rickyp wrote:fste
1. The weapon used was not an "assault weapon."
The madman who killed at least 50 people and wounded 53 others at an Orlando club early Sunday was armed with an AR-15-type rifle. It’s the same style of weapon used to slaughter 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., in 2012.
Earlier that year, James Holmes used an AR-15 to murder 12 people and wound 70 in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Regulations on magazine capacity for the weapon vary from state to state, but it can fire 45 rounds a minute.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2670739
So what?
That is written by morons. No one, not even a Navy Seal, can put out 45 rounds a minute and do anything more than spray the air. Every round fired requires a trigger pull, which will cause the weapon to kick, which necessitates aiming again.
Again, no human being alive can fire 45 meaninful rounds in a minute.
Further, nothing you posted means the weapon is "an assault weapon." It was a semi-automatic rifle.
fate
2. What specific gun control laws would have prevented this slaughter?
I imagine you require a set of laws that achieve 100% safety, and won't accept that laws that limit the probabilities are an improvement over the current situation...
No, I said what I said, not what you said.
So if you want 100% safety you'd require
a complete and effective prohibition on fire arms. Like in Australia.
Americans who want that can migrate.
Anything less than that might not be 100% certain. And I'll guess that your argument is that a complete prohibition isn't possible, due to the 2nd Amendment which seems to be more important that the right to everyone living ones life in security and safety...
Wrong. Again, you hosers don't like the 2nd Amendment, fine--stay out of the USA. For the rest of us, just let us defend ourselves instead of having to rely on government.
Profiling PEOPLE who represent threats is the key. Instead, our government refuses to look at radical Islam as a threat--even when its adherents commit murder in the name of their God.
I'm thinking laws like this would start to have an impact on deaths by gun over time.
And that would be a good thing.
All of your suggestions are exactly the sort of restrictions Democrats propose--on the road to negating the Second Amendment. They won't work and Americans won't put up with them.
We will have a civil war before your ideas are implemented--gun rights supporters vs. enemies of guns. Somehow, I think those who don't like guns will lose that battle.
Responsible gun owners won't have a huge problem with registration, insurance or certification.
Wrong. They won't like the increased cost in return for nothing but your "word" that bad guys will stop using guns.
And as you'll argue, (criminals) won't follow the law. But if found with illegally held weapons, could be convicted. And if arrested for illegal ownership, we don't have to wait for them to actually shoot the weapon... before acting. There are metal detectors everywhere these days. If what they find results in arests and confiscation.... they'll be more effective.
Right. So, set up a police state to catch crooks?
Would any of the ideas you've suggested stopped this Islamic terrorist in Orlando? The answer is "no," even if you can't figure that out.
But even this isn't pefect safety. However, the inability to reach perfection isn't a reason to not try to improve safety.
But, heaven forfend we should actually try to stop the PEOPLE who commit crimes by identifying dangerous behavior, right?
Does France have strict gun control laws? California?
The problem isn't a lack of laws. It's a lack of identifying an ideology bent on murder and curtailing that ideology.