I'm not a gun owner, and I'm not a strong 2nd Amendment supporter.

However, I am a strong 5th Amendment supporter (God, I hope I chose the right one ). I'm not the least bit comfortable with the way some of you are talking about denying the Constitutional civil rights of individuals without due process just because they happen to have been "flagged" by the FBI?

I would think that Hillary Clinton, especially given her current legal difficulties, would be particularly sensitive to people drawing definitive conclusions about those who are under some sort of FBI investigation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun supporters - - Why do you need to buy semi-automatics? Why????

Because very few guns are not semi automatics.

Why can't you use one of the few guns that's not semi-automatic?

Why can't gun manufacturers create something safer? Why can't they agree to install fingerprint ID devices?

Ok. But what about the 350 million guns already in households?

But we have to start somewhere. No more from here on out.

Anonymous wrote:"To cite just two examples: background checks, training requirement, and criminal liability for negligent sale/transfer could have stopped Orlando shooter from getting a gun."

How?

"Similarly, threat of criminal liability could have prevented Sandy Hook mom from providing firearms to her crazy son."

No way. There's no way she imagined that he would have done what he did.

I'm not arguing that the proposed regulations are perfect--far from it, I'm afraid. But they surely would have a chilling effect on sale/transfer and on storage.

Sandy Hook mom might well have been affected by this--she'd theoretically face criminal liability for unsafe storage and reckless transfer. Even if she didn't imagine him as a mass shooter, I'd argue that she might have behaved differently.

On Orlando shooter, do you think he would have gone through a Federal licensing/training requirement? Given their past interaction, couldn't FBI/ATF have "flagged" him as part of that process? Would gun store owner have sold him two weapons without a second thought? Again, admittedly no guarantee, but the proposed regs would have created several additional obstacles and might have prevented the tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun supporters - - Why do you need to buy semi-automatics? Why????

That's what we've been trying to discuss since the original post. In summation, the answer seems to be because "it's their right".

Non gun owner here. That's no small thing.

But where do you draw the line? There are lots of other things that are outlawed for public safety reasons. Should the "right to bear arms" include bombs? Cannons?

The types of firearms available were vastly different when the 2nd ammendment was written. Context matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gun supporters - - Why do you need to buy semi-automatics? Why????

Because very few guns are not semi automatics.

Why can't you use one of the few guns that's not semi-automatic?

Why can't you use a horse and wagon instead of a car? Why can you write a letter instead of a text?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey gun experts ... care to enlighten us about the effective firing range of an AR15 in comparison to something like a Beretta? Then tell us some more about which is more appropriate for "home defense" or "self defense" against "bad guys."

I think most people would be totally fine with taking away AR-15s. The only point people are TRYING to make is that this wouldn't have a huge impact.

+1. It wouldn't have any meaningful impact whatsoever. Orlando shooter would still have killed many, many people if armed with semi-auto pistols.

People focusing on the type of gun used are hindering discussion of meaningful solutions (and adding counterproductive snark to the conversation).

Can you offer a meaningful solution? How are you hoping to help?

Can you offer a meaningful solution? How are you hoping to help?

There have been quite a few offered above. To summarize, I'd argue as others have that the focus should be on controlling access to firearms:

1. Universal background checks
2. Mandatory training (another poster's suggestion)
3. Federal licensing (another poster's suggestion)
4. Criminal liability for negligent storage of firearms
5. Criminal liability for negligent or reckless sale/transfer of firearms to third party

If effectively enforced, these could help tremendously.

np. They could certainly help against the many tragic cases of three-year-olds shooting themselves or others. But none of them would have stopped any of the famous mass shootings we've endured.

(Republican, gun-control moderate, don't own any guns)

Retard. Mateen was a security guard who had no prior arrests. How the f* did you expect those rules to stop the massacre?