Freedom Group (Including Bushmaster) Being Sold Due to Newtown

[SoonerAmongThePack]

LONDON (CNNMoney): Private equity firm Cerberus has put U.S. firearms maker Freedom Group up for sale following Friday's killing of 20 children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut.

Freedom Group includes Bushmaster, maker of the rifle used in the shooting at the school in Newtown. Cerberus bought Bushmaster in 2006 before adding another 10 makers of firearms, ammunition and accessories to the group.
"It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level," Cerberus Capital Management said in a statement.

Cerberus will hire advisers to carry out a sale of the company, and return the money to its investors, which include the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS).

The investment firm said it was not seeking to influence the debate on gun control but had decided to sell Freedom Group to protect the interests of its clients, which also include the pension plans of other municipal workers, endowments, institutions and individuals.

CalSTRS, which manages the pensions of California public schoolteachers, said Monday it was likely to review whether its indirect investment in Freedom Group was compatible with its investment rules.

"Now that a tragic event like this has occurred, I'm sure that it is something that we will be discussing going forward," CalSTRS spokesman Ricardo Duran told Fortune.

Cerberus is not the only private equity firm with significant holdings in the U.S. gun industry. Longpoint Capital tripled its investment in Savage Sports, which makes rifles and shotguns, when it sold the firm in January in a management buyout backed by Norwest Equity Partners. Sciens Capital Management owns a stake in Colt Defense, the small arms maker.

Gun accessory maker Bushnell is owned by Midocean Partners, and distributors Jerry's and Ellett Brothers are owned by Wellspring Capital.


Shares in publicly traded gun makers Smith & Wesson (SWHC) and Sturm, Ruger (RGR), as well as hunting retailer Cabela's (CAB) fell Monday on signs that politicians may introduce new gun controls.

President Barack Obama has indicated that he will try to bring back restrictions on military-style rifles. In the second presidential debate in the fall, Obama said he was going to see "if we can get an ****ault weapons ban reintroduced."
Speaking at a vigil for the victims and families Sunday night, he said he would use "whatever power this office holds ... in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/18/news...us-bushmaster/

[mgsooner]

Well...bye

[Fahooglegods]

Someone will buy it up and make a good chunk of change as people buy up firearms left and right.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[nlight1]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. These ignorant ****s need to put a ban on the crazy stupid ****s that commit these crimes.

[87sooner]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. These ignorant ****s need to put a ban on the crazy stupid ****s that commit these crimes.

[Wailer]

GUNS! GUNS! GUNS! GUNS! GUUUUUUUNNNNNSSSS!!

[mgsooner]

Kids with guns
Kids with guns
Takin over
And it won't be long

[Yuck Fu]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yeah, but it's easier for people to kill people with a gun. That's why they use them.

[mgsooner]

Yeah, but it's easier for people to kill people with a gun. That's why they use them.

but but but people kill other people with cars too! Ban cars!

[Dexa]

If you're gonna ban guns.. might as well ban em all.

Don't embar**** yourself and ban "scary" looking guns.

[Yuck Fu]

but but but people kill other people with cars too! Ban cars!

Some people don't understand the difference between "as a weapon" and "is a weapon."

[Sancho]

Some people don't understand the difference between "as a weapon" and "is a weapon."

Is a gun bought expressly for the intent of target practice a weapon?

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

The free market folks.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[The Baconator®]

Favorite gun of mexican gun cartels...!!!

[Breastman]

but but but people kill other people with cars too! Ban cars!

I swear, I'm gonna punch the next stupid ****er that tries to actually make an analogy between cars and guns.

[Dexa]

I swear, I'm gonna punch the next stupid ****er that tries to actually make an analogy between cars and guns.

Well.. you see

Guns are kind of like cars. There are a lot of people in the United States who own them, but have no ****ing clue how to use them. They often cause accidents, and it's usually to other people in proximity. Texting while shooting should be illegal.

