Gun Control - Opinions?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:53:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Gun Control - Opinions?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Gun Control - Opinions?  (Read 8415 times)
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 05, 2015, 11:41:30 PM »

Ideally, abolish the 2nd amendment and ban all privately held weapons except in extremely narrow hunting cases.  I know that's not politically possible so in the meantime I support doing everything possible to make guns more difficult to obtain. 

The second amendment was written in a time when automatic weapons did not exist.  Guns were not as dangerous back then because they took so long to reload and fire, mass killings couldn't really happen.  I sincerely believe if the founders were around today they would never support people owning the kinds of guns we have now.  And even if they did support it, who cares what they think?  They weren't perfect

Sarcasm or...

No, why?

Considering you're a republican, that's a radical position to take.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 06, 2015, 12:11:30 AM »

Ideally, abolish the 2nd amendment and ban all privately held weapons except in extremely narrow hunting cases.  I know that's not politically possible so in the meantime I support doing everything possible to make guns more difficult to obtain. 

The second amendment was written in a time when automatic weapons did not exist.  Guns were not as dangerous back then because they took so long to reload and fire, mass killings couldn't really happen.  I sincerely believe if the founders were around today they would never support people owning the kinds of guns we have now.  And even if they did support it, who cares what they think?  They weren't perfect

Sarcasm or...

No, why?

Considering you're a republican, that's a radical position to take.

Sometimes it's easy for people to sit on their computers and talk about being for gun rights and the 2nd Amendment while not experiencing or understanding the repercussions of gun violence.  It's a pro-life position.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 06, 2015, 01:22:44 AM »

Ideally, abolish the 2nd amendment and ban all privately held weapons except in extremely narrow hunting cases.  I know that's not politically possible so in the meantime I support doing everything possible to make guns more difficult to obtain.  

The second amendment was written in a time when automatic weapons did not exist.  Guns were not as dangerous back then because they took so long to reload and fire, mass killings couldn't really happen.  I sincerely believe if the founders were around today they would never support people owning the kinds of guns we have now.  And even if they did support it, who cares what they think?  They weren't perfect

Sarcasm or...

No, why?

Considering you're a republican, that's a radical position to take.

Sometimes it's easy for people to sit on their computers and talk about being for gun rights and the 2nd Amendment while not experiencing or understanding the repercussions of gun violence.  It's a pro-life position.

No, I'm fine with that belief, I'm not as radical at that, but I definitely want to restrict guns, ban certain type of guns, establish background checks, ban ownership for former criminals, mentally ill and I want to prevent the trade of guns, from anywhere else than from a sale to the owner, I also want to prevent the influence the NRA and gun groups has on  American society and the glorification of guns on the television and movies on shows for children and teens as well as regulating video games. I just said, that coming from a republican, that's surprising to say the lest.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 06, 2015, 07:50:16 AM »

I support reasonable regulations, but I'm getting fatalistic about it. Like say background checks. For many, many people who've committed gun violence, a background check wouldn't have turned up anything that would have prevented them from buying a gun.

Or waiting periods. The idea is a fine one, that you don't want it to be easy for someone prone to violent anger to obtain a gun when in the depths of that anger. But then after the waiting period, the person who is prone to violent anger has a gun in his possession for the next time, right? Did the waiting period just delay things?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 06, 2015, 12:58:50 PM »

I support reasonable regulations, but I'm getting fatalistic about it. Like say background checks. For many, many people who've committed gun violence, a background check wouldn't have turned up anything that would have prevented them from buying a gun.

Or waiting periods. The idea is a fine one, that you don't want it to be easy for someone prone to violent anger to obtain a gun when in the depths of that anger. But then after the waiting period, the person who is prone to violent anger has a gun in his possession for the next time, right? Did the waiting period just delay things?

Background checks will only really work for people who have a criminal record.  Waiting periods will only work for people who cool off or lose their opportunity to murder someone during the waiting period. 

But, there's no silver bullet when it becomes to gun control.  It's silver buckshot.

The real question is, how do you sell gun control, both to the general public who wants these high profile events to be stopped, and to the Republican leaning elements of the country who are awful gun nuts? 

I actually wonder whether we need to change how we sell gun control and stop calling it gun control.  Maybe we sell gun control as crime/terrorism control, and explicitly paint the problem as terrorists and scary black/Mexican criminals.  So, we always say, "Oh, we have no problem with the good gun owners!  We just need to pass regulations to focus on the criminals who aren't being responsible and can't be trusted like good, Christian white men can."  That might work better.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 06, 2015, 02:03:13 PM »

It's too late for any of that.  You might have gotten away with it before the 90s, but the stupid way the gun control people have gone about the "control" part has just poured concrete on the opinions of people who aren't already on your side.  The AWB was pure stupid.  At best the gun control crowd thought, "gee, we know this doesn't actually DO anything, but baby steps in the right direction helps right?".  Well no.  Not when everybody else can point to the baby step and show how stupid it was.  Now, ANYTHING, even sensible sh**t, is going to have fierce push back.  It doesn't help that a fraction of the gun control crowd always chimes in with "All guns should be banned" nonsense.  No, all guns shouldn't be banned.  All guns aren't banned in the UK, all guns aren't banned in Australia, all guns aren't banned any place you people point to when you say look how much better these people are than us....why do some of you think we should do it here?  Are you dumb, or just want to show off to your like minded brethren just how pro gun control you are?  If you want sensible laws about guns, anybody on your side saying "all guns should be banned" hurts your side A LOT.  Shut those people down.

I agree with you though bedstuy, if you want sensible regulations, changing how you sell it is the ONLY way it's going to work.  Certainly pointing out, repeatedly and endlessly, every mass shooting isn't going to bring about gun control (really, the only thing it does is increase the odds of ANOTHER mass shooting and make gun control people feel good about themselves because they clearly care more than non-gun control people Roll Eyes ).  Trying to ban all semi-autos isn't going to do it.  If you want gun control, and don't know anything about guns, don't participate in the discussions.  At least try to avoid details of any kind.  You're not helping either.


I'm pro gun, but I'm not a gun nut.  Don't own any guns, never have, perhaps never will, but I think I should have the ability to if I wanted.  I can be convinced to get behind sensible changes to the gun laws, but it can't be everything you might want, it can't be aimed at things that aren't used in crime (like the big sniper rifle bans or the wanting to make fully automatic weapons more illegal than they already are or the mentioned AWB) and it can't come at the same time a large fraction of you are saying "all guns should be banned".
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 06, 2015, 02:19:12 PM »

So you're saying that you would stop supporting something you would otherwise support because some people on the other side, who have no traction on their side, talk about the issue in a way you don't like?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 06, 2015, 02:30:24 PM »

No.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 06, 2015, 05:54:16 PM »

You said reform *can't* come at the same time that some reformers express opinions you don't like. That's what *you* said.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 06, 2015, 11:14:03 PM »

*I* support reasonable gun control, *it's* NOT going to happen while a large fraction of the gun control side is showing no sign of compromise.  You can express whatever opinion you want, I will still support reasonable gun control but I'm happy enough with the status quo.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 23, 2015, 12:24:11 AM »

This is from a larger Bill of Rights amplification act I'm working on.

Create a nationwide firearms reciprocity law

Encourage states to adopt state-level recommendations
  • Allow unlicensed Open Carry
  • Eliminate background check requirements for ammunition purchases [CT, DC, IL, MA, NJ, NY]
  • Eliminate Caps on monthly gun purchases
  • Eliminate state gun registries
  • Loosen restrictions on issuing concealed weapon permits
  • Permit Guns in Bars, restaurants, and nightclubs provided customer isn’t legally drunk
  • Permit carrying of guns in Churches
  • Permit carrying of guns into election polling places
  • Permit carrying of guns into most Government Properties subject to uniform safety procedures
  • Permit carrying of guns into businesses and shopping malls unless otherwise posted
  • Reduce waiting periods for gun purchases
  • Repeal .50 Rifle bans [CA, CT, DC, MD]
  • Repeal assault weapon bans or permitting schemes [CA, CT, DC, HI, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NY, VA]
  • Repeal Flamethrower Bans or permitting schemes [CA, MD]
  • Repeal Multi-burst trigger Activator bans [CA]
  • Repeal high-capacity  magazine bans [CA, CO, CT, DC, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NY]
  • Repeal machine gun ownership bans
  • Repeal Ultra-Compact Handguns Ban [Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco]

Expand firearms eligible to be imported and exported
  • Allow domestically legal handguns to be imported [ATF Form 4590]
  • Allow for purchase of handguns from FFL holders across State lines
  • Allow importation of foreign machine guns to Special Occupational Taxpayers [18 U.S.C. 922(o)]
  • Allow importation of gas masks without registering under the Arms Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2794; 27 C.F.R. 447.41]
  • Eliminate Sporting Purpose requirement for imported firearms [18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3); 27 CFR 478.39]
  • Order ATF to allow importing of surplus military rifles which were previously exported
  • Require that a common or contract carrier must knowingly deliver a firearm into interstate commerce before criminal charges attach [18 U.S.C. 922(f)(2)]
  • Withdraw State Department complaint against Defense Distributed downloads


Expand individuals eligible to keep and bear firearms
  • Allow ATF to expend money granting waivers of firearms ownership disabilities [See P.L. 102-393 (1992); P.L. 112-55 (2012)]
  • Allow individuals who are 19 years or older purchase handguns from an FFL Dealer [18 U.S.C. 922(b)]
  • Clarify that no citizen may be considered to have been adjudicated a mental defective based solely upon having a fiduciary appointed on their behalf for the receipt of government benefits [38 U.S.C. 5502; 42 U.S.C. 1007]
  • Clarify that no citizen may be deprived of their Second Amendment rights based solely on having sought treatment for mental health [18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)]
  • Eliminate requirement that a juvenile rancher or farmer needs parental permission in writing to carry handguns while working [18 U.S.C. S 922(x)(3)(A)(ii)]
  • Exempt individuals using medical cannabis in compliance with state law from GCA Prohibitions [18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3); 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)]
  • Restore firearm ownership for misdemeanor domestic violence convicts [18 U.S.C. 922(d)(9); 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9)]
  • Restore firearm ownership rights for non-violent felons one year after completing term of service [18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3)]; 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)]

Expand right to carry firearms on certain government properties
  • Allow Amtrak passengers to place firearms reservations online [Amtrak Checked Firearms Policy 2010]
  • Allow lawful carry of guns at Army Corps of Engineers recreation areas [36 C.F.R. § 327.13]
  • Allow lawful carry of guns in Post Offices and Post Office parking lots [39 CFR § 232.1]
  • Allow lawful storage of guns in parked cars in federal parking lots [18 U.S.C. § 930(g)]
  • Allow military personnel to carry weapons while on duty at recruitment centers [DOD Directive No. 5210.56]
  • Create a self-defense exemption for discharging a firearm in a Gun-Free School Zone [18 U.S.C. § 922(q)]
  • Define lawful purposes to include self-defense if in compliance with the laws of the surrounding State [18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3)]
  • Repeal Gun-Free School Zone Act [18 U.S.C. § 922(q)]


Reform federal firearms paperwork
  • Eliminate ATF Form 4, § 15 requiring statement of need
  • Eliminate ATF Form 4, § 17 requiring chief law enforcement officer’s signature
  • Eliminate ATF Form 3310.4 requiring record keeping of multiple handgun purchases
  • Eliminate ATF Form 4473 requiring record keeping of lawful firearm purchases
  • Eliminate ATF Form 6 for Gas Masks
  • Eliminate racial identifications on all federal firearms paperwork including ATF Form 4473, Question 10 [27 CFR § 478.124; 28 CFR 25.7]
  • Eliminate ATF Form 4590 regarding handgun imports
  • Extend the time period gunsmiths have before being required to list firearms in bound book records from 1 business day to 5 business days 27 CFR 178.125(e)
  • Order ATF to destroy Form 4473 bound book records
  • Require that firearms dealers must have intent to conceal a criminal transaction before a conviction for false entries in records [18 U.S.C. 922(m)]


