I'd be happy as defining an "assault weapon" as any hand-held firearm capable of fully automatic firing and enforce a ban on them. When it comes to semi-automatics and revolvers/ lever action guns, etc.? I just don't see the point.

To quote the Huff Post:

"
At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend.

There have been at least 267 incidents involving assault-style rifles in 2016, including reported weapons thefts, crimes in which the guns were brandished, arrests for illegal possession and other legal interventions in which they weren’t fired.

Those deaths account for about 2 percent of the 6,153 gun deaths and less than 1 percent of the 12,560 gun injuries the Gun Violence Archive has counted so far this year. This tally consists largely of homicides and assaults, but also includes suicides that were part of a murder-suicide. It also counts accidental deaths, the majority of which involve handguns, not rifles.

"

So a few years ago when there was a large mass shooting, 84 people total were killed with "assault rifles". That's not many people in a country of 400 million, and I'd say that upending the Constitution for what is quite literally less than a "one in a million" event is the very definition of a waste of time, considering the other problems the country faces and won't be addressed in the process of "dealing" with this issue.

Here's a couple of other things one *could* focus their energies on: opiod use and overdosage - that killed over 80,000 people last year, basically killing 1000 people for each person killed with "assault rifles". Why not work on that?

There were about 10,000 deaths due to drunk drivers, or over 100 for each "assault weapon" death. How about putting more effort into stopping drunk driving?

Even a modest increase in preventing either of the above will save many more lives than bringing the deaths due to "assault weapons" down to zero.

 

You actually WANT to pay a recurring fee every for years for something else? That's amazing. It's also amazing you'd want to spend additional time at a "gun DMV" if you didn't have to.

Is it my place (or yours) to tell someone getting shot at how many bullets they *need* in their gun and how many bullets are too many? No. On the collapsible stock and shortened barrel, that seems MORE useful in a home setting than a military one, as making something short will make it less accurate at a distance which is the opposite of what a soldier traditionally needs, but would be great for "aiming" at someone who pops up right next to you. Big picture wise, if the military thought having a 1" barrel on their guns was the best thing to have, that's what we'd have now, but that's not the way our country (or any other as far as I know) does things. On the folding stock, moving something around in your house and being able to point it at someone would be aided by having something short - the collapsed stock - but expanding it like a rifle would still let people use it at a gun range or for hunting. I don't see how any of those are "bad", per se.

Again, look at the numbers. The gun the Syrian shooter used is an AR15. There are currently 18 MILLION ar15s in the country, and there were only 89 murders with *all* assault rifles, so clearly only a tiny percentage of these guns will ever be used to commit crimes. That to me goes against saying these guns themselves are somehow irredeemably bad."

Compare the numbers to handguns. Handguns kill many times over the number of people that "assault weapons" do. Rather than going after "assault weapons" what you should do is make a law saying every handgun has to have a barrel that is 3 feet long. That would likely cut down our urban crime rate by a LOT - well, if criminals decided to obey the law.

 

My point would be that sacrificing AR15s wouldn't do much to help the common good as there really aren't many killings committed with them in the first place. There are plenty of better ways to save lives than by focusing on "assault weapons". It's really a straw man IMO to make you get worked up about something inconsequential and not pay attention to things that are actually important.

On why they are needed? I don't know. Does anyone NEED a big gas-guzzling car? No, but they want them and in a free country should be allowed to buy them. I'd say same thing here.

 

I like the idea of a waiting period before being able to buy a gun as some people who are angry might not be a week later, at least not angry enough to shoot someone.

On the magazine size? I think that only affects a small amount of crimes. I don't think that most people who commit gun crimes go out there and try and shoot as many people possible randomly. They want to rob a liquor store and it goes bad, they see that one person they really hate, get in to an argument while intoxicated, etc., but in any event their shooting goal is on a basically singular person or event. They don't NEED 500 rounds of ammunition because they don't have a use for it.

The only people who DO want to fire off rounds into a crowd are nuts, and they'd be better off stopped by institutionalizing them when they are found to be nuts, as leaving a psychotic killer on the streets without a high capacity gun is still going to get people killed, whereas committing him to an institution would not. IOW, start locking up the potentially violent loonies BEFORE they shoot people and they won't shoot people.

 

A woman in Texas just achieved? the world's record for the world's longest fingernails. Ugh.



https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/woman-cuts-longest-fingernails-since-90s

 

Yeah, what a dirtbag. Time to give him the boot and some jail time.

 

All I can say is I hope she has a bidet in her house!

 

WOW! If you're missing the drama of daily soaps, a real-life drama played out in Sri Lanka where at the pageant for the 2021 Mrs. World champion (for married women) during the crowning of the new Mrs. World the winner of the 2020 Mrs. World got on stage and pulled the crown off her head saying that the "winner" was divorced and therefore wasn't eligible to win . She then placed the crown on the runner up's head who was clearly her choice for winner. The runner up actually accepted the crown and was "queen for a day". The actual winner though subsequently stated that while she was separated, she was still legally married, and the administrators are giving her crown and title back to her. How depressing, though. To have what should be a very happy day spoiled like that? Terrible!

And as a follow-up, the 2021 winner said she was injured in the decrowning (not likely really true, IMO, as watching the video the 2020 winner was careful in the process, she didn't just rip it off her head) but in any event the 2020 winner was arrested for her behavior. What a show, though, how exciting must that have been to see live!



https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...sri-lanka-pulling-crown-head-alleged-injuries

 

A tree was struck by lightning and caught on video. This definitely makes me a bit nervous about driving down the road in the rain with nothing but flat farmland around. LOL? ??? In any event, the suddenness and violence caught on the video is terrifying, yet beautiful, too.





https://www.foxnews.com/us/tree-shattered-lightning-wisconsin-school-video-shows

 

A couple of New Yorkers want to get married, but need to get the court's permission first. No, this isn't a 1950's era racial thing, this is today. This couple happens to be parent and child, which is what the holdup is. Ah, those crazy New Yorkers. I bet the judge will agree, though. After all, if a man can "identify" as a woman and actually legally be considered to be one, why can't a child "identify" as an unrelated woman (or man) and therefore have no impediment to marriage?

"A New Yorker who wants to marry their own adult offspring is suing to overturn laws barring the incestuous practice, calling it a matter of "individual autonomy."

The pining parent seeks to remain anonymous because their request is "an action that a large segment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant," according to court papers.

"Through the enduring bond of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality," the parent argues in the Manhattan federal court claim filed April 1."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-parent-seeks-ok-to-marry-their-own-adult-child