[Boognish]

If an AR, ****ault rifle, (not "automatic" rifle, as I recently learned) is the same as a hunting rifle, then why are people so pissed that Obama and whoever else want to ban them from the public?
"It's the same gun, it just looks scary."
So then go get the same gun that's not scary looking and move on.

The best argument I have seen from any side in all of these lengthy threads is from Chris Rock when he suggested raising the price of bullets. Of course he's joking, but looking at what Switzerland has done with their gun control efforts, one similarity caught my attention. They have very strict control of ammunition, where it can be used, where it is stored, etc.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland
Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.
The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue ****ault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

This seems like something that would work if it could be implemented here... I don't think it will be, especially anytime soon. But what is the point of having a ****load of rounds around your home anyway? Especially for guns like an AR? You have to go to the range to shoot it anyway, so what would it matter other than the fact that it is "government regulated?" I understand having a gun for home safety, etc. and for hunting. What about being able to have a limited amount at home, say 10 rounds per gun, for up to, say, 4 guns? Then regulated places to get ammo if you are going hunting, with strict books kept and an organized means of keeping track of who buys what regularly? This is just a thought from a guy who is not a gun owner, and is certainly just a rough attempt at what might work if tried.
Again, I understand and fully agree that, first and foremost, the cause and main issue at hand is the mental issues and instability of people that for some reason decide to do these terrible acts. But there is an obvious correlation with these people and the fact that they use guns to perform these acts in most cases. Sure, there would be instances like these by other means (bombs, arson, etc.), but there IS an obvious problem in our country and simply saying that, "guns don't kill people," or "fires kill people so let's ban fires" only leads to bickering and nothing happening because people just argue about the 2nd amendment and what not and it gets really old, and really fast. There ARE solutions to the problem, albeit not a complete end to these acts, but the progress made in other countries is astounding. And what is even more astounding is that the US seems to sit and watch as we continue to see these acts happen and then look for an answer instead of trying in advance to help prevent these acts.
And we wonder why other countries around the world think we are a bunch of ignorant ****es.

Please if you want to respond to this and have a differing opinion, or a different stance, respond with reason and with something more than that I'm an idiot because I don't know **** about guns, etc. I'm not here to argue, and not here to say that all guns should be banned, or to praise Obama, or to say you shouldn't be able to own a gun or not. I'm here stating my opinion, and my opinion is that other countries have moved forward to work toward preventing as many of these terrible acts as possible the best way they can, which has proven to work in some instances. Meanwhile, we are stuck in the mud.

[Sooner Bob]

If an AR, ****ault rifle, (not "automatic" rifle, as I recently learned) is the same as a hunting rifle, then why are people so pissed that Obama and whoever else want to ban them from the public?
"It's the same gun, it just looks scary."
So then go get the same gun that's not scary looking and move on.

The basic mechanics are the same, but the guns serve different purposes. You have a smaller caliber long rifle that you use to shoot small varmints, then a slightly larger caliber for bigger varmints, then something for hogs, deer, elk, bear, etc. But you wouldn't use the same rifle in all situations. You'd want something that is easy to carry, easy to handle/control and easy to maintain. Some folks want custom grips, adjustable stocks, etc.

It's the same reason we aren't all driving the same car.

The best argument I have seen from any side in all of these lengthy threads is from Chris Rock when he suggested raising the price of bullets. Of course he's joking, but looking at what Switzerland has done with their gun control efforts, one similarity caught my attention. They have very strict control of ammunition, where it can be used, where it is stored, etc.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland
Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.
The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue ****ault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

This seems like something that would work if it could be implemented here... I don't think it will be, especially anytime soon. But what is the point of having a ****load of rounds around your home anyway? Especially for guns like an AR? You have to go to the range to shoot it anyway, so what would it matter other than the fact that it is "government regulated?"

Many folks would but not all of us. Several folks have access to other locations for shooting, etc.

