Local gun shops see spikes in AR-15 rifle sales after school shooting

[Casterbridge]

Which brings me to my 9 month wait for my suppressor. I believe this COULD BE the future way to get an AR. So lets say you want an ak74/47 or ar15 etc, you basically create a trust like I did (150$), get that all setup. Get your money for your tax stamp, put that in (it's 200$ btw), send that off - and once you get approved, you make your weapon. Sure it sounds like shit, but because I own multiple AR's etc, I think we do need something to stop these idiots from getting high powered killing machines.
Anyway, that's my take

Certainly better that what is the case right now, at least there are multiple steps and wait time in order to actually get the gun.

[Blamblam41]

So you've just turned a third of the populance into criminals - how many people who own a gun would defend their rights to own them through violent action? 50%? 10%? 1%? Even if it is just the 1% you've still got an army of a million people armed, on your door step and who know hate the government for trying to impede on their rights. Taking guns away is not the answer for the US

If you're willing to defend your right to a gun by using that gun instead of actively showing that there are responsible gun owners that actually do exist, then you are not a responsible gun owner and don't deserve a right to any weapon.

Taking away guns isn't the answer, but acting like it isn't a solution is fucking laughable.

[Gimlix]

So you've just turned a third of the populance into criminals - how many people who own a gun would defend their rights to own them through violent action? 50%? 10%? 1%? Even if it is just the 1% you've still got an army of a million people armed, on your door step and who know hate the government for trying to impede on their rights. Taking guns away is not the answer for the US

Well then you know exactly what kinda people you have in your country
Even if it's just 1 million with a gun. That's 1 Million people who rather stand against the whole country (MILLIONS of americans) just for the sake for them to have there little murder toy.

And rules are rules, if they start firing their gun then it will be even easier to let them rot in jail ^^

[chazus]

It is possible in the rest of the world.

I can't tell if you're intentionally using bad rhetoric or not.

You can't just magically poof all however many hundreds of millions of guns. Nor can you just 'ban' them either (this is a huge industry, so you'd be putting tens if not hundreds of thousands out of jobs). You can't ban guns. It's not an option. not because of 'muh guns' or '2nd amendment' or anything. It's pure economy, even ignoring laws.

Gun control will definitely help, but we're never going to reach a 'no guns' point any time in the next hundred years, if ever.

[Deleted]

They could actuely just start by prohibit shops selling guns , its a start id geuss?

[Blamblam41]

Humans do not have the right to take the life of another human. Guns are human killing weapons, designed wholly for the purpose of changing the battlefield.

Historically, they are not a tool. They did not serve a purpose before killing. Acting like you have a right to a human killing weapon, or acting like the rights on a human killing weapon can't be restricted is fucking laughable considering the level of regulation elsewhere in this country.

I can't even buy 10 grams of oil in my state and you fuckers are bitching about "muh gun rights"? How about you stay in your fucking lane.

[Casterbridge]

I can't tell if you're intentionally using bad rhetoric or not.

You can't just magically poof all however many hundreds of millions of guns. Nor can you just 'ban' them either (this is a huge industry, so you'd be putting tens if not hundreds of thousands out of jobs). You can't ban guns. It's not an option. not because of 'muh guns' or '2nd amendment' or anything. It's pure economy, even ignoring laws.

Gun control will definitely help, but we're never going to reach a 'no guns' point any time in the next hundred years, if ever.

Agreed, both sides are going to extremes and frustrating because it leads to nothing being done at all.

Let's try baby steps here people lets get something done.

[Blamblam41]

But there are people who believe that, which is what I mean, I'm sure out of the 100 mil gun owners, 99% of them would see reason and hand them over if they law was changed. But even then, the 1% that would resist would be catastrophic. A solution isn't a solution if it would cause the deaths of thousands.

Their belief does not compound reality. It merely attempts to fight against it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm British genius, don't assume it makes you look silly. And 1% is the bare minimum I just used as an example, what if it's 2 million? 3? The US military only has 2 million troops in total, so if it's any more than 2% of gun owners who are willing to use violence to defend their rights, then you're outnumbered.

then it's all the proof every gun legislator needs to take every single one of those gun nuts down. They don't have a right to a weapon if brandishing that weapon is their first reaction to disarmament.

Your doomsday worst case scenarios do not scare me. I fundamentally doubt anyone in America has the capability to start a civil war again.

And you honestly think a tiny militia is going to stand up against the military that gets, what was it, 550 billion dollars a year? lol.

[Gimlix]

I can't tell if you're intentionally using bad rhetoric or not.

You can't just magically poof all however many hundreds of millions of guns. Nor can you just 'ban' them either (this is a huge industry, so you'd be putting tens if not hundreds of thousands out of jobs). You can't ban guns. It's not an option. not because of 'muh guns' or '2nd amendment' or anything. It's pure economy, even ignoring laws.

Gun control will definitely help, but we're never going to reach a 'no guns' point any time in the next hundred years, if ever.

Because people will lose their job and their right to have a weapon means they can't get rid of it? come on. If the goverment want something gone then it will be gone.
The only reason it still exist because it makes alot of money. Same goes for cigarettes. I doubt anyone really will tell you "No i feel safe with everyone having a gun in their reach"

There is a reason why school shootings are an american thing only.

[Gimlix]

I'm British genius, don't assume it makes you look silly. And 1% is the bare minimum I just used as an example, what if it's 2 million? 3? The US military only has 2 million troops in total, so if it's any more than 2% of gun owners who are willing to use violence to defend their rights, then you're outnumbered.

Well if u gonna put it that way. Then i still won't change my opinion.
For reals though. If they want guns gone, they will be gone. If people riot, there will be casualties. These are things u gotta expect when they remove it. People will die, but if people can't accept that having a gun isn't normal and rather start rioting, then maybe getting shot by a police officer/soldier is a good thing?

We are talking about the safety of american's.

[Blamblam41]

It's not about restriction, of course it can be - Trump could say tomorrow that there no more guns, guns are illegal, turn in your guns" and you're a fool if you think there would not be a revolt unlike we've ever seen. The thing about gun owners, a good deal of them take their guns and rights VERY seriously, the whole 2nd amendment part of it doesn't help - to them not to have a gun is an affront to being American. You can't just brute force this issue without damaging the whole nation, perhaps for good.

Again, their revolt is just cause for every other citizen in America to stand against them. The minute they decide they are so persecuted that they become violent and start taking life in defense of their right to have a weapon that was designed to take life? That is just cause to dismantle ANYONE with that mentality and a human killing weapon.

Human killing is not a right. A right to bear arms can mean just that. You could be restricted to bearing arms only made during the 1700's.

[Blamblam41]

The only way I see this working is the US passing a ban on selling automatic weapons after a certain date, if people already have them fair enough. People will be born and grow up without the notion to buy an automatic gun because they never could in their lifetime, and over the next 50,60,70 years, the people that do own the automatic guns die out. The Government could then just requisition the guns back after death. The next generation of people won't have gun problems to the extent they do now. Other than that, you can't just forcibly take guns away right now, this is a problem that has been in the making for decades, so it will take equally long to fix, shortcuts on this issue would lead to deaths.

It worked in Australia ./thread.

[chazus]

Because people will lose their job and their right to have a weapon means they can't get rid of it? come on. If the goverment want something gone then it will be gone.

I don't think you quite understand how government, or the world works. You can't just make something like ownership 'go away'.

If the government wanted to ban cars, or cell phones, or meat.. Do you think they could just 'make it go away' if they actually wanted to? No.

Basically what you're rhetoric here is "You aren't doing what I think you should do, so your system is bad and you are bad". It's basically making up reasons to be angry.

There is a reason why school shootings are an american thing only.

Credibility on the topic drops significantly when you're incorrect.

