10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You know an apparent "first world" country has serious social issues when supposed religious men are bringing guns to work. Astoundingly Brass Eye got it right.

Religion has something to do with it? Fine, if we want religious equivalencies, is not a priest usually referred to as a shepherd taking care of his flock? Is it not the responsibility of a shepherd to protect the flock of sheep under his care?

The question has created some differences of opinion in the US Army's Chaplain community, because of the different interpretations of the Commandment. Some people say it translates as "Thou shalt not kill", others, "Thou shalt not murder." Nice big article on Wiki about it. Note that the Pope himself has said that killing is acceptable in defence if necessary. As a result, there are some chaplains who picked up a rifle in Iraq when they felt the situation desperate enough, and some who would not. In any case, there is in practical terms no difference between a priest and a member of his clergy in terms of vulnerability and human responsibility.

...is this really the correct approach to dealing with gun crime, give them more guns?

Why not? We can't have -less- guns, it's not practicable unless someone has a magic wand.

They are specifically designed for combat. They're light, short, manouverable, they have a high-capacity magazine, quick to acquire targets. Capable of very high rates of fire despite being 'only' semi-auto as you like to point out...as fast as you can pull the trigger basically and clearly fast enough to kill 12 and wound 50+

If there is no practical difference in lethality between a semi-auto AR-15 and a military combat weapon, then why does my Army-issue M4 have a 'happy switch?' For the record, a number of assault rifles (and tanks) are owned by private individuals in the US, an assault rifle is held under the legal definition of a 'machinegun' under US law. together with actual MGs and SMGs. There has been exactly one murder committed with a legally owned machinegun since 1934 when the legal definition was created. This happened in 1992. (The other murder which was committed with a legal machinegun happened in 1988, an off-duty policeman used his department-issued weapon)

A .22lr is still dangerous,

I seem to recall reading a statistic that more people are killed with .22LR every year than any other calibre. Given the prevalency of the round, I can accept this, but the numbers must be staggering given how many people are killed with 7.62x39 in all the wars going on around the world.

varmint shooters or target shooters then a low powered single-shot gun should suffice.

If you want to go at the group of bunnies, you might want the semi-auto feature. I'd wager that after the first one goes down, the others won't be hanging around very long. And the higher power allows you to kill bunnies more easily due to the longer effective range and flat trajectory. Alternatively, if you're out camping in some place with things like mountain lions or bears, you probably want the semi-auto because if you do need it, you're probably going to be too rushed to make the first shot count. And, finally, since the law in the US does allow clearly and distinctly for the shooting of people in certain circumstances, the fact that semi-autos are good for shooting people should be a factor in their selection. The single most common stated reason of firearm ownership in the US is self defence, not hunting, and not target shooting.

The point is that they needed to legally define the term 'assault weapon' in order to pass a ban.

They actually needed to legally invent the term 'assault weapon' in order to pass the ban, because 'assault rifle' had already been taken and had a different definition. The stupidity of the ban was that it did not have anything to do with the lethality of the weapon, only the cosmetic appearance. As a result, the term "EBR" has come into service amongst shooters (Evil Black Rifle) to mock the Federal ban, and the few State bans which are in existance.

When California first began legislating, the politicians went through a picture book of guns and basically said "That one, no... this one, yes...". We know this initially because they transcribed typos from the book into the legislation, and subsequently because a lawmaker outright admitted it.

Their second attempt was to create a law which banned 'features', but the features banned were, again, all cosmetic. The response from gun owners was to modify the cosmetic features, and some of the results such as the U-15 stock are crimes against the eye, but the rifle is legal and just as dangerous as the 'assault weapon' which was banned.

I'm not a fan of video responses, but if you take 90 seconds, you can see at 6:00 in this video that there is absolutley no rational basis for the assault weapons ban, as a 'legal' hunting rifle is converted to an 'illegal' assault weapon with the aid of a screwdriver and a few additional parts by the time the timer gets to 7:30.

Put blunltly, 'assault weapons' and the Assault Weapons Ban are red herrings, the refuge of people who don't know what they hell they're taking about: Mainly politicians.

Everything is open to Change in America so it wouldn't surprise me to see the 2nd amendment abolished

See earlier post. If 44 of 50 States have the individual right to arms in their Constitutions, and 38 of 50 States are required to amend the Federal Constitution, do the maths.

It's incredible how dear they hold it..it would be like somebody is trying to take away their air.

On the contrary, we're giving air. Firearms make it much easier to ventilate persons who need it.