I understand having a gun for home safety, etc. and for hunting. What about being able to have a limited amount at home, say 10 rounds per gun, for up to, say, 4 guns?

No. No. No. Someone else's ineptitude shouldn't be justification for rationing something for responsible folks.

Then regulated places to get ammo if you are going hunting, with strict books kept and an organized means of keeping track of who buys what regularly? This is just a thought from a guy who is not a gun owner, and is certainly just a rough attempt at what might work if tried.

We're tracked and charged enough with various things as it is. From farm tax cards for tracking farm-related purchases to having every freaking purchase of Sudafed logged.

The government should have no business knowing how many rounds of ammo I have or how many guns are in my house.

[87sooner]

If an AR, ****ault rifle, (not "automatic" rifle, as I recently learned) is the same as a hunting rifle, then why are people so pissed that Obama and whoever else want to ban them from the public?
"It's the same gun, it just looks scary."
So then go get the same gun that's not scary looking and move on.

it's easy to predict what will happen....
ban ****ault rifles....
people who want to kill will just use pistols/shotguns..
then you'll of course....wonder why we have to have those and demand they be banned....
the second amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms....
i refuse to give up my right so you can have a perception of safety..
so find another solution.....or accept that you can't protect everyone in a nation of 330 million...

[Dexa]

it's easy to predict what will happen....
ban ****ault rifles....
people who want to kill will just use pistols/shotguns..
then you'll of course....wonder why we have to have those and demand they be banned....
the second amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms....
i refuse to give up my right so you can have a perception of safety..
so find another solution.....or accept that you can't protect everyone in a nation of 330 million...

Exactly this.

People can continue to treat the symptoms instead of trying to treat the cause.

People CAN commit terrible acts all day, every day. Infinite tools at their disposal. How about we try to figure out how to stop them from WANTING to. I know why.. because it's harder.

[Boognish]

This perception of safety is in effect in other countries and is working. Why don't you think of something in retort that has more substance than "it wouldn't work."
There is a problem in America with m**** shootings, would you agree?
If not then you are blind. If so, then find a solution to stop the bleeding.
Why is it that anything the government would do to take action in this situation is overstepping the boundaries? You still have the right to bear arms, you still have the right to shoot guns. Certainly some modifications could be made to this structure, but holy **** just sitting back and doing nothing will get nothing done.
No wonder our government never gets anything done. I pity any elected official at any level on either side of any issue.

[Dexa]

This perception of safety is in effect in other countries and is working. Why don't you think of something in retort that has more substance than "it wouldn't work."
There is a problem in America with m**** shootings, would you agree?
If not then you are blind. If so, then find a solution to stop the bleeding.
Why is it that anything the government would do to take action in this situation is overstepping the boundaries? You still have the right to bear arms, you still have the right to shoot guns. Certainly some modifications could be made to this structure, but holy **** just sitting back and doing nothing will get nothing done.
No wonder our government never gets anything done. I pity any elected official at any level on either side of any issue.

Listen here my friend. When you say this ****, I kind of chuckle to myself. You know why? Because you are doing the EXACT thing you are accusing everyone that is debating you.

People have already provided you statistical data about crime rates in places with heavy and relaxed gun contol. ****an and China and Austrailia have crazy gun control, they have crazy crime.. and ****an's is high in gun crime. Places like Switzerland have a historically relaxed gun control stance, and a low gun crime rate.

But none of this matters to you. You will flush that down the drain and hitch on to data that affirms your feelings. It's okay, gun nuts do too. The real answer to what you actually said is a little more simple than that.

All of the other countries have a much different culture and identity than ours. You could take any number of laws or norms or whatever from other nations and they just would not translate the same way here. If you've spent five minutes in another country you would understand that.

I'm not saying they should do nothing either. I just get a headache when I have to hear your approach to this problem.. because like many people speaking very loudly about this.. they know very little about it.

