Why the Anti-Gun left prevents sensible Gun Control

[Teddy B 17,252]

And that's the sad part. We've become used to it. No matter how many people are killed in gun related massacres, the answer is always going to be don't infringe on my right to bear arms.

Doesn't matter how many deaths, just mock anyone who wants change and play word definition games like "what's an assault weapon" to attempt to throw people off. That's how true muricans handle the tough issues.

[Teddy B 17,252]

No the answer is, let's not do something absolutely insane that will have no impact whatsoever on the problem, that only re enforces to gun owners, that we are dealing with a bunch of illogical, emotional, people who have no understanding of the issue.

The "ban assault rifles" is always the first thing the Anti-Gun crowd starts talking about, yet assault looking rifles are used in less gun related homicides than any other category of weapon.

Please for gods sake someone explain to me why that could make sense to anyone

How can you possibly say with a straight face that banning assault weapons would not save any lives? That is truly delusional.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's the point I was making duh. It's depressing there's so many that you have to filter it by only counting shootings where 10 or more died.

Duh ?? Really

One of the arguments presented was that Assault rifles yielded such high causality numbers in Mass shootings bemuse of their rate of fire and magazine capacity.

I picked 10 because it shows that that is a completely false statement and it such be a large enough sample to have some statistical meaning.

I am sorry me stopping at 10 somehow excited your limbic system which appears other than your brain steam, may be the only part of your mammalian brain with full function

How can you possibly say with a straight face that banning assault weapons would not save any lives? That is truly delusional.

It may save a very few who knows.. My point, Teddy, is that of every gun type out there, banning it would have the least effect, but it is always the number 1 item on the list.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It may save a very few who knows.. My point, Teddy, is that of every gun type out there, banning it would have the least effect, but it is always the number 1 item on the list.

Perhaps that's because assault weapons serve the least purpose in modern day society. They simply are not a necessary tool.

[Hotter Otter 1,211]

Duh ?? Really

One of the arguments presented was that Assault rifles yielded such high causality numbers in Mass shootings bemuse of their rate of fire and magazine capacity.

I picked 10 because it shows that that is a completely false statement and it such be a large enough sample to have some statistical meaning.

I am sorry me stopping at 10 somehow excited your limbic system which appears other than your brain steam, may be the only part of your mammalian brain with full function

My brain steam Someone knows as little about biology as they do about gun violence. Or anything in fact reading your previous posts. Keep trying

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Perhaps that's because assault weapons serve the least purpose in modern day society. They simply are not a necessary tool.

Well then why is a glock a necessary tool ? The deadliest mass shooting in history was carried out by a guy with glocks

You forgot to add, they are not necessary in IN MY OPNION

[Teddy B 17,252]

Well then why is a glock a necessary tool ? The deadliest mass shooting in history was carried out by a guy with glocks

You forgot to add, they are not necessary in IN MY OPNION

A good chunk of the law abiding American public uses handguns for home defense. I don't necessarily agree with all of the types of handguns they use, but they have the right to defend themselves and their property.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

No the answer is, let's not do something absolutely insane that will have no impact whatsoever on the problem, that only re enforces to gun owners, that we are dealing with a bunch of illogical, emotional, people who have no understanding of the issue.

The "ban assault rifles" is always the first thing the Anti-Gun crowd starts talking about, yet assault looking rifles are used in less gun related homicides than any other category of weapon.

Please for gods sake someone explain to me why that could make sense to anyone

I'll explain it if you can explain the "let's arm everyone" mantra some pro gun folks love to spout every chance they get. The ones who feel like being armed at all times makes them safe.

There's craziness on both sides.

[Sousuke 1,214]

How can you possibly say with a straight face that banning assault weapons would not save any lives? That is truly delusional.

….its pretty clear it doesn't. CA never dropped the assault weapons ban. We've had 3 mass shootings with large media coverage in two years...

[Teddy B 17,252]

….its pretty clear it doesn't. CA never dropped the assault weapons ban. We've had 3 mass shootings with large media coverage in two years...

That's a pretty baseless conclusion.

[Sousuke 1,214]

That's a pretty baseless conclusion.

What the fact that California has the most stringent laws in the country, far beyond anything called for after Sandy Hook? Yet we still get mass shootings?

Thats not a fact?

[Teddy B 17,252]

What the fact that California has the most stringent laws in the country, far beyond anything called for after Sandy Hook? Yet we still get mass shootings?

Thats not a fact?

No, that you think it in anyway relates to whether or not an assault weapon ban saves lives. So you still had 3 mass shootings with the ban in CA, big whoop. Maybe without the assault weapons ban you would've had 6. There's no way of you to know that.

And no gun law is effective unless it's nationwide. State laws are useless.

[Sousuke 1,214]

No, that you think it in anyway relates to whether or not an assault weapon ban saves lives. So you still had 3 mass shootings with the ban in CA, big whoop. Maybe without the assault weapons ban you would've had 6. There's no way of you to know that.

And no gun law is effective unless it's nationwide. State laws are useless.

In this case, other states are irrelevant because in the three major shootings, 2 used perfectly legal CA guns and the third assembled his from parts that were legal to make something illegal. So its not like something was imported illegally from another state.

The point is that banning assault weapons has NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNCTION OF THE GUN OR MASS SHOOTINGS. AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS NOT. I REPEAT. NOT MORE DEADLY THAN A NON ASSAULT WEAPON.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[Teddy B 17,252]

In this case, other states are irrelevant because in the three major shootings, 2 used perfectly legal CA guns and the third assembled his from parts that were legal to make something illegal. So its not like something was imported illegally from another state.

The point is that banning assault weapons has NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNCTION OF THE GUN OR MASS SHOOTINGS. AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS NOT. I REPEAT. NOT MORE DEADLY THAN A NON ASSAULT WEAPON.

There is no validity in your statement that an assualt weapons ban doesn't work simply because there were still mass shootings. That's like saying speeding laws don't work because some people still speed.

The 2nd part is simply not true.

[Sousuke 1,214]

There is no validity in your statement that an assualt weapons ban doesn't work simply because there were still mass shootings. That's like saying speeding laws don't work because some people still speed.

The 2nd part is simply not true.

If its not true, prove it.