[Gaaz]

If it was me, and it is coming from a person who shot and was shot at by someone during service:
1. I would limit civilian access to ALL firearms that are able to hold more than 3 bullets. Maybe 5, if I am feeling generous. If you need more than that, you are in an active shootout, not hunting, not target practicing, not shooting bottles for fun. You are spraying ammunition at multiple people at that stage. You simply do not need that as a civilian. So, unless the argument is "what if I encounter a pack of feral bears with swastikas, bottles of Russian vodka and armed with Chinese made AK-47s"... If a firearm is able to hold more than 3-5 bullets, obligatory modifications should be made to limit that number. Obviously that does not apply to police and military issued firearms.
2. All firearm holders should pass a psychiatric examination.
3. All firearm holders should get a hunting license, as well as an individual licence for each firearm they hold, and renew it at least once a year.
4. All firearm holders must have a secure storage space for firearms at home, a safe or a specialized weapons locker, and register it with police.
5. Conceal Carry permit should be made available only to people who require it for their job (security, police etc...) or are in a high risk job (journalists, judges, etc...).
6. Very extensive background checks and evaluations, as well as creation of a central, easy to access database.
7. Longer waiting periods. As in 3 months minimum, unless the gun is a job requirement. Guns should not be bought impulsively " because I feel like shooting something this evening".
8. If someone is an arms collector for purely aesthetics, an allowance could be made - as long as a gun is kept in an inoperable condition (welded barrel, no striking pin, no live ammo for example), you can have it without all that paperwork hassle. A simple inspection once a year is more than enough. So collectors can have an easier time.
9. Going with point number 8, to prevent abuse, whenever you buy ammo, you should provide your gun licence and state which firearm you are supplying. That way, collectors who do not have a license will not be able to buy ammunition for their "collections".
All these steps are necessary for the following reasons:
1. It should be made impossible for people to buy guns like candy in a store.
2. It should be very time consuming to maintain licenses and permissions for live firearms. Especially for multiple firearms. Punisher style does not work in real life anyway - you are not going to storm a bad guy, holding a couple of AR-15 in each hand, a DE in your pants, a shotgun on your back and ankle holsters with Glocks on each leg.
3. Firearms should be secure, at all times, period. They should not be left in your car or in a bedroom stand. Only in a secured and locked place. Partly because of burglaries and theft (250000 firearms are stolen annually in the US, more than considerable number), but mostly because of children who are utter idiots when it comes to safety.
4. Civilians must be limited in the amount of firepower they are able to bring to bear against multiple targets. I am sure any cop will explain it better then I, and thank you for that initiative. Because my experience is limited to sitting in cover and waiting for that 12.7mm to run out of bullets before even thinking of sticking my head out. 3-5 bullets is the absolute maximum that is needed for civilian use.

[Mistame]

I argue that assault rifle are unnecessary for self protection, both full auto and semi auto version.

This first requires that one understands what an "assault rifle" is. An assault rifle is a rapid fire, magazine fed, automatic rifle, often with selective fire. A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle

For either protection or hunting, handgun are ok, bolt action, lever action rifle are OK.

For self-protection, a hand gun is fine. For hunting, a hand gun won't do. I've already explained why semi-automatic makes sense in both contexts.

So how about those sensible restriction?

The logic step would be restrict magazine capacity. But that still wouldn't be addressing the problem.

Perhaps a savvy person could, but you don't need to be a particularly savvy person to use or modify an AR 15 now do you? An AR 15 is built to be modular and have parts easily changed out while a basic revolver is not. This comparison is idiotic.

What's idiotic is focusing on a problem that doesn't exist. Automatic/assault-type weapons are illegal. If someone modifies an AR-15 to that degree, they're breaking the law. The AR-15 is not the problem.

Regardless a basic AR 15, with no real modifications, compared to basic hunting rifle will have noticeable advantages even if chambered in the same caliber, making the AR 15 "more dangerous" even if the bullet wound compares the same, and again I'm guessing you know that? If I have two guns that cause the same wounds, but one shoots faster, easier, with more rounds before I have to reload, and is also easier to reload, guess which one is more dangerous.

You can make the argument against larger clips. But the "shoots faster" argument is a red herring. No semi-automatic weapon can shoot faster that the person pulling the trigger. Arguing over a few milliseconds is infantile and detracts away from the real issue(s).

[tttsssrrr]

As someone who has worked in social services with traumatized young men, soft-on-crime and lax-on-enforcement Liberals are a big part of the problem. This idea that whatever you did before you turned 18 is magically sealed and disappears as soon as you become old enough to buy a gun is absolute lunacy. Being "young and stupid" doesn't cut it any more. Cruz had a plethora of warning signs that the government (The ones that the "anti-gun" crowd wants to be able to keep their guns) chose to ignore. Between the school, the local police and the federal police; it was one failure after the other and some of those people have blood on their hands due to their gross negligence.

The other thing we need to do is seriously start looking at and talking about what drugs these kids are on. Somebody goes out and commits mass-murder and we can't talk about what kind of brain altering chemicals are floating around in his system? I've seen kids go through the program and some of them when they get up in the morning; they take three or four pills. If a fourteen year-old is taking three pills in the morning to keep from blowing up when they don't get the flavor pop-tart they want seems like a long-term solution to you, than these mass-murders at schools are never going to stop: guns or no guns.

With as much bullying is happening in schools and on-line; so much so these kids have very few places (if any) where they can feel safe- it's a big problem: whether or not the kid wants to be forgotten and just kill themselves; or wants to be remembered- and decides to go out like Lanza or Cruz. There are good people across America everyday working with troubled children and it's a shame that Cruz didn't get the help he needed when he was still young. It's frustrating because so many of the warning signs were there and were just ignored by lazy or politically motivated individuals.

The AR-15 is simply a common and easy to use rifle. Trump's election year has seen the first decline in gun sales since 2003. Fear of gun regulation creates an environment where gun sales goes up. This always happens and that is why the Obama presidency saw 8 years of record gun sales.

Support whatever gun laws you want, but there are way more factors at work behind a school shooting than access to a firearm. Sadly, some of those actually hold people accountable for their behavior.

[Tomservo]

Guns should only be for people who have a valid reason to own them.. like being a hunter is a valid reason to own a gun. "I like guns" is not a valid reason.

You should outlaw guns and offer people with then illegal guns a way to get rid of them without punishment for a limited time.

What if you hunt people who break into your home while they're currently invading your home? Would you be allowed to have a gun then?

[judgementofantonidas]

Some local gun shops are reporting an increase in people buying AR-15 rifles.

The weapon, dubbed "America's most popular rifle" by the NRA, has been used in many mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas and most recently at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

Aaron Forum, the owner of the Shoot Center in Cape Coral, said the store has seen AR-15 rifle sales increase by 30 percent following the Parkland incident.

He said it's a typical response following tragedies like mass shootings because people fear future restrictions would prevent them from owning the weapon.

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/37541100/...chool-shooting

Didn't this indeed also happen the last time that they talked about more regulation?

happens every time they threaten to impinge upon our rights.

- - - Updated - - -

its pretty amazing how people in america are like "strict gun regulations would reduce the amount of children (and adults) that die every single fucking day in this country by huge margins, but... BUT... i like guns, and those lives arent more important than my like of guns"

opinion only. no proof. but there is plenty of proof what governments are capable of doing when the populace is defenseless to stop them.

- - - Updated - - -

Not surprised one bit. In fact i’m starting to lose interest in (and sympathy with) what happens in America now when the solution is so glaringly obvious. Americans have become the laughing stock of the world.

More of the laughing stock than those countries that have allowed strict gun control only to be rolled over by the government?

[tttsssrrr]

It worked in Australia ./thread.

Australia isn't connected to Mexico. We can't keep people or drugs from coming out of Mexico. What makes you think we would do any better with guns?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-2...arthur/7365790

Just some facts to chew on. Australia is far from gun free.

[Ghostpanther]

What if you hunt people who break into your home while they're currently invading your home? Would you be allowed to have a gun then?

If they are still in your home and you are outside when they do? Allowed as in shooting them? No. You have to call the police in that case and then wait someplace safely. The only time you are justified in using deadly force is if you are in the house when they break in. I am referring to Ohio law. Some states are different.