[Boognish]

Okay well I'll just agree to disagree. I believe I clearly stated that some modifications would certainly need to be made. Surely countries that try things other than nothing have some successful things that could translate, that's all I'm saying. There is so much opposition of Obama or whoever else is in office in our country at any time on this issue, nothing ever changes.

[Dexa]

Okay well I'll just agree to disagree. I believe I clearly stated that some modifications would certainly need to be made. Surely countries that try things other than nothing have some successful things that could translate, that's all I'm saying. There is so much opposition of Obama or whoever else is in office in our country at any time on this issue, nothing ever changes.

I would not be necessarily 100% against a magazine limit. I get why that would potentially help. I do not think restricting the looks of the gun addresses any issue other than "they looks scary."

If pro gun control people were ACTUALLY serious about gun control FOR SAFETY reasons, they would attack they weapons most often used in gun deaths. These would be .38 revolvers, .22 and 9mm pistols.

This wont happen because there would be zero support for this. They attack the AR15 because the charge is fear-backed and people feel like there is no NEED for the AR. You are right.. there is no civilian NEED for an AR15 today. But that does not change the fact that they are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. "****ault weapons" as defined by left wing gun control people account for 3% of all gun related crime. Why is it getting damn near 100% of the blame?

If they wanted to do something to really control guns they would just tax the ever living **** out of ammunition. Then it doesnt matter how scary looking your gun is.


Transparency: I'm left leaning and often vote democrat more than republican. It is possible to be bi-partisan in life.

[Boognish]

I would not be necessarily 100% against a magazine limit. I get why that would potentially help. I do not think restricting the looks of the gun addresses any issue other than "they looks scary."

If pro gun control people were ACTUALLY serious about gun control FOR SAFETY reasons, they would attack they weapons most often used in gun deaths. These would be .38 revolvers, .22 and 9mm pistols.

This wont happen because there would be zero support for this. They attack the AR15 because the charge is fear-backed and people feel like there is no NEED for the AR. You are right.. there is no civilian NEED for an AR15 today. But that does not change the fact that they are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. "****ault weapons" as defined by left wing gun control people account for 3% of all gun related crime. Why is it getting damn near 100% of the blame?

If they wanted to do something to really control guns they would just tax the ever living **** out of ammunition. Then it doesnt matter how scary looking your gun is.


Transparency: I'm left leaning and often vote democrat more than republican. It is possible to be bi-partisan in life.

****ing EUREKA!!! This is what I've been saying all along. I probably came off a bit strong defending my side on it, but stripped down it is the same principle. And it could be state govt. Imagine the hunting revenue, jobs, etc. generated if being an ammunition post worker was a government job? Imagine all the money paid to Wal-Mart for ammunition went to our government? Better roads than that piece of **** we finally replaced thanks to the Thunder and oil.
As for the argument about certain guns, I totally agree... but there are so many small guns that are used in crimes that are personal, singling out one or a few people if a gang, etc. There will always be a problem with that, even if it were knives, bats, etc. I still don't see the point in having all that ammo for larger guns on the ready at all times. How many rounds would this kid's mom have needed if she was shooting a gun at an intruder? If she can't hit him in a clip, she's ****ed. So imagine if this kid would have gone into that school with a pistol and a shotgun with 8 rounds each, because that's what he pulled from his mom's room. Sure he could change from guns to building a bomb, or whatever but imagine if we could really help make our homes places where a killing spree with multiple guns really isn't even an option.
And I think there should be a cl**** system in place, like what we have, and even if it's open carry or whatever... maybe like a permit to carry extra clips or something if you can prove your job or lifestyle realistically requires it. Maybe stricter inside city limits.
But overall it is a concept I think would work. Maybe not to the extent used in Switzerland, because they do have a much different background, history, etc. as you stated and I agree.

[Boognish]

there is no civilian NEED for an AR15 today. But that does not change the fact that they are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. "****ault weapons" as defined by left wing gun control people account for 3% of all gun related crime. Why is it getting damn near 100% of the blame?

