sorry little Billy no more baseball becasue your bat is now considered an illegal weapon!

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

You know, I think that actually DOES explain some of the publics appetite to focus on mass shootings.

We all know that if you choose to associate with people in the gang/drug world, your risk goes way up. But that's your choice to do that, you know the risks going in. If you live lawfully, but get nailed at the movie theater, that will instill more fear. Going to see Batman, or attending first grade, should not be in the same category of "risky life choices" as associating with crack dealers, or trying to pass a gang initiation. People think: if I play with fire, I could get burned, fair enough. But, if I choose to not play with fire, and I still could get burned, OK now I want that fixed.

I could see the general public having a higher tolerance for gang violence, and a lower tolerance for random mass shootings, if they believe that such a situation is a reflection of outcomes being more connected to personal choices than chance. If I said, I could wave a magic wand, and guarantee you that your risk of being an innocent victim in a mass shooting were cut in half, but the cost of that would be that gang-on-gang homocides were to double; I bet most people with be more OK with that tradeoff than if you said, lets change nothing.

Fact is, many people believe that mass shooting = rifles, and gang shootings = handguns, so as long as they believe that, of course they will be more inclined to support a focus on rifles. The media doesnt help, but obviously they are not in the business to inform people, they are really in the business to maximize ratings and thus advertising revenue. The NRA doesnt help either, but then they too are not in the business to represent the interests of gun owners as much as they are in the business to represent gun makers. I'd argue both of those very influential players are a bigger part of the problem than the government is.

All true. Politicians and gun control advocates need to stop using gun violence statistics as a whole for their argument. This sways the public's opinion.

Imagine that on every network their news anchors spewed the fact that in all of the mass shootings that occurred this year only 14 out of the 300,000,000 firearms that exist in this country were used to perpetrate those shootings. ONLY 14! 10 hand guns, 2 shot guns, and 2 rifles. (Even those figures are stretched because not all of those weapons were used in the crimes. Some were found at the scene unfired.)

Imagine that all gun control advocates were pounding their fists while giving this data to the public following up with "WE MUST GET THESE MASSES OF WEAPONS OFF THE STREETS".

What kind of reaction would John Q. Public have if politicians were giving this data as well while proposing the restrictions of our constitutional rights?

Do you think it may cause people to stop and think for themselves for a moment? Do you think opinions may differ from what they currently are? Maybe people would realize that their chance of even knowing someone involved in a mass shooting is incredibly remote. Like lottery jackpot winning remote.

Using false data to push an agenda is something our government shouldn't be doing. I know it's been done since the beginning but when it comes to using false data to infringe upon the 2nd amendment, free thinkers need to ask what is their agenda. Why is the government using the deaths of innocent Americans to further an agenda which won't likely stop innocent Americans from being a victim?

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Who is typically involved in shootings? See here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

** NOTE: These are Dept of Justice statistics. since a surprising number of posters here appear convinced their Gov is out to get them, I suppose it would be consistent to discard these numbers as propaganda to mislead the populace.. if so, well, stop reading right now I guess, I got nothin for ya.

Read the whole thing, but some highlites are:

• Males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males was 3 times higher than the rate for females. The offending rate for males was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females.

• Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group.

• Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks was 6 times higher than the rate for whites. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites.

• 78.1% of victims were classified as "Nonstrangers" with respect to the assailant. (ie: not random mass shootings)

What story does the data tell? If you are a black male 25 or under, you are statistically far more likely to be involved somehow in a gun fatality than anyone else. If it does happen, it probably wont be part of a mass shooting of innocent strangers.

However, a very tiny percentage of voters can relate to being in that high risk position (black + male already reduces you down to less than 10% according to the census, regardless of economic position)

A MUCH larger percentage of voters can relate to having a child in school, regardless of race or income.

Thus, it should come as no surprise at all that it's much easier to find folks worked up over something like Newtown, that they could imagine themselves being caught up in, compared to gang shootings that they can't picture themselves in, even if the latter event happens more often.

Gang bangers don't have mothers? You don't think they want the police to stop gang violence in their neighborhood? Their percentage is larger yet their voice is smaller.

If total gun homicides this year was 72 dead would there be a cry to stop gun violence in this country?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Gang bangers don't have mothers? You don't think they want the police to stop gang violence in their neighborhood? Their percentage is larger yet their voice is smaller.

Sure, gangbangers have mothers who want it all to stop. Not sure what you mean by their percentage is larger...

When parents of ALL socio-economic levels watch Newtown coverage, they see the victims and many think in the back of their mind, "oh my god, those children are no so different from my kids. That could be my Timmy." It's not like the school was in a bad part of town.

