This slippery slope argument was proven wrong already. Fact - assault weapon was banned 26 years ago and you still can buy gun today. About that quote — for a few Americans that are gun worshipper, guns are about a faux sense of security. You give up quite literally thousands of lives every years for that little sense of security.
Hard to imagine not wanting a reduction of gun deaths. To not want your kids to have a future that is safer for them while they attend school. Warrens also recently set a goal of reducing gun death by 80%. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/10/7499...an-on-guns-has-a-goal-reduce-gun-deaths-by-80 Warren is going beyond some of the more commonly discussed ideas, such as stricter background checks or a ban on assault weapons. Her plan calls for creating a federal licensing system, limiting the number of firearms someone could buy, raising the minimum age to 21 for purchasing a gun, holding gun manufacturers liable (and, in some cases, even holding gun industry CEOs personally liable). She also wants to raise taxes for gun manufacturers (from 10% to 30% on guns and from 11% to 50% on ammunition). Additionally, Warren's plan calls for $100 million annual investment into gun violence research. She points out that the frequency of automobile deaths in the United States declined with widespread safety measures, such as seat belts and air bags. With the same approach, she says, her goal of an 80% reduction in gun-related deaths could be achieved.
This is a good read, a phrase I took from it to address what you posted. “Restricting the implements of violence while ignoring the causes is futile.” Tony Perkins: Solution to gun violence isn't what you think, says former police officer https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ton...ence-not-what-you-think-former-police-officer
And it’s really hard to commit pipe bomb violence without pipe bombs. What’s your point? I guess the next thing you’re going to want to do is outlaw pipe bombs. Wait.
Banning any type of gun simply isn't a realistic option. Criminals tend not to care about such things. But I'm at the point where I think we should ban production of all handguns and assault rifles. People can keep the ones they already have. It will take decades to filter them out of the system, but I think that's the best option we have. It won't happen any time soon because for some inexplicable reason a large segment of this country thinks guns are as important to survival as the air they breathe. It's absurd to act as if guns are having any positive impact in this country when you compare it to the rest of the world. Americans aren't any more or less prone to gun violence than anywhere else, there's just so many more f**king guns available. I always find it funny when people think guns are actually the only thing protecting them from the military.
I find it funny when people use military as an example of what law abiding gun owners are trying to protect themselves from and that the majority of military and retired veterans are pro gun control.
This completely ignores the fact that it's FAR more difficult to assemble and plant pipe bombs than it is to purchase an assault rifle. On top of that, it's also typically much easier to get a high number of casualties with basically any type of gun than with pipe bombs, the bombers within the last few years in Austin and Boston didn't kill anywhere close to the same number of people that all of these shooters seem to. The Columbine shooters also tried to use pipe bombs and most of them didn't even work but guess what did work for them? This isn't an apt comparison at all.
It's the unborn children they're concerned about. Once they're out they're on their own and a blight to society.
Its like you get it and then proceed to drop all logic. Its only a matter of time before bombs become more prevalent. The media will jump all over it and explain exactly how they work and how easy it is to manufacture and deploy them.
Okay where does my post lack logic? Do you have anything to actually back this up? Seems like pure conjecture on your part.
I am 100% fine with banning all guns, some guns, or having stricter background checks - but what I am NOT ok with is the status quo. A reasonable approach would be to limit magazine size, make gun owners carry liability insurance for each weapon, better background checks and a ban on Assault style weapons (with a table to get rid of the BS "What is an assault weapon" distraction layer). DD
I'm not against stricter gun control but an assault weapon ban will do almost nