These were guns to get guns. Shoot a police officer/soldier, and grab his gun. And these would still be useful in mass shootings, since you could replicate that tactic.
As soon as you do this once, you are definitely making the FBI's most wanted list, and just restricting access would reduce the trickle of guns. The number of people with the qualifications necessary to accomplish making a gun from the basic components, and then having the capacity to overpower a trained cop or a soldier, take their gun, flee into hiding, and then later enact a mass shooting with that weapon are fairly low. Even if they skipped that step to flee, and just went to a guarded location and acted like that, odds are they would get overpowered before they could get much shooting done.

What in god's name is a non-repeating rifle? A gun that fires once and breaks? Sorry, meant repeating rifle, I'm tired.
Yeah, the US does have armed gangs. Lots of them in fact. Do you even know what Chicago is?
Another reason to disarm the entire populace.

As soon as you do this once, you are definitely making the FBI's most wanted list

How would the FBI know?

and just restricting access would reduce the trickle of guns

There are more guns that folk in the US, and even then, what stops other countries selling to the US? The Chinese government itself was selling weapons to gangs in LA, just back in the 90s, and they'd have a significant advantage over competitors since they'd be selling well made rifles.

The number of people with the qualifications necessary to accomplish making a gun from the basic components

Google and a small workshop. Downed pilots were making these in shacks in the jungle.

and then having the capacity to overpower a trained cop or a soldier

One, cops are poorly trained, two, a bullet to the face isn't something training stops.

take their gun, flee into hiding, and then later enact a mass shooting with that weapon are fairly low. Even if they skipped that step to flee, and just went to a guarded location and acted like that, odds are they would get overpowered before they could get much shooting done.

They don't need to flee into hiding, or even go to a station, they can just call a officer over, kill him, and start shooting.

Another reason to disarm the entire populace.

Japan tried this with Taiwan. They got decades of constant fighting and resistance. The Taiwanese natives also didn't have the ability to strike Japanese infrastructure directly, unlike the Americans do towards the US's infrastructure, and they were much more poorly armed.

Sorry, meant repeating rifle, I'm tired.

Repeating rifles would be clunkier and harder to maneuver in a house, due to it being heavier (5 pounds heavier than a AR-15), longer than a AR-15 and would have a more tedious process to chamber another round. These would be more tedious to use, both for hunting and especially self-defense.

How would the FBI know?
You literally just shot a soldier or a cop, and given that I am supportive of cameras on cops and monitoring US bases, they would be able to identify you to a degree through face-recognition software.

Google and a small workshop. Downed pilots were making these in shacks in the jungle.
The second part is the major difficulty here, most people don't own a workshop, and you could require registration of workshops to track potential gun manufacturers.

One, cops are poorly trained, two, a bullet to the face isn't something training stops.
First point is valid, at least currently as the US seems unwilling to pay the necessary amounts to properly train their cops, unlike cops in Germany or Japan. Second point is not nearly as valid, as without training, most people don't know how to account for recoil within the gun, which means they probably miss hitting the head.

They don't need to flee into hiding, or even go to a station, they can just call a officer over, kill him, and start shooting.
Generally speaking, at crowded events, there is more than 1 cop, which means that if the US actually trains their cops, that shooting spree is much more short-lived than the current ones, as the cops don't have to respond.

Japan tried this with Taiwan. They got decades of constant fighting and resistance. The Taiwanese natives also didn't have the ability to strike Japanese infrastructure directly, unlike the Americans do towards the US's infrastructure, and they were much more poorly armed. How many people do you think are actually going to take such an extreme stance?, in that case their also was national identity, in this case, the only thing at stake would be your supposed right to own a gun, which I don't even think is a right.

There are more guns that folk in the US, and even then, what stops other countries selling to the US? The Chinese government itself was selling weapons to gangs in LA, just back in the 90s, and they'd have a significant advantage over competitors since they'd be selling well made rifles. What are you trying to suggest?, most illegal trade coming into the US comes through the borders, not the ports. The US could basically monitor the ports, and as such China's guns would not move in. In which case, we are left with Canada and Latin America as potential gun manufacturers. Due to the need to create a better border patrol anyways, this could just be tacked onto their jobs. With respect to Canada, we could probably convince them to also implement a similar policy.

You literally just shot a soldier or a cop

Thought you meant them knowing about the gun.

The second part is the major difficulty here, most people don't own a workshop, and you could require registration of workshops to track potential gun manufacturers.

Most folk don't have to own a workshop, and you don't need a noticeable or large one. Also, governments are not gods, unlike you think.

Second point is not nearly as valid, as without training, most people don't know how to account for recoil within the gun, which means they probably miss hitting the head.

Shooting some targets in the woods is cheap, and a shot through the heart is just as lethal.

How many people do you think are actually going to take such an extreme stance

How many folk? There are already hundreds of anti-government militias. It's not even extreme, it's a common view.

