In your opinion would an out right ban on civilian firearm ownership stop these mass shootings?

Like another poster said we have to find out why these people snap, and stop focusing on just the tools they use after they snap.

With that same type of thinking there is an over abundance of alcohol in the country as well if you halt that , wouldn’t that cut down on drunk driving?

Or better yet lets focus on the vehicles that drunk drivers use, if we reduce them wouldn’t that cut down on drunk driving?

I am not trying to look down on any of these horrible acts, but again we should focus on what makes these people come to do these crimes, and stop focusing on the tools they use to carry them out.

No, because there’s always illegal means to get your hands on anything if you want it bad enough. That being said, I’m all for a ban on civilian semi and automatic weapons. Yes, I just said the could still be gotten, but why make it so easy to obtain entirely unnecessary killing machines.

Paired with a thorough mass confiscation across the entire country under threat of incarceration.

Maybe, but not for several years after the edict is enforced.

No. I support gun ownership.But a ban on assault rifles, absolutely. And tighten up gun laws.

I agree @Dutchess_III While I don’t like to single any gun out, I still find it hard to find out why any civilian needs any combat style assault weapon, I have yet to see any shooting sports require that style of firearm.
WE have strict storage laws up here in Canada, we are required to keep and maintain a firearms license and we have to renew it every five years just to keep the firearms we already own, very strong back ground checks, and I have no problem with any of it.
But do you think someone wanting to commit a gun crime would go through all that?

No, he would just order one online on Blackmarket.com

We would then treat them the same way we would treat someone driving a car with no license.

It is not an either / or thing. It is a combination thing. It is assault rifles in the wrong hands.

Since we as a country seem incapable of registering and licensing the people, the only thing left to do is to license the firearms.

And that is anathema to the 2nd amendment killer lovers.

Your not banning guns just wanting them registered why is that so bad with so many people down there?? @elbanditoroso

I understand there are several states that do require you to register a hand gun, so why not any kind of assault rifle as well?

@SQUEEKY2 – there is a certain percentage of the American population that thinks that registration is just the first step in a series:

- registration
– regulation on use
– regulation on ammunition purchasing
– eventual confiscation

So they don’t want even the first step to be taken, because they see it as an unstoppable process once it is started.

And then there are the wackos that misread the 2nd amendment, but that’s a different issue.

Then things like these mass shooting are just going to continue, and heaven forbid we don’t want to spend the money on health care to help these nut jobs, but then just be horrified when these shooting take place.

@SQUEEKY2 sadly you are correct. Because we have two houses of congress that are in the pocket of the NRA, and those politician don’t have the balls to say “enough”.

The best congress money can buy!

“In your opinion would an out right ban on civilian firearm ownership stop these mass shootings?”

No, I think it would lead to severe political unrest the likes of which we have not seen since the civil war. The NRA gets its money from members who are more than willing to pay them to do exactly what they do. The fact that there are other powerful gun lobbies like the gun owners of america underlines the fact that some don’t think the NRA is doing enough. The more you go after them the harder they push back and the more people get whipped up into a gun buying frenzy.

What makes more sense is to license firearms like we do cars. That would be a good first step. Then look at capacity and ammunition. Those are the two things that people should be concerned with, not that they are black and scary.

No. “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” True words, these!

Totally agree @kritiper .
These people that do these crimes don’t care about any laws now how is making tougher laws going to change anything?

By making it a crime to possess one. The kid posted pictures of himself with the gun on Facebook. Nothing you can do about that since he legally had it. But if it was illegal to have it the cops could have grabbed it.

And nobody thinks you can can stop a determined person. You can just make it a lot harder. You don’t have to save every life, but you can save a lot. If this gun cost 40K instead of 1K the kid probably wouldn’t have had it.

Stop them? No.

Reduce some? Probably.

Stop mass casualty terrorist attacks? No.

Stop the reasons why people do these things? No.

We tightened up drunk driving laws and deaths by drunk driving has been cut almost in half since MADD was created in 1980.

That argument about criminals getting their hands on guns anyway is almost like saying we should get rid of ALL laws because there will be those who will break them. It’s not a valid argument.

It’s just too damn easy for everyone to get a gun, even those who are mentally ill.

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Then cops will know right away who to gun down.

I think most people are worried that any kind of stronger gun laws would just punish law abiding firearm owners that enjoy their firearms for whatever ever sport and would never hurt another with their firearms.
NOT the crazed nut job that wants to shoot up a crowd of innocent people.
That said I am all for criminal checks, and registering certain types of firearms that most civilians really have very little need to ever own.