New tech is actually a good idea, unfortunately the gun lobby is actively working to prevent it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertszczerba/2016/01/11/the-nras-next-battleground-smart-guns/#e339a1e4d7f2

Was the old NRA instructor sitting in a pew at church when someone randomly started shooting at him? If not, my point stands. Considering the number of mass shootings we have, some of y’all need to step up the thoughts and prayers since apparently nothing else will be done.

The bolded is not a fact. The AR platform was not designed with hunting as the primary purpose, and I have not seen a source citing those designs as being among the most popular hunting rifles. (I read your last link on this btw.) I do agree they are used more for hunting than in the past, but there is nothing those guns can do that has not been accomplished by literally hundreds of other models. There is no need for high capacity magazines when hunting.

We had a rash of gun store thefts here recently. Similar MO.

I suggest you look up statutes relating to declarations of emergency and martial law.

I can't find any evidence of children manufacturing and using bombs in the past 20 years which successfully murdered large numbers of people similar to what we are seeing in mass shootings. I am struggling to find any successfully used to kill small numbers of people FWIW. I stand by those statements in 702 and 709. If one of your arguments is that gun control will be ineffective because "mentally/depraved people will just make bombs", it is fair to wonder why we don't see evidence of this already. My position is that we don't because GUNS ARE EASIER TO USE TO MURDER LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. I also believe that even if people will switch to other means, then let's make them! Seriously. The weapon of choice seems to be (particularly certain types of) guns for a reason, so let's at least take those away. You have attacked me and mocked me numerous times. It needs to end now or I will assume I am allowed to respond in kind.

I agree with that, which is why I think we should do what we can to make it difficult for them to achieve their goals. Even though it isn't perfect, we have put laws in place to try and control who can access large amounts of ingredients like ammonium nitrate in an effort thwart those who may want to inflict a lot of harm. Shrugging our shoulders after the OKC bombing and saying "wellwhatttayadotheevilheartsofmenandall" would not have been an acceptable response. All I am saying is that continual mass shootings deserve more than the shoulder shrug.

I am sliding out of nothing. The claim is that bombs are easy to make and use and that stricter gun control will not do anything to reduce mass murders for this reason. I am simply asking if this is true, why have we not seen large numbers of bombings in places like Europe/Australia? In fact, why don't we see noticeable numbers here? Is it possibly because the jump from instructions on the internet to actual use of the device is not as easy as is claimed? And cease with the lectures. Thanks.

Bombs are so easy to make and/or use yet no one seems to do it where guns are not readily available.

Remember what I said about context? The words after those matter. "...that may be required by the military forces for the performance of this emergency mission..." None were needed so none were taken from the gun stores or other retailers.

It wasn't an order of seizure.

The first question is nonsensical within the framework of this conversation so I will ignore it. Yes, I do believe we need to look at banning the sale of weapons with high capacity magazines for private use. Even though it is just a dream, I believe we should also look at a mandatory buyback of those same weapons.

You are claiming there was gun seizures during Irma. Can you show me that actually happened?

I suggest you read that section of the order in context.

I just want to double check and see if I am clear re: the new talking point ITT. One side is arguing that acquiring the materials and then safely assembling, transporting, and planting a bomb is super easy relative to purchasing multiple semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines and using it in a mass shooting. This side also contends that stricter gun control will lead to a large number of mass bombings even though there is no evidence of a similar rash of bombings in western nations with strict gun control. Do I have this right? If so, how about if we actually try to get rid of the weapons that are most efficient for mass shootings and see if this actually does happen. Would we be any worse off?

I didn't misread anything. How many guns were "seized" during Irma?

They are supposedly so easy to make...yet people don't. Go figure.

I am not sure 100 guns "seized" 12 years ago makes the point you think it does. (You should also go back and read the USVI order - it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.) I just showed you a list of the mass bombings in Europe. I notice you didn't reply.

A one off event that happened 90 years ago is a reason to not stop events that are happening routinely now? Okay.

Why would people need to ship chemicals to Europe to make bombs? They have chemicals there. Count the bombings and the time between them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe#Lists_of_incidents Here are our mass shootings just in 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2017_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

If this was the case, one would think we would see mass bombings in other western nations with strict gun control. Yet we don't. Bombs and the like simply aren't easy to make, and the level of planning needed is a lot more than what you need to kill 26 people with guns.

nm

I grew up in an area with a large number of deer hunters and visit there every year during season. I have never known anyone who hunted with an assault rifle. I do know some who use rifles that are semi-automatic but have small magazines (5 rounds or less).

Governor where? Somewhere in the United States?

Okay, this is odd, but I can't see where you proved this point. You actually proved the opposite as Australia implemented their ban/buyback and registration in the same piece of legislation. Hmmmm...I am not sure what point you believe you are making with the second bolded. Couldn't someone argue that our hodgepodge system of background checks would have worked better if it was more cohesive and if a mandatory waiting period was also in place? You also definitely come across as fearful.