But, when parents watch coverage of bullet-riddled bodies carted out of a dark alley in the bad part of town, or being pulled from a blinged out Escalade, a much smaller group of them are still thinking "that could easily be my kid".

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and which wheel can squeak louder? 10 poor gang parents, or 100 other parents, maybe a few of whom might even golf at the same club as their local senator, or congressman, or news anchor?

While the actions of the crazy mass shooter are statistically less relevant than the gangbanger, the people whose attention he has drawn most definitely are not less influential.

Originally Posted by MP0WER

If total gun homicides this year was 72 dead would there be a cry to stop gun violence in this country?

Probably not. It's not the bigger numbers of gang deaths that draw initial attention, it's the mass shootings. Once they have their attention, they see the big number (due to combination with gang deaths), and it it fuels them even more. 12 months ago, many gangbangers were still dying, but nobody was crying for bans as much. Newtown was the tipping point. I bet if gang violence doubled over the last year, but there was no Newtown to pose a threat to the influential people, we wouldnt be having this conversation today.

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by TexasZed4MC

Let me share this:
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.
This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats’ feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

Read more: http://newsninja2012.com/fbi-more-pe...#ixzz2JUz82nD9

Gun bans, will never solve the problem. As you can see above, our WONDERFUL Federal Bureau of Investigation has that data, show that to the idiot in the oval office.
Maybe he'll want to make an executive order banning HAMMERS and CLUBS. Sorry little Billy no more baseball becasue your bat is now considered an illegal weapon!

If any of that were true, then you'd have a damn good point.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

Usually its best to quote the original source (FBI website, or DOJ website as in my example earlier).

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Sure, gangbangers have mothers who want it all to stop. Not sure what you mean by their percentage is larger...

When parents of ALL socio-economic levels watch Newtown coverage, they see the victims and many think in the back of their mind, "oh my god, those children are no so different from my kids. That could be my Timmy." It's not like the school was in a bad part of town.

But, when parents watch coverage of bullet-riddled bodies carted out of a dark alley in the bad part of town, or being pulled from a blinged out Escalade, a much smaller group of them are still thinking "that could easily be my kid".

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and which wheel can squeak louder? 10 poor gang parents, or 100 other parents, maybe a few of whom might even golf at the same club as their local senator, or congressman, or news anchor?

While the actions of the crazy mass shooter are statistically less relevant than the gangbanger, the people whose attention he has drawn most definitely are not less influential.



Probably not. It's not the bigger numbers of gang deaths that draw initial attention, it's the mass shootings. Once they have their attention, they see the big number (due to combination with gang deaths), and it it fuels them even more. 12 months ago, many gangbangers were still dying, but nobody was crying for bans as much. Newtown was the tipping point. I bet if gang violence doubled over the last year, but there was no Newtown to pose a threat to the influential people, we wouldnt be having this conversation today.

I should have said i understand what you're saying but i was on the way out the door. I totally get why this is happening. A bunch of rich white kids were killed and people are pissed. It really is sad. My bone with the gov is listed in the pervious post.

[carve]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

1) In order to give half the population a false sense of security in hopes they feel safe.

2) In order to get the weapon platform that would be most effective for the private sector should we have to defend ourselves against an armed force.

I can't think of another logical reason but i'm open to theories.

I think their reason is more strategic than that. It's the slippery slope. They think these types of guns will be the easiest to ban because they look scary, they can (falsely) convince people they're machine guns or very powerful due to what people see in movies, and few people own them compared to pistols, handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. Then they'll have a precedent and be able to say "well, if it was a good idea to ban these guns even though they're used in about 1% of gun homicide, then logically you should favor banning these other guns that operate in eaxctly the same way that are responsible for the other 99% (one bite at a time- not the other 99% all at once).

It makes no sense to start with the weapons that are most in line with the intent of the 2nd amendment. Extra irony: the first type of gun control was a ban on sawed off shotguns. The justification was that the military didn't use these, so it was a weapon that was useless for militia duty. Somehow, we're using that same precedent to try to control guns that are IDEAL for militia/military duty.

[carve]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

To address your question; I believe the reason there is so much focus on automatic and semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines is because their potential for mass carnage is exponentially greater than that of handguns.

Do you know what "semi-automatic" means? The above indicates you might be misataken. I get the impression that a lot of people think it means something other than what it actually means...I'm just not 100% sure what that is. I'm sure you'll look it up now, but can you tell me what you thought it meant while writing the above? I'm legitimately curioius and promise not to be a pedantic jerk about your answer.

[xbook]

Many times I have read guns being compared to owning a high HP car in this thread. Which brings up a question in my mind for you gun owners here in this thread. Are you required by your state to carry liability insurance for your firearms?

