Why the Anti-Gun left prevents sensible Gun Control

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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.

So if a smaller chuck of us feel we need an AR-15 for security then, that is not valid. Based on nothing but emotional reactions

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.

So who should not be armed? Me for example. How is taking the guns away from law abiding citizens going to make anyone safer

Edited June 11, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[Teddy B 17,252]

If its not true, prove it.

So if a smaller chuck of us feel we need an AR-15 for security then, that is not valid.

Correct. There is no valid basis for needing one other than simply wanting one.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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.

Of all mass shootings of 10 or more people, only one was carried out using only an assault weapon. The most deadly using only pistols. Tell me again how a nationwide ban is going to help. Shotguns and Pistols are the preferred weapons.

Facts everywhere scream at you that assault weapons are the least misused of all weapons, but yet you want to ban them. I just can't understand how you think anyone could think that being the number one issue of the gun control crowd is productive.

A Mustang GT has around 412 HP. It goes very fast and goes from 0 to 60 quickly.. A Shelby Mustang has 662 HP and goes insanely fast. There is no reason any citizen could present to won a Shelby over a regular GT. Many people die and are injured every year in Shelby wrecks. It is designed to break the legal speed limit. So ban it ?

Correct. There is no valid basis for needing one other than simply wanting one.

That could be said of any gun variety, but yet Assault weapons are the least abused of any category out there, but yet you pick these to want to ban ?

[Teddy B 17,252]

Of all mass shootings of 10 or more people, only one was carried out using only an assault weapon. The most deadly using only pistols. Tell me again how a nationwide ban is going to help. Shotguns and Pistols are the preferred weapons.

Facts everywhere scream at you that assault weapons are the least misused of all weapons, but yet you want to ban them. I just can't understand how you think anyone could think that being the number one issue of the gun control crowd is productive.

A Mustang GT has around 412 HP. It goes very fast and goes from 0 to 60 quickly.. A Shelby Mustang has 662 HP and goes insanely fast. There is no reason any citizen could present to won a Shelby over a regular GT. Many people die and are injured every year in Shelby wrecks. It is designed to break the legal speed limit. So ban it ?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

So if a smaller chuck of us feel we need an AR-15 for security then, that is not valid. Based on nothing but emotional reactions

So who should not be armed? Me for example. How is taking the guns away from law abiding citizens going to make anyone safer

This is the reason why we can't have a simple conversation about gun control. My statement was let's arm everyone isn't the answer. No where in my post did I suggest taking guns from anyone. Do you see how quick your mind went to taking away your guns?

If someone has a history of violence and breaking the law, should they be allowed to bear arms? Should children(under the age of 18) be allowed to have access to guns, especially with bullying at an all time high?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I read that Japan hit a record number of 22 gun deaths in one year. The nation cried out and it caused a scandal. They have the tightest gun regulations and almost zero gun deaths.

They have no guns though. If you took every gun away in the US, we'd have no gun deaths either. The question is what do you to with a nation that has more guns than people?

[Sousuke 1,214]

Correct. There is no valid basis for needing one other than simply wanting one.

Fine Roll your eyes, but if your going to try and call someone out as not being factual in a discussion, ethically you should be able to backup your attack.

Its pretty stupid to say i'm not speaking truthfully, but then shy away.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

This is the reason why we can't have a simple conversation about gun control. My statement was let's arm everyone isn't the answer. No where in my post did I suggest taking guns from anyone. Do you see how quick your mind went to taking away your guns?

If someone has a history of violence and breaking the law, should they be allowed to bear arms? Should children(under the age of 18) be allowed to have access to guns, especially with bullying at an all time high?

I am pretty sure felons are already not allowed to have guns, that really has not solved squat

I am not sure about the laws for kids under 18

So your statement lets not arm everyone. So it's already illegal for criminals and metally ill to have them . Who else did you have in mind

[Sousuke 1,214]

This is the reason why we can't have a simple conversation about gun control. My statement was let's arm everyone isn't the answer. No where in my post did I suggest taking guns from anyone. Do you see how quick your mind went to taking away your guns?

If someone has a history of violence and breaking the law, should they be allowed to bear arms? Should children(under the age of 18) be allowed to have access to guns, especially with bullying at an all time high?

Actually if you lifted the age of firearm ownership to say 30, you would probably cut mass shootings in half.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Actually if you lifted the age of firearm ownership to say 30, you would probably cut mass shootings in half.

Latest killer stole his parents guns which were under lock and had security devices, which he defeated

[Sousuke 1,214]

They have no guns though. If you took every gun away in the US, we'd have no gun deaths either. The question is what do you to with a nation that has more guns than people?

Japan effectively disarmed at the start of the Meiji Restoration. They haven't been armed for 150 years.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Fine Roll your eyes, but if your going to try and call someone out as not being factual in a discussion, ethically you should be able to backup your attack.

Its pretty stupid to say i'm not speaking truthfully, but then shy away.

What's stupid is for you to sit here and claim that a weapon that is made or modified to shoot more rounds in a shorter amount of time with less effort is no more deadly than it's slower more cumbersome counterpart.

Now this is where you point out some technicality that I may have got wrong or something that doesn't apply to every gun known to man, and you and your gun aficionado buddies can laugh, and dismiss everything I said.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Spooky, little clarification please?

While I personally disagree, that makes more sense for someone who believes guns have no place in society other than hunting or sporting uses.

What about self defense? I've advocated for guns for that purpose many times here.

[Sousuke 1,214]

What's stupid is for you to sit here and claim that a weapon that is made or modified to shoot more rounds in a shorter amount of time with less effort is no more deadly than it's slower more cumbersome counterpart.

Now this is where you point out some technicality that I may have got wrong or something that doesn't apply to every gun known to man, and you and your gun aficionado buddies can laugh, and dismiss everything I said.

My god man. I've already pointed out that assault weapons as defined have NOT been modified to shoot more rounds in less time.

Listen, I think your confused. You don't want an assault weapons ban. You want a semi-automatic ban? Am I right?

All semi-automatics operate roughly the same, you insert a clip or a magazine and fire one round per one trigger pull.

Bolt actions require that you manually chamber each round. Australia has a semi-automatic ban.

So you want a semi-automatic ban.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[Teddy B 17,252]

My god man. I've already pointed out that assault weapons as defined have NOT been modifies to shoot more rounds in less time.

Listen, I think your confused. You don't want an assault weapons ban. You want a semi-automatic ban? Am I right?

All semi-automatics operate roughly the same, you insert a clip or a magazine and fire one round per one trigger pull.

Bolt actions require that you manually chamber each round. Australia has a semi-automatic ban.

So you want a semi-automatic ban.

Semi autos are by definition an assault weapon.

In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms. Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more tactical, cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon