Gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
seb said:
Look at post #456
Click to expand...
I read it. There were no statistics or listing of the mass killers' weapons.
 
Reba said:
First of all, you're making a false assumption that by banning semi-automatic rifles the killings would be curtailed. There is no evidence for that.
- Yes there is: during the assault weapon ban the number of mass shootings dropped.
Gun violence remained fairly stable though.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

There you go again with slanderous misrepresentation.
- So here's your chance, what do you want to see enacted to try and reduce the number of these mass shootings and keep the guns out of the hands of crazy people?

You still haven't provided any statistics that show certain guns are the reason for shooting deaths' numbers.

Post #456

For starters, enforce the laws that are currently in effect, and make the reports to the data bases.
- Since the government hasn't been able or willing to do what they have actually mandated be done to compile the names in the database, how do we solve this?
Just keep going as we are now? One mass shooting everyday in the U.S. since Sandy Hook!

As for changing murderous hearts, our society is going the wrong direction, and gun laws won't change that.
Click to expand...
- I agree with you on societies lack of respect for each other and life is probably at an all time high or low however you want to look at it. Since we haven't really done anything to change the gun laws since the 2008 law you brought up and it's not being enforced because the names of the crazy people aren't and haven't been added due to cost, we will never know if they will reduce these crimes.
 
seb said:
Now both of what you mentioned were terrorist attacks: one domestic and one foreign. Non of these mass shooters have been proven to be part of a terrorist attack. You can argue all you want but until you can come up with something that shows that the U.S. is safer now with more and more guns being sold than your argument is a waste of yours and my time and is nothing more than what you have been presenting so far and that is a straw man argument.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

didn't work. won't work. I ask you again - have you ever seen any mass shootings at the level of the OK bombing? 9/11?
 
seb said:
Look at post #456
Click to expand...
This still doesn't answer Reba's question.
Now whats funny is the first paragraph, ALL AMMO does this SMH..... so whats different? Nothing. NOW my question is how many mass shooters had 100 round drums on their AR's? That's a hella lot more ammo yet they still had 30 round clips, so that invalidates all others because they are capitable of more damage yet they weren't used, wouldn't you think they would be more prepared to do such a damning task? THE REAL CURLPIT OF ALL THE MASS SHOOTINGS OR ANY SHOOTINGS IS, THE NEWS GIVES THEM THEIR 15 MINUTES OF FAME. Stop reporting them and making it a party for them and they will stop. it is just attention seeking from the shooter to be noticed and this has been an issue in the past as well. this article was really a joke on the ammo, if it was soooooo deadly, why isn't it allowed to deer hunt? because the ammo is too small that's why. There are other ammo that does more damage but cheap ammo compared to more pricey ammo is their choices, not the gun. You can have any gun you want, make the ammo pricey and you will only fire to put food on the table or protect yourself... then again, criminals don't care, they will find a way around getting their hands on it. Make it more strict to get ammo, engrave names on casings and back of slug of those who buy it.... Cradle to Grave type deal, the buyer is responsible from purchase til that ammo is spent.
 
Jiro said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

didn't work. won't work. I ask you again - have you ever seen any mass shootings at the level of the OK bombing? 9/11?
Click to expand...
The Oklahoma bombing was domestic terrorism conducted by a number of individuals so your comparing apples to oranges, also there is not a mass bombing happening everyday in the U.S. like there is with mass shooting(church shooting was the 377th of the year and there has been a mass shooting everyday in the U.S. since Sandy Hook happened) and I don't remember any guns being used in the OK bombing. So once again I will remind you, this thread is about GUN CONTROL, not terrorist or terrorism control!
 
Last edited:
sonocativo said:
This still doesn't answer Reba's question.
Now whats funny is the first paragraph, ALL AMMO does this SMH..... so whats different? Nothing. NOW my question is how many mass shooters had 100 round drums on their AR's? That's a hella lot more ammo yet they still had 30 round clips, so that invalidates all others because they are capitable of more damage yet they weren't used, wouldn't you think they would be more prepared to do such a damning task? THE REAL CURLPIT OF ALL THE MASS SHOOTINGS OR ANY SHOOTINGS IS, THE NEWS GIVES THEM THEIR 15 MINUTES OF FAME. Stop reporting them and making it a party for them and they will stop. it is just attention seeking from the shooter to be noticed and this has been an issue in the past as well. this article was really a joke on the ammo, if it was soooooo deadly, why isn't it allowed to deer hunt? because the ammo is too small that's why. There are other ammo that does more damage but cheap ammo compared to more pricey ammo is their choices, not the gun. You can have any gun you want, make the ammo pricey and you will only fire to put food on the table or protect yourself... then again, criminals don't care, they will find a way around getting their hands on it. Make it more strict to get ammo, engrave names on casings and back of slug of those who buy it.... Cradle to Grave type deal, the buyer is responsible from purchase til that ammo is spent.
Click to expand...
Keep you head firmly buried in the sand. What about all the other mass shootings that have happened in the U.S. so far this year? The church shooting was the 377th of the year. How many of the other shootings garnered much more than local coverage in the newspaper buried in the back of the paper? No the problem is with the lax rules regarding gun purchases we as a nation are allowing people who should never be allowed to own a gun the right to have and use it!
 
seb said:
The reason I keep harping on AR's is that throughout the mass shootings with multiple people being killed or wounded those are the weapons of choice of these killers. If it were up to me I would make them very,very expensive to keep all but a small portion of the population from being able to purchase them. Oh they can be fun to shoot, fun to dress up and cool as shit when you go to the range, but next time you take yours out to the range and are shooting it, think about those people in LV and the Texas church who had their lives ended or permanently changed because someone was shooting them with one.
Click to expand...

Let me understand you clearly. Are you saying if it were up to you, you think sophisticated weapons like AR should be 'very, very expensive', not prohibited? If so, how much do you think they cost? Who are a small portion of the population?
 
10uvrk.jpg


The 200m is an old number. We believe that the correct number is much higher — somewhere between 412 and 660 million. Why isn't there 200mil or more deaths by guns/mo?/yr? Because the majority of us are responsible, and law abiding. Do not let a few bad apples dictate what the rest of us can and cannot do/own.
 
Last edited:
Cappy said:
10uvrk.jpg


The 200m is an old number. We believe that the correct number is much higher — somewhere between 412 and 660 million. Why isn't there 200mil or more deaths by guns/mo?/yr? Because the majority of us are responsible, law and abiding. Do not let a few bad apples dictate what the rest of us can and cannot do/own.
Click to expand...
Very Well said !!!!
 
Barbaro said:
Let me understand you clearly. Are you saying if it were up to you, you think sophisticated weapons like AR should be 'very, very expensive', not prohibited? If so, how much do you think they cost? Who are a small portion of the population?
Click to expand...
I personally think they should be outlawed, but if not than make them cost in the neighborhood of $20k. The small portion of the population is those that can afford to buy them. I would also outlaw all high capacity clips, drums, etc. as well as bump stocks and trigger cranks. And I would not grandfather in anything. Is that clear enough!
 
seb said:
I personally think they should be outlawed, but if not than make them cost in the neighborhood of $20k. The small portion of the population is those that can afford to buy them.
Click to expand...
Again, the wealthy and the criminal could then be armed, and the honest average wage earner would be left out in the cold.

BTW, who gets the money? The manufacturer?

I would also outlaw all high capacity clips, drums, etc. as well as bump stocks and trigger cranks. And I would not grandfather in anything. Is that clear enough!
Click to expand...
By not grandfathering, that means you would have authorities raid Americans' houses and confiscate (steal) their weapons and accessories, without compensation.
 
seb said:
I personally think they should be outlawed, but if not than make them cost in the neighborhood of $20k. The small portion of the population is those that can afford to buy them. I would also outlaw all high capacity clips, drums, etc. as well as bump stocks and trigger cranks. And I would not grandfather in anything. Is that clear enough!
Click to expand...
Delusional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DOD
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top