It is only getting 100% of the blame for that 3% of gun related crime. There is really no argument for having the ammo it other than recreational shooting, right? So why not sell it at ranges? With money going to the range and the government instead of Wal-Mart? Changing a few limits to accessibility of the ammo for these guns could really make a difference without affecting anyones lives, really.

[Dexa]

It is only getting 100% of the blame for that 3% of gun related crime. There is really no argument for having the ammo it other than recreational shooting, right? So why not sell it at ranges? With money going to the range and the government instead of Wal-Mart? Changing a few limits to accessibility of the ammo for these guns could really make a difference without affecting anyones lives, really.

Eh, plenty of people shoot on their own land, or use the AR for hunting small game or varmints. And a side point is that many of other hunting rifles use the same ammo.


Many countries have weird, quirky gun laws. I'm not entirely certain if they help or hinder. I know that 9mm is outlawed in Italy.. I believe in Germany you have to be a part of the gun club in order to fire hand guns or to hunt, and I know the military (U.S. stationed there) have to leave their weapons at the gun club. I'm sure some of that is still residual from the disarming of WWII.

Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws, and their citizens get mowed down by real automatic weapons daily. I couldn't imagine having drug cartels raiding houses and just not being able to do anything about it.

[Sooner Bob]

There is really no need for a huge chunk of things we all currently own . . . . that's not a logical argument for not owning an AR style gun IMO.

I don't really need a huge TV or that new truck I just bought.

[Boognish]

I agree and like I said those are types of adjustments that would need to be made. I mean, no problem if shooting on your own land. If you have the land and opportunity to do so in an environment you can prove safe, and keep the ammo there and prove that rather than just having it because you have the gun. If you're not going to shoot it at the house, then don't have the ammo where it can get into the wrong hands. And if you want a gun for the home, get something that doesn't apply. This really wouldn't affect anything other than the way you purchase rounds of ammo.

Sooner Bob, I agree. If you want to have an AR, get one. But if you are only going to shoot it at the range or some private property, maybe just restrict the availability of the ammunition in some way.

[oucub23]

A friend bought a .308 AR last night for deer hunting.

[Dexa]

A friend bought a .308 AR last night for deer hunting.

At least he'll be able to find ammo.

[nlight1]

I swear, I'm gonna punch the next stupid ****er that tries to actually make an analogy between cars and guns.

I know how you feel, when I hear about more limits put on law abiding citizens to own & use firearms due to the acts of a few selfish & stupid ****s murdering the innocent.
If law abiding citizens would be able to acquire proper training to carry anywhere at anytime. These m**** murders would decline sharply. Crime would be down across the board. It's common sense people.

[SpankyNek]

A friend bought a .308 AR last night for deer hunting.

Oklahoma is one of only a handful of states without a clip limit for Deer Hunting. As long as he is only gonna hunt in OK and TX he is fine (for now).

[Dexa]

Screw magazine limits.. just make all guns bolt action! That will solve this problem! Bolt action handguns for everyone!

[ImTheDude]

Screw magazine limits.. just make all guns bolt action! That will solve this problem! Bolt action handguns for everyone!

And only revolvers too.

[SpankyNek]

I would not be necessarily 100% against a magazine limit.

Screw magazine limits.. just make all guns bolt action! That will solve this problem! Bolt action handguns for everyone!

What?

[Dexa]

What?

Oh, so I see you took the second comment as something real. Got it.



Oh and for the record.. I don't WANT magazine limits.. at all. I don't want any more restrictions made to actual guns. I went to the BX and bought every 30 round PMAG I could find.

But if something HAS to be done to make people feel all warm and fuzzy and safe.. at least make a change that could actually have an impact on the performance of a weapon.

[andymancan20]

there were 42 m**** shootings (3 or more dead) in the 90's...since 2000 there have been 26...the narrative that we have an amazing escalation of shootings is false...however the more recent shootings have been much higher in death counts

[KCRuf/Nek]

Screw magazine limits.. just make all guns bolt action! That will solve this problem! Bolt action handguns for everyone!

