Why Restricting Guns & Magazines in NOT the Answer

So we're in agreement that both guns are equally lethal and should be more highly regulated?

 

As opposed to your regular run-of-the-mill murder, what percent of mass shootings do they account for?

 

A lathe is still required to make a barrel. And that requires a trained machinist as well. Stupid.

 

I have a sneaky suspicion one of you wrote the nyt opinion piece and another one is Cody Wilson featured in the wsj piece today.

 

I still fail to see what isn't sensationalist about it. It's not hard today to make a working zipgun from simple parts -- that doesn't make it a reliable weapon or a huge threat to public safety. Making a lower receiver isn't the same as manufacturing a whole gun.

I remember the "plastic gun" hysteria of the 80s as well when the advent of the Glock meant that soon everyone would be carrying weapons undetectable in airports, and so on.

 

OP has started multiple misdirection threads.

 

You started this thread to argue that more gun regulation was irrelevant and ultimately useless because "3D Printing AMERICA!" was right around the corner. Of course, everybody laughed at you because it's really not, but whatever.

Now somebody is saying, fine, we'll regulate that too... problem solved, and you are crying foul

Pick an argument, genius.

Don't say "But what about THREE D PRINTERS HUH" - get a perfectly logical response to an illogical question, and then start crying.

It makes you look like a bigger idiot than you already do, which is considerable.

 

"Well, you can only have this many of this lethal ability at this time and we're going to keep databases". I'm sure the home invasion industry will take a liking to this cap. What is a database going to do when the next crazy decides he's going to kill a bunch of innocents? It appears, a handful of crazies renders law abiding citizens untrustworthy. It appears, anybody that owns a gun is unstable and limiting all of you potential crazies/criminals to a six shooter in our database will somehow reduce the probability of a mass killing occurring.

I understand why anti-gun activists believe regulation and outright bans could prevent gun violence. Simple theory, eliminate guns and you eliminate gun violence. Once guns have been eliminated from our society, we can live without relative fear of mass killings. Is that right? So we're going to push this agenda towards the Afghans, the Iranians, the other twelve dozen countries that want to see us burn? So long as we can keep these crazy domestic blood thirsty citziens away from guns, the rest of the world will follow.......

 

what is "gun violence" in america? Is it a bunch of "Mexi's", "Blacks", and other "Minorities" killing eachother? For alll you Progressives out there, you said you could rehabilitate these guys, and get them to THINK...., and not......kill eachother.......guess what....violent crime down for the fifth straight year.

 

OP has consistently shown an inability to engage arguments and facts at a basic level. Any time someone points out why the fantasy world he's living in is a fantasy (3D printing), he just re-asserts his claim "it will happen eventually!" (a statement, when you think about it for 2 seconds is a stupid justification.) Similarly, any time you pin him down on the stupidity of his argument, he relies on "Hey man, I'm not trying to debate", which begs the question: why is he starting these stupid threads in the first place? When you refuse to acknowledge facts, and refuse to engage in arguments, it really makes you wonder what the use of these threads are.

 

I totally agree. It's a psychological mind thing, and always will be. If you get rid of the tool of murder it does help but with the way the government is plotting there will be no way for citizens to defend themselves against their own government when the day comes.

 

If you have to defend yourself against the government, you have already lost. You cannot have the firepower to defend yourself against the local police, let alone the national guard.