[RupertPupkin]

Gotta love how the media has turned a term that describes guns made since the 1800's (revolvers) included and made it into a negative term. It would be like them turning automatic trannys into "super speed shifters in high performance death machines" Ban them all.......Pretty much every gun besides bolt action and pump shottys is a "semi automatic" One bang per trigger pull.

And dont get me started on the term "assault rifle"

Originally Posted by carve

Do you know what "semi-automatic" means? The above indicates you might be misataken. I get the impression that a lot of people think it means something other than what it actually means. I'm sure you'll look it up now, but can you tell me what you thought it meant while writing the above? I'm legitimately curioius and promise not to be a pedantic jerk about your answer.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by xbook

Many times I have read guns being compared to owning a high HP car in this thread. Which brings up a question in my mind for you gun owners here in this thread. Are you required by your state to carry liability insurance for your firearms?

No we're not. It is an interesting point. Hell when i was flying remote control airplanes i was required to carry some type of liability insurance incase my plane did damage to someone else's property.

But then again it's not illegal to fly a remote control airplane in public or around the general public.....

Discharging a firearm in public is illegal. In order to fire my weapon i must be on my own private property, on someone else's private property with their permission or in a designated hunting area. If it's already illegal to discharge a weapon on a school campus or a mall or on the street, why would it need state regulated liability insurance.

Quite frankly i'm more worried about property insurance with my firearms. Should these weapons not be available for purchase any longer they become quite valuable. To collectors and criminals. If they were stollen or damaged they are irreplaceable. In November the resale value of my weapons probably totaled about $11,500. Today the value has jumped to about $16k - $18k. If there was an actual ban on them the value would could be upwards of $25k or more. I've already purchased a 1100# 10ga steel safe in an effort to keep them safe and out of the wrong hands. But safes don't protect them from all possible damage and theft.

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by RupertPupkin

Gotta love how the media has turned a term that describes guns made since the 1800's (revolvers) included and made it into a negative term. It would be like them turning automatic trannys into "super speed shifters in high performance death machines" Ban them all.......Pretty much every gun besides bolt action and pump shottys is a "semi automatic" One bang per trigger pull.

And dont get me started on the term "assault rifle"

In all fairness the term assault rifle is a real term. I think you mean to quote the BS political term "Assault Weapons".

[xbook]

To not have a liability insurance requirement is outrageous. If I drove my BMW down the street and was caught without insurance, I'd get a hefty fine, and possibly lose my license for some amount of time.

Maybe that should be a requirement of gun ownership, as should safety classes and recertification every x years, maybe 4. I know here in CA, safety classes are already a requirement, no idea about the others as I don't have a firearm and don't plan to purchase one.

[carve]

If a company wants you to carry additional personal injury insurance if you're a gun owner, I'm fine with that. My homeowners insurance already covers personal injury though. For the government to require it could be considered an infringement.

[MP0WER]

Just so everyone knows.....

Definition

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44.

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);

It must be capable of selective fire;

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.

And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)


Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (on which the M16 rifle is based) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective-fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."[7]

[MP0WER]

Originally Posted by xbook

To not have a liability insurance requirement is outrageous. If I drove my BMW down the street and was caught without insurance, I'd get a hefty fine, and possibly lose my license for some amount of time.

Maybe that should be a requirement of gun ownership, as should safety classes and recertification every x years, maybe 4. I know here in CA, safety classes are already a requirement, no idea about the others as I don't have a firearm and don't plan to purchase one.

But if you wren't allowed to drive you BMW down the street because say, it wasn't street legal, why would anyone need to regulate any kind of liability insurance on it?

I'm on board with safety and proficiency classes and recertification ever 4 years. Safety classes aren't required here in FL and i would image not in many other states either.

Again while law abiding citizens would likely be on board for these things how would this help to restrict access to firearms from the bad guys and the mentally unstable guys?

[RupertPupkin]

Yes exactly what I meant. haha

Originally Posted by MP0WER

In all fairness the term assault rifle is a real term. I think you mean to quote the BS political term "Assault Weapons".

[M3Denver]

Originally Posted by xbook

Yup, gotta keep our gunz so we can all defend ourselves from the evil phederil gubermint.

Every post of yours I've seen today is idiotic. You add no value to any argument you just criticize and ridicule without intelligence. How about going to school again and learning that tyrannical governments have been very common throughout the world. The USA has the constitution to try and minimize that ever happening. It increases law abiding citizens legal ability to be free in many ways including how to defend ones self, family, or country. If I want to own an AR that is semi auto (laws already in place to limit automatic and military weapons) I should be able to do that, how I use it for fun, competition or protection is irrelevant, as long as I checked out as not crazy or criminal.