And only revolvers too.

Only muskets and derringers.

[Boognish]

there were 42 m**** shootings (3 or more dead) in the 90's...since 2000 there have been 26...the narrative that we have an amazing escalation of shootings is false...however the more recent shootings have been much higher in death counts

Who is arguing that there has been an escalation of m**** shootings? The argument is that it is fairly consistent in the U.S.

[ResidentEvil]

it's easy to predict what will happen....
ban ****ault rifles....
people who want to kill will just use pistols/shotguns..
then you'll of course....wonder why we have to have those and demand they be banned....
the second amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms....
i refuse to give up my right so you can have a perception of safety..
so find another solution.....or accept that you can't protect everyone in a nation of 330 million...

The murder rate will not drop at all, seeing as how like 1/10th of 1% of all murders are committed with "****ault rifles".

If the people calling for gun bans actually really really really cared about actually doing something to decrease gun violence, they would be harping on handguns. They are responsible for FAR FAR FAR FAR more gun deaths than rifles, shotguns or other types of firearms.

But, IMO, 99.9% of the people who are interested in this gun ban aren't interested in decreasing gun violence. They just want to get "those scary looking guns off the street"

If you are for banning guns, and your main focus isn't on banning handguns then you should really just be quiet.

[ResidentEvil]

This seems like something that would work if it could be implemented here... I don't think it will be, especially anytime soon. But what is the point of having a ****load of rounds around your home anyway? Especially for guns like an AR? You have to go to the range to shoot it anyway, so what would it matter other than the fact that it is "government regulated?" I understand having a gun for home safety, etc. and for hunting. What about being able to have a limited amount at home, say 10 rounds per gun, for up to, say, 4 guns? Then regulated places to get ammo if you are going hunting, with strict books kept and an organized means of keeping track of who buys what regularly? This is just a thought from a guy who is not a gun owner, and is certainly just a rough attempt at what might work if tried.

I think that this would just be an end run around violating the 2nd amendment without actually violating it.

If the government totally controls all of the ammo in the country, then they could shut that off any time they wanted.

[ResidentEvil]

Here is the best idea I've heard in this whole thing (since its a good idea, it means that it absolutely wont get put into place). Dont know if I read it here or somewhere else:

#1: Create a national gun license. Background check, mental evaluation, age limit, whatever. Anyone can apply, and you can't be refused if you meet the criteria. There are certain automatic disqualifiers (felonies, domestic violence convictions, certain mental problems when certified by Drs, etc). Licence may be revoked at any time. Licence allows you to have any type of gun you want that is available to the public (IMO even up to fully automatic).

#2: If you own more guns than you can reasonably monitor (carry), you are required by law to own gun safety devices (safe, the good quality type gun locks, etc). Any guns above and beyond what you can reasonably monitor, must be made safe (locked). For example, you are at home asleep. You can have a pistol under your pillow or a shotgun under your bed. But your AR and your 50cal must be locked up in gun safe. If you are going shooting, you can bring them all with you because you are able to reasonably monitor that the wrong people aren't getting their hands on them.

#3: If someone who is not allowed to be licensed gets their hands on your gun(s) due to your negligence (i.e. you leave them out, you give them to them, etc) you permanently lose your gun owner license and face criminal charges.



This would go a long way to solving the problem, while allowing responsible gun owners to continue to exercise their second amendment rights. Its not perfect, but its far better, and would be far more effective, than just doing a blanket ban on guns.

[ResidentEvil]

Who is arguing that there has been an escalation of m**** shootings? The argument is that it is fairly consistent in the U.S.

Then why do we need to do a gun ban? We've already proven that it doesn't work (hint: columbine happened during a gun ban).

[Boognish]

Then why do we need to do a gun ban? We've already proven that it doesn't work (hint: columbine happened during a gun ban).

Yeah, based on these conversations and other ways of control/limitations like what you listed above with locks, or even some management of magazines, etc. if they did that... I would agree that there wouldn't need to be a ban on any certain guns. Like everyone has been saying, any gun can do damage and kill someone if the wrong person gets them. A gun isn't a capable weapon unless it is loaded and the trigger pulled by an individual. Limit those things with some control of the ammo, in my opinion, and locks/safety devices like you said, and people could still have the guns just like they do elsewhere but it isn't a loaded or loadable, fully capable weapon just sitting there in someone's room.
My argument is this... and I think agrees with your statement above...
This kid in Connecticut got multiple guns with lots of ammo in his mother's room. I know he went to try and purchase a gun or whatever and got denied, but that probably happens a lot, and the guy selling guns did what he is supposed to do. Then this kid gets into one private stash of weapons with available ammo and is ready and armed for a shooting spree. *I am not sure of all the details, but this is what I understand to have happened, and it could happen anywhere and I believe that is why it happens in our country.*
There are minimal checkpoints he went through to be armed and dangerous. Had those guns been locked, as you say, he'd have had to get the guns elsewhere. If he goes to two, three stores trying to purchase guns, and is denied multiple times, there is a better chance someone notifies authorities, even though they might still not.
And if he tries to make a bomb or tries some other means of m**** murder, he is getting resources in a public way and that exposure could be noticed whether he is buying red-flagged items at home depot or whatever.
I just think there should be a real effort to maintain a sense of responsibility with the ammo and the number of guns that are sitting just ready to go in homes all over the country.
There is no way to take away all the guns in America, I agree it will never happen and a "ban" would be ridiculous. But perhaps more limitations on extended magazines and maybe a way whether it is govt. controlled to an extent, or some other way, of controlling how much ammo is readily available would be a good step, I think.

[Boognish]

The murder rate will not drop at all, seeing as how like 1/10th of 1% of all murders are committed with "****ault rifles".

If the people calling for gun bans actually really really really cared about actually doing something to decrease gun violence, they would be harping on handguns. They are responsible for FAR FAR FAR FAR more gun deaths than rifles, shotguns or other types of firearms.

But, IMO, 99.9% of the people who are interested in this gun ban aren't interested in decreasing gun violence. They just want to get "those scary looking guns off the street"

If you are for banning guns, and your main focus isn't on banning handguns then you should really just be quiet.

I agree with this, and like you've said, these m**** killings account for 3% of gun violence.
But I think everyone knows there will always be gun violence. Banning any guns won't control or limit that, really. But the efforts against these types of guns is an effort to stop that 3%, these m**** shootings, because while there will always be violence between individuals or small groups on the streets, or whatever, there could be a real reduction of the resources that make it possible to shoot up places like schools in these types of ways. Even if these limitations could make these things less deadly, and say 10 kids were killed rather than 20 simply because the killer wasn't able to have as much ammo, or as many capable guns, that would be a positive thing.

[Sooner Bob]

I swear, I'm gonna punch the next stupid ****er that tries to actually make an analogy between cars and guns.

Are the analogies hard to grasp or what?

[bushmaster06]

I think that this would just be an end run around violating the 2nd amendment without actually violating it.

If the government totally controls all of the ammo in the country, then they could shut that off any time they wanted.

What about people who reload their own?

[Sooner Bob]

What about people who reload their own?

I'll bet reloading supplies are already being marked up . . . . I haven't checked on things in a while, but might consider it now.

I think my FIL has a bunch of reloading equipment. Might ask if he is still planning to use it.

[Boognish]

I'll bet reloading supplies are already being marked up . . . . I haven't checked on things in a while, but might consider it now.

I think my FIL has a bunch of reloading equipment. Might ask if he is still planning to use it.

How long would it take someone to reload enough rounds to really be a threat to do something like a m**** shooting, if initially these rounds had a limited availability?