sure it's a mental health issue...but having readily accessible guns that can fire a hundred rounds a minute only makes the killer nut more deadly...

Name me a gun that can be purchased by a citizen that fires 100 rds a minute?

*Cue the Jeopardy music*

Aaaaaand... as Celtic Bomber already stated, rifles aren't used in the majority of these cases. Handguns kill more than any other firearm and are easily concealable.

I could maybe do 50 with no accuracy.... maybe

https://www.quora.com/How-many-rounds-per-minute-does-an-AR-15-fire 


some gun experts say the AR-15 can fire from 60 aimed shots up to 400 unaimed rounds per minute...bump stocks and a massive target field proved you don't need to aim...just point and shoot....

I could see 60. Maybe. 400? Lol. No expert says that. Sorry quora.

The thing about amendments is that they are amendments. They can change. Creating a law to require a psychiatric exam and paperwork clearing you is no different than having to ask the local chief of police for his signature and a background check before you can purchase a gun. We can't do anything about the guns out there now but a mental health check for the sale of new guns wouldn't be a bad thing as far as I can see. But, I know people will scream it would be the beginning of the end for the 2nd Amendment as it's written now. It started with the Gun control act of 1934. The first set of major gun legislation spurred on by idea that all gangsters were shooting up the place with tommy guns. The truth was that idea was in the public's mind mostly due to Hollywood movies. It was enacted because of a misinformed general public and misinformed government officials. Therefore it was a bunch of poorly written laws that created a tax forced upon legal gun owners. Illegal gun owners don't care about paying their taxes. So I understand pro gun people not wanting more restrictions because of how poorly thought out they were last time. But we have to do something and gun owners are going to have to give a little. I'd rather see a psych exam enforced instead of a ban.

I don't expect laws to affect my purchase ability... but I'm gonna go spend a few hundred bucks on ammo anyways... maybe another assault weapon... 🤔

what if you used a bump stock? 400 is possible...

or trained yourself to pull the trigger faster, you could get to 100 with a lg cap mag

No way 400. Nope.

100 not likely. Maybe 60

I could easily fire 100 rounds from my pistol aimed in a minute.....BUT that’s assuming no malfunctions or mag change errors. Would it be easier from a wrongly referred to “assault” rifle? Slightly. But guess what, mag capacity is a SLIGHT advantage, the ease of aiming a rifle is a bigger advantage. Guess what 2.0......my tube feed .22LR holds 15 rounds and I can hold the trigger depressed and cowboy fire with the pump and shoot faster than a scary assault rifle. I can fire 3-4 rounds per minute from a Hawkins .54 black powder rifle FYI.

Bump stocks are already illegal. All this focus on assault rifles is because of one thing. The word assault. Plain and simple. I'd bet real money most people looking for a ban have no idea that they are no different than a hand gun. They all think machine gun and movie guns. The reason most people think this is because of the uninformed or straight up dishonest rhetoric coming from the left and far left. I consider myself a liberal but, I don't recognize the people today who call themselves liberal. A huge reason for this is the culture at Universities and Colleges. The professors and governing bodies have shut down all rational debate. You have supposedly intelligent students who think it's good to stop anyone from speaking if they have a differing opinion. I think we're (well some of us, you guys are old;-p) going to look back at this time in 40 or 50 years and be shocked by just how off the rails the left went. Not saying the right is all there but the left has just gone insane. 😣

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/9637619/young-brits-life-lacks-purpose/amp 

I know nothing about this paper or this british study but 89% is staggering. Heck, 50% would be staggering.

Sad

You are right....but your conclusion is wrong. You
..me..others who think about this more rationally than emotionally might think through it. But it isn't just the anti gun crowd that has a visceral reaction to an AK or AR. If that were the case, they wouldn't be so popular. You watch a young guy with an AR15 in his hands and he changes. MUCH more adrenaline or testosterone or whatever...compared to handling a shotgun, hunting rifle or even a handgun

:-k
does this work with all affiliations..?? 😕

I’ll have to try at the range this weekend. 60 seems doable with the scorpion. Maybe I’m underestimating myself but I don’t know about 100. 400 nope.

Accuracy would be an issue although the scorpion is very accurate under rapid fire. Sustainability another.

As for the parties both don’t resemble what they once did. Both are void of any ideas anymore and no longer compromise to further their ideas. Now it’s just about winning and the other side is bad and hates America. It’s also all or nothing since it’s a with me or against me mentality.

That’s why I lose respect every day for people that squarely and blindly support one party over the other. You are being used.

Readily accessible.

Can we define this?

I've never owned a gun.
Could I have a legal gun in my hands tonight that fired 100 rounds/minute?
Tomorrow?

But further to the point: Are we saying that making such weapons less "readily accessible" would terminate a shooter's ability to procure one?

And is it justifiable to ban an item because a tiny fraction of the owners misuse them?


Just asking, because I've seen the talking points from both sides and it seems nobody truly wants to talk about them unless their audience is like minded.

Legislating guns solves nothing. All it does is keep honest people from buying those guns. This should be obvious to anyone not wearing blue colored glasses..

Sensibly legislating who should not be able to buy weapons makes sense. It will accomplish something. This should be obvious to anyone not wearing red colored glasses.

A national data base allowing instantaneous look up of who can't buy weapons makes sense. Waiting periods are pointless. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't paranoid.

The criminal penalty for selling weapons illegally should be the death penalty. Logically it would stop a whole lot of the illegal weapon trade. This should not be objectionable to anyone who isn't a criminal.

Yes!!

Rescind any laws controlling sale of Stingers, TOWs, grenade launchers, full auto .50 cals, sawed off shotguns etc. ...let's throw nerve gas in there, too

Legislating weapons solves nothing, of course.

What about silencers? Limiting magazines? Useless, too?

Suppressors are a great tool that should not be limited. They are not in most the feast of the world and are expected to be used in many places. They are a legitimate health preserver and banning them is a great example of legislating by emotions rather than logic. No reason folks have to hunt without them or wear hearing protection (which we never did)

I said guns, not weapons in the encircled quote. I suppose machine guns and sawed of shotguns would fit in the category, so you have mostly talked about weapons I did not refer to. Sure you don't want to add rocks and table knives? In fairness, I should have said additional laws. It is interesting you chose only to focus on that part of my statement. Why?