It requires a change to the second amendment if those laws are to be changed to be along the lines of Aus gun laws.

Based on current views the only possible course of action is more stricter gun control laws, which does not put the 2nd. amendment in jeopardy.

Views of guns and gun violence in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Pew is a well respected non partisan research group.

I'm very pro gun but my pistol has a huge not in California sticker on the box. Because it can hold 12 rounds. It takes hundred if not thousands of rounds to be proficient with a firearm. It is tedious to load and a ten round limit is asinine. I will concede that a 100 round magazine is borderline asinine as well. Similar to the bump stock concept I think they should be legal with restriction like CCW. If only CCW carrier has license to use ether bump stock or magazine larger then 40 I could get behind that. The problem is about half the firearm deaths in the USA are self inflicted so: full circle on the concept of the point of this thread: how to keep legal firearms from being used when they shouldn't be yet available when they should be: reduce the self inflicted casualties. There are plenty of laws to help this cause such as a parent being culpable for children using unsecured weapons. This I think is a perfectly valid concept that does not require 2nd amendment infringement.

Reasonable pro Constitution folk will agree with me, the problem is the anti-gun crowd already consider a gun that can hold ten rounds ridiculous so they will never be ok with a reasonable compromise like 30-50 rounds maximum because they will use the 0.13% of deaths caused from large magazine and call it an epidemic while ignoring the actual epidemic.

Scary episodes like mass shootings have very very little effect on the big picture and are an absolute distraction.

The Vegas shooting as an example will be about 1/6 of 1% of the firearm deaths this year in the it USA. It's nearly pointless to discuss a method to reduce such of a "problem" because in the big picture it's not. Solve the revolving door for drug and gang violence and self inflicted injuries and you can reduce deaths by 30,000/year but the impotent Congress will spend countess hours trying to eliminate the next 20 deaths caused by a single person because that is "scary" meanwhile 10,000 people will die that could likely be saved if they pulled their collective head out of their ass and looked at the big picture rather then the media hyped 1/6 of 1% picture.

Actually the only course of action I want is nothing changed.

But that's my opinion and since in America that's worth just as much or little as anyone else's opinion that's my 2 cents on the matter.

So here is hoping nothing changes :)

Mass murders of innocent people should get everyone up in arms. It reminds the 80+ percent that would like more gun control that nothing is happening.

Congress is not spending any hours discussion or debating gun violence. A few in office voice their opinions but that's it.

:iagree:

It shouldn't distract from solving problems that can be solved. There have already been a couple bills drafted to ban bump stocks, there has been and will be debates about it without a doubt. They could be doing something productive instead is my point. They will spend a lot of effort trying to make 0.13% into 0%, an unrealistic goal that won't happen when they could turn 40% into 20% and save 10,000 lives a year. To make significant change work on the biggest piece of the pie it's simple math.

I'm not trying to minimize the tragedy but more people have been shot dead by small magazine weapons in Chicago in October than all people killed in Vegas in October. Their lives were not less important and there will be about 18x as many as Vegas in 2017 alone.

The 80% are living in a fantasy world to believe "more gun control" is a thing, at least in the sense that Congress will after two centuries have an epiphany moment and actually come up with something that works. The majority of the 80% really know very very little about guns. What they do know is mostly disinformation from MSM that make the 0.13% sound like an epidemic and 90% of the problem. Being honest they really just want less gun deaths which should be close to 99.7% of everybody they just don't know how to express this in the biased poll that doesn't give an appropriate check box.

If con is the opposite of pro the Congress must be the opposite of progress. Too true.

You ask me this guy nails it: Michael Owen Nails the Gun Debate (On the Banks)

Yep that about sums it up.

I would venture to guess that the 80% disagree with you that directing attention to the 1/6 of 1% wouldn't affect the other 99%+ of gun deaths as well. It would likely bring those numbers down as well. The other problem is the act of equating the loss of life in Vegas to the loss of life Chicago which likely involved victims of gang violence, criminals, or domestic violence. That is a much different circumstance than innocent concert goers being shot randomly from a 32nd floor window.

Look, I get it. There are those who are gun enthusiasts. They will tout the second amendment and gun liberties until the cows come home. Much the same as car enthusiasts do about CAFE regulations and such. I am a gun owner, but not a gun enthusiast. I don't understand how someone could want a fully automatic weapon, or silencers, or large magazines, etc... in much the same manner as an electric car driving environmentalist can not understand someone wanting to drive a 700HP V8 hellcat.

The issue here is that ammo itself is far too cheap and easy to obtain. Regulating that would likely be far more effective than trying to regulate the weapons.