The US could basically monitor the ports, and as such China's guns would not move in

The US had already been monitoring ports, you can have small quiet deals on small beaches, and bribery is always an option.

In which case, we are left with Canada and Latin America as potential gun manufacturers. Due to the need to create a better border patrol anyways, this could just be tacked onto their jobs. With respect to Canada, we could probably convince them to also implement a similar policy.

Homeland security can't even do it's job right now, and stick to mostly making tv shows and selling weapons to cartels.

Republicans (ya know, Trump's party) blocked a law which would have made it illegal for people on watch lists to buy guns.

I support blocking that law, since the watchlist as it is right now, is very big and in great deal innocences or petty crimers - I'd support this law if the watchlist was narrowed down to be much righter.

The second amendment was issued when the most advanced gun out there was a non-repeating rifle.

+1; using "it's a constitutional right" is not really an argument for banning guns.

thanks to the NRA defunding any attempt to do any research

How do you defund something? I need to learn this skill.

Seriously, what are you even saying here.

On topic: I'm pretty pro-gun, but I have to agree that stricter controls are really needed in this country.

My outlooks precisely.

Don't blame the weapon, blame the ideology.

How about blame both? Murder is already illegalised.

No need to own semi automatic weaponry. Period.

I agree that 4/5 folk who own a gun in a country like America don't need it, but what do you do if you're in that kind of neighbourhood? A crime-ridden little Kinshasa?

Homemade equipment generally doesn't have the quality necessary to function as well as the military-grade equipment that people literally own in the US today. If you even have the knowledge and skills to make a semi-auto from hardware parts, odds are that the gun made by you won't last the 100+ bullets needed to induce such a shoot-out without malfunctioning.

https://d3l1h3n4or6wo9.cloudfront.net/UGAR/product/undergroundak47buildmanual.pdf

You've clearly no bumps with home gun making - they're a little more stable than that.

---

In short, it's been shown time and time again that gun bans don't really affect the crime or suicide (shouldn't even be a factor in here, but whatever) rate.

Edited 6/13/2016 03:50:32

Banning/restricting guns isn't the answer, remember how well the Prohibition worked in halting Alcohol from entering and being sold in the US? Not very well, how well is that war on Drugs going? Hmm? I bet ya if you go to Jerry's College Graduation party, there's some Coke and Dope right next to the Beer. Trying to Ban/Regulate guns won't work, all it will do is stop average people from getting them, while slightly inconveniencing Criminals before they go to Juan to get their Coke and M4. Not to mention that bar was a "Gun Free Zone" so that already speaks miles about trying to regulate guns.

How do you defund something? I need to learn this skill.Seriously, what are you even saying here.
Basically, Anytime that gov't funding has been proposed for researching anything related to gun violence, the NRA runs a campaign, and gets the funding blocked. The few studies with gov't funding that got passed in the 1990s were later claimed as BS by the NRA, and got their funding pulled by Republican congressmen supported by the NRA. As such, I have to make an assumption, and cannot backup the following statement.
In short, it's been shown time and time again that gun bans don't really affect the crime or suicide (shouldn't even be a factor in here, but whatever) rate.
Never suggested it. I'm in favor of banning guns to reduce accidental shootings and deaths, as 1/6 of shootings are accidental, and 3/40 of deaths related to gun violence are accidental. All unnecessary. Same reason why I support mass funding and introduction of autonomous vehicles, with removal of conventional vehicles as quickly as possible. These are preventable deaths and injuries.

Also this wasn't the biggest mass shooting in American history. The biggest mass shooting was wounded knee. And if you don't count that, at least count the Tulsa Race Riot.

I'm in favor of banning guns

That's all I need to know we'll never get along.

That's all I need to know we'll never get along.
That's actually kinda funny. One of my closest friends happens to be a guns rights enthusiast.

Basically, Anytime that gov't funding has been proposed for researching anything related to gun violence, the NRA runs a campaign, and gets the funding blocked.

And you doubt that there's folk and organisations that do the opposite? I think you're being one-sided. Few folk in America get killed by not being allowed to own a gun, since the great majority is allowed to. A whole bunch get killed by killers who are allowed to own guns, and like you said, 1/6 shootings are accidental, so wouldn't you think that there'd be a whole bunch more string-pulling from the other side?

I'm in favor of banning guns to reduce accidental shootings and deaths, as 1/6 of shootings are accidental, and 3/40 of deaths related to gun violence are accidental.

There are roughly 80k accidental shootings in America, and 11k deaths from shooting murder and accidental shootings each year, affecting less than 0.003% folk. To put it in perspect, less than 3 out of 100k folk are affected. Then take out how many folk would die since they could not shield themselves from a violent crime of some kind. And then ask, is it worth it? Far more folk are killed by heart illness, so should we gaol folk who essentially poison folk by putting cholesterol and other unhealthy stuff in foods, and illegalise foods too much in cholesterol? Or cars, or other things that bring about illness? Draw a line in a sensible mark.