The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(04-06-2023 01:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 01:37 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  We don't currently enforce the 100s of gun laws we already have. Why make more? Why are most gun felonies plead down to slap on the wrist misdemeanors?

Which gun laws are you referring to?

The MSU shooter for example would still be in jail today if they stuck with the felony and gave a max sentence for the gun charge. Even if he received no jail time, at least he would not be allowed to purchase a gun. But unfortunately it was plead down to a misdemeanor like most. Why do we want more gun laws when we don't use the ones we currently have?

I'd rather go after criminals than take away rights for law abiding citizens.

(04-06-2023 01:57 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 01:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 01:37 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  We don't currently enforce the 100s of gun laws we already have. Why make more? Why are most gun felonies plead down to slap on the wrist misdemeanors?

Which gun laws are you referring to?

The MSU shooter for example would still be in jail today if they stuck with the felony and gave a max sentence for the gun charge. Even if he received no jail time, at least he would not be allowed to purchase a gun. But unfortunately it was plead down to a misdemeanor like most. Why do we want more gun laws when we don't use the ones we currently have?

I'd rather go after criminals than take away rights for law abiding citizens.

We certainly have to make gun charges stick. But there are also a lot of people who haven't committed a crime yet (though many have obvious mental issues), and they can collect an arsenal of deadly weapons at their leisure, and then commit a mass shooting, with guns that NOBODY needs.

(04-06-2023 11:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 07:54 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 04:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  At one point Dick's Sporting Goods said they weren't going to sell assault rifles. Assuming they did so, I wonder what guns they stopped selling?

Obviously some guns are more deadly, whether it's due to the muzzle velocity, or perhaps just the bullets used. According to doctors, people shot with these mostly don't survive unless medical help is provided almost immediately. Those are the weapons that we don't need.

You've hit on the very problem with how Democrats want to regulate guns. Assault Rifle is a term with no definition (other than "it looks scary"). There needs to be a focus on actual capabilities and definable attributes.

One thing about that though - I read a book about mass shooters, and they tend to copy previous ones. I believe that's part of the reason they keep choosing AR-15s or similar. If you banned those, you get rid of part of the playbook. I think it could have an impact, at least at the margins.

AR-15’s are used because they are simple to operate. The AR-15 is essentially a handgun playing dress up to look like a rifle.

(04-06-2023 01:57 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 01:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 01:37 PM)GRBRONCO Wrote:  We don't currently enforce the 100s of gun laws we already have. Why make more? Why are most gun felonies plead down to slap on the wrist misdemeanors?

Which gun laws are you referring to?

The MSU shooter for example would still be in jail today if they stuck with the felony and gave a max sentence for the gun charge. Even if he received no jail time, at least he would not be allowed to purchase a gun. But unfortunately it was plead down to a misdemeanor like most. Why do we want more gun laws when we don't use the ones we currently have?

I'd rather go after criminals than take away rights for law abiding citizens.

I agree. The liberal DA let him plead to a misdemeanor. Okay, great. I understand having a felony can ruin a life. If you commit a gun related crime, you should no longer be able to own a gun regardless of a plea agreement.

(04-06-2023 12:19 PM)moe24 Wrote:  If you simply ban the AR-15 they'll use something else.

Let's try it and see.

(04-06-2023 03:35 PM)Doo Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 11:48 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 07:54 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-05-2023 04:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  At one point Dick's Sporting Goods said they weren't going to sell assault rifles. Assuming they did so, I wonder what guns they stopped selling?

Obviously some guns are more deadly, whether it's due to the muzzle velocity, or perhaps just the bullets used. According to doctors, people shot with these mostly don't survive unless medical help is provided almost immediately. Those are the weapons that we don't need.

You've hit on the very problem with how Democrats want to regulate guns. Assault Rifle is a term with no definition (other than "it looks scary"). There needs to be a focus on actual capabilities and definable attributes.

One thing about that though - I read a book about mass shooters, and they tend to copy previous ones. I believe that's part of the reason they keep choosing AR-15s or similar. If you banned those, you get rid of part of the playbook. I think it could have an impact, at least at the margins.

AR-15’s are used because they are simple to operate. The AR-15 is essentially a handgun playing dress up to look like a rifle.

A handgun is simple to operate too - there's obviously more to it than that.

Not really it just looks more BA. But feel free to head to the range and try it for yourself.

(04-06-2023 04:05 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 12:19 PM)moe24 Wrote:  If you simply ban the AR-15 they'll use something else.

Let's try it and see.

Or maybe we can try and be smarter about it since banning specific models has been tried and didn't work.

(04-07-2023 11:10 AM)Doo Wrote:  Not really it just looks more BA. But feel free to head to the range and try it for yourself.

That's part of the attraction, it looks more BA. And going to the range wouldn't tell me the effects that various guns/bullets would have to the gunshot victim.

(04-07-2023 11:24 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 04:05 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 12:19 PM)moe24 Wrote:  If you simply ban the AR-15 they'll use something else.

Let's try it and see.

Or maybe we can try and be smarter about it since banning specific models has been tried and didn't work.

Mass shootings did decrease during the assault weapons ban and then went up even more after it was allowed to expire.

And what is the downside to banning weapons/bullets that do catastrophic damage whenever they hit their human victim?

(04-07-2023 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-07-2023 11:24 AM)moe24 Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 04:05 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(04-06-2023 12:19 PM)moe24 Wrote:  If you simply ban the AR-15 they'll use something else.

Let's try it and see.

Or maybe we can try and be smarter about it since banning specific models has been tried and didn't work.

Mass shootings did decrease during the assault weapons ban and then went up even more after it was allowed to expire.

And what is the downside to banning weapons/bullets that do catastrophic damage whenever they hit their human victim?

Never said there was a downside to banning weapons/bullets that do catastrophic damage. MY point is to be smarter and more effective than banning a vague term like "Assault Rifle" that has no actual definition or focusing on 1 single model. Focus of weapon and ammunition capabilities, not buzz words that make the simple minded feel good.

(04-07-2023 01:05 PM)moe24 Wrote:  Focus of weapon and ammunition capabilities, not buzz words that make the simple minded feel good.

Focus on banning ANY guns-weapons-ammo will make the "simple minded" (MAGAts) riled up even more than they already are.

(04-07-2023 02:35 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(04-07-2023 01:05 PM)moe24 Wrote:  Focus of weapon and ammunition capabilities, not buzz words that make the simple minded feel good.

Focus on banning ANY guns-weapons-ammo will make the "simple minded" (MAGAts) riled up even more than they already are.

Yep. That's why nothing ever happens. It doesn't matter what is suggested, it will be too much to bear for gun nuts and their people in Congress. If it's a major change, they will say it infringes their 2nd amendment rights. If it's a minor change, they will say that it won't fix the (entire) problem, therefore we shouldn't do it.

(04-07-2023 02:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-07-2023 02:35 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(04-07-2023 01:05 PM)moe24 Wrote:  Focus of weapon and ammunition capabilities, not buzz words that make the simple minded feel good.

Focus on banning ANY guns-weapons-ammo will make the "simple minded" (MAGAts) riled up even more than they already are.

Yep. That's why nothing ever happens. It doesn't matter what is suggested, it will be too much to bear for gun nuts and their people in Congress. If it's a major change, they will say it infringes their 2nd amendment rights. If it's a minor change, they will say that it won't fix the (entire) problem, therefore we shouldn't do it.

Well, they are really good at "Thoughts and prayers."