Here is the gun used to murder children in our schools. Did the founding fathers envision this?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. The review your own words with care

I'm just pointing out there's differences between what is well suited for hunting and what is clearly not necessary for the task.

Your words were clear that some firearms are better suited for hunting than others. That is simply not true. Perhaps you could make a case that wooden stock are clearly less suitable that composite ones, but beyond that its a not a viable argument. Necessity is not a factor in suitability either. 1903 Springfields are not the only military style rifles that are "suitable" for hunting. An AR in 308 is as suitable as a Remington 700 bolt action and either action is most likely more accurate that most shooters.

Even though surplus military hardware was available, it sure as hell wasn't as prolific as it is today which is why there weren't more Charles Whitmans.

The availability of military surplus weapons today was not the case in 1994, and whether they are more or less available today is irrelevant because those are the style of weapons proliferating today

You are wrong about the availability of military surplus weapons today since nothing modern is being sold and the point stands. Instead new civilian versions are being sold and the represent the majority of new rifles being sold today. That you do not like them is clear. You seem locked on the hunting/necessity side of things. It is a common fallacy and the courts and legislatures have both rejected it. That may change over time but sporting and self defense are equally valid today and necessity does not figure into it legally.

It's about a civilian weapons race where pretty much everyone loses other than the NRA and gun manufacturers.

The margins on gun manufacturing, especially the AR format is pretty skinny with so many manufacturers in the market. NRA is a non-profit whose books are open, whom do you believe is profiting there?

the US is the only country in the G8 (besides Russia) with virtually no gun control and a gun homicide rate that rivals and surpasses many 3rd world countries

The US has substantive gun control laws. Assault rifles and other selective fire weapons are closely controlled. Even with civilian firearms, some localities are stricter than others, and like some 3rd world nations, the capriciousness in their application is disheartening. They also reflect historic racism and classism in some parts of the US even today.

You are of course free to disparage those whom you disagree with on this issue, but they represent a sizable group of voters. The polls are all over the place, and today's events may change them for a while, but fundamentally in the US Shall Issue CCW, Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and AR format rifles are all growing in popularity. If that turns around, particularly in a short time it would be momentous. I do not see it happening. At most there will be a few changes in some of the already more restrictive states and little to nothing on the Federal level. The BATF may go on some sort of regulatory offensive, but it will be slowed/stopped in the courts. The party, fearful of another backlash will most likely let it go for fear of losing the Senate again. That is my prediction, YMMV

To me the real issue is level of violence we are seeing today. We have had equivalent firearms in US civilian hands since WWI, but not this level of violence. Solve that and there will be real progress.

I know and have trained GLBTs in firearms simply because they had no other choices. Bashing doesn't just happen in bad neighborhoods and sometimes follows them home. I won't deny them the basic tools of self defense, even if it has more than a 5 or 10 round magazine. They will also be glad to dispose of their firearms when they believe they no long need them. For me, that is good enough for now