Reform process for classifying Armor-Piercing Ammunition
  • Change procedure for classifying AP Ammunition to require ballistic definition [18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)
  • Reclassify: .223 solid brass, .308 Winchester steel core, .458 steel core, 5.45 x 39 7N6, 6.5 Grendel steel core, 6.8 SPC solid brass, 7.62 x 39mm steel core, M855 ball Rifle Ammunition as non-AP


Reform regulatory processes for destructive devices
  • Allow individuals to register and pay transfer tax on new NFA firearms [26 U.S.C. 5861(d); 18 U.S.C. 922(o)]
  • Allow NFA owners to transport their own guns without prior approval [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(4); 27 CFR 478.28]
  • Allow shotguns with barrels of 16 Inches or more [18 U.S.C. 921; 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)]
  • Allow States to auction off NFA firearms they receive through estates or asset seizure to private citizens [27 CFR 479.194]
  • Exclude flare guns from being designated a destructive device [ATF Rule 95-3]
  • Decriminalize cosmetic changes to shotguns [18 U.S.C. 921; 26 U.S.C. § 5845(i)]
  • Decriminalize the replacement of suppressor wipes and other consumable suppressor parts [ATF Letter 66 (8/99)]
  • Decriminalize ownership of attachable shoulder stocks or attachable barrels [26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]
  • Disallow charges under the NFA unless all necessary parts for illegal conversion are found [18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)(C); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)]
  • Offer one-time amnesty period for veterans to register any unregistered NFA firearms acquired overseas [26 U.S.C. 5841]
  • Reclassify Armsel Striker as a firearm [ATF Ruling 94-1; ATF Ruling 94-2]
  • Remove suppressors from National Firearms Act Regulations [26 U.S. 5845(a)(7)]
  • Reverse directive classifying the addition of a handgun vertical foregrip as “making” an AOW [739 F.3d 931]
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 23, 2015, 07:36:07 PM »

Surely the best thing would be to work with the gun industry to make so-called "smart guns" - which only work for the owner - ubiquitous? That would seem to end the problem of accidental killings and stolen/illegal guns...
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2015, 08:18:52 AM »

I wasn't being facetious actually. I'm not American so I don't really want to wade in and be Smug Yuropen #3673 and say, rar, just ban guns. It's clear that won't help. But a gun that only responds to the owner would solve a large amount of issues - stolen guns being sold in streets, teens stealing their parents guns to shoot up a school, toddlers playing with guns etc. sure it won't solve suicide or predmidated nurder, but it could put a dent in gun violence without (to my non-American eyes) trampling on any gun-owners feelings too harshly.
Logged
Making America Great Again
TrumpDump
Rookie
**
Posts: 24
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 27, 2015, 07:48:37 AM »

Read the second amendment. Guns protect us from tyrants like OBama.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 27, 2015, 07:50:43 AM »

That's what the second amendment says? Let's see here...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the protection of a free state from tyrants like Obama, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Wow, you're right!
Logged
Making America Great Again
TrumpDump
Rookie
**
Posts: 24
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 27, 2015, 07:53:02 AM »

That's what the second amendment says? Let's see here...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the protection of a free state from tyrants like Obama, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Wow, you're right!

Its not exactly that wording. But it's basically the same.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 27, 2015, 08:25:32 AM »

That's what the second amendment says? Let's see here...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the protection of a free state from tyrants like Obama, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Wow, you're right!

Its not exactly that wording. But it's basically the same.

Nope, I checked it and that's the exact wording. I'd been so wrong!
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 27, 2015, 07:14:00 PM »

Read the second amendment. Guns protect us from tyrants like OBama.

Great argument friend! Personally, I have been honing my skills in shooting down Obama's drone fleet with my Walther PPK. I haven't had much luck yet, but I'm sure I'll be able to pull it off when he attempts to establish his monarchy by force.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: October 28, 2015, 05:52:13 PM »

Read the second amendment. Guns protect us from tyrants like OBama.

Great argument friend! Personally, I have been honing my skills in shooting down Obama's drone fleet with my Walther PPK. I haven't had much luck yet, but I'm sure I'll be able to pull it off when he attempts to establish his monarchy by force.

Assuming a tyrant ignored posse commitatus and deployed troops domestically, they have to get out of their war machines to pee sometime. Of course the actual strategy is to target the bureaucrats. If you take out civilian control, the chicken is headless and the military will likely not continue to act tyrannically just cuz. All you need is around 5% of gun owners to target the bureaucrats. Look at the Bundy fiasco. Like 1,000 of the craziest went to Nevada and scared off the feds, over nothing. Imagine the reaction when you have armed uniform bullies on every street corner. The jails would be overflowing with PEACEFUL protesters, they'd never be able to clamp down on resistance.

As to the Constitutional justification ... its in the debates about standing armies and militias. From the VA Declaration of Rights. “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” 

During the drafting of the Bill of Rights:  1 Annals of Cong. 749-50 (1789) “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” - Elbridge Gerry

The drafters feared a standing army, because it could be abused. The Constitution was a response to English history. The Star Chamber. Bloody Mary. The execution of Walter Raleigh. Charles I. Cromwell. The Glorious Revolution. George III. Lord Dunnemore. Tyranny is in English blood. The militia is a counterweight to tyranny. Locke argued that there were 3 purposes for militias: 1.) Invasions 2.) Insurrections 3.)Tyrannies. It may not always be clear when the people are acting as an insurrection against lawful power, or when they are acting as the militia against unlawful tyranny. But its pretty radical to just dismiss the viewpoint that the government is always right and may never be opposed.

Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 11, 2015, 10:28:51 AM »

This 13 year old probably isn't in favor......nor is his momma
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 11, 2015, 11:25:30 AM »

Oppose gun control, oppose a national gun registry of any kind. The only gun control I favor is background checks (should be universal), and barring the mentally ill and violent ex-felons to hold weapons. Beyond that, I don't really favor gun control at all.
Logged
IronFist
Rookie
**
Posts: 55
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 26, 2015, 05:59:18 AM »

I think we need rational gun control, universal background checks, psychological testing, and training. No Automatic Rifles, some ban on Semis. Anyways, thoughts, comments, or just a "hello" would be great Cheesy

I absolutely agree with you. Of course, we need gun control. Cause in the country with more than 300 million registered guns gun control is required. But you were right, gun control should be strict but reasonable, effective. Tough gun laws does not mean lot's of bureaucracy. Authorities should develop a universal and effective mechanism to obtain the right to bear arms. Less bureaucracy and corruption. Psychological testing and training should be mandatory.
To my mind, this is difficult taking into account the fact that we have different gun laws in different states. I mean complexity of procedures to obtain the right to bear arms. 
Logged
MK
Mike Keller
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: December 07, 2015, 03:28:28 AM »

NONE.  I keep hearing "background checks" yet, with every gun Ive brought Ive had to fill out paperwork for just that reason. Now in my state if you have permit it waves this hassle of needing a background check.  I am fine with what we currently have.   


I do favor tougher sentences for felons with 10 ft long records who are caught committing crime with guns.   


But the right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT be infringed.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: December 07, 2015, 09:50:02 AM »

People need to realize that this whole "good guy with a gun" thing is nothing more than a myth. Columbine had an armed guard that didn't stop 13 people from being killed. Virginia Tech had a sworn and armed police force. If you're on a suicide mission, like most of these mass shooters are, they don't care whether or not people will be shooting back. They just want multiple victims in a confined space, which schools and movie theaters provide.

While there is no magic wand you can wave to make gun violence stop immediately, we can start by banning assault weapons and using terrorist watch lists to stop right-wing anarchist extremists from stockpiling weapons, as the far right is a much bigger threat to your life than ISIS or Al Quaeda, statistically speaking. Then we close the gun show loophole and institute universal background checks on every gun purchase, whether in a store, a gun show, or private ownership. Over time as arrests and other confiscations of illegal guns from criminals and terrorists occur, you will see the number of illegal guns and gun violence drop.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: December 07, 2015, 10:05:28 AM »

While there is no magic wand you can wave to make gun violence stop immediately, we can start by banning assault weapons
For (probably) the 30th time, less than 300 Americans were murdered with a rifle last year....ANY rifle.  More Americans were killed with hands.  Any rifle ban is stupid, even the scary looking ones.  The rest of your suggestions are fine and should be talked about, but any rifle ban is a non-starter in my book.




But at least you used the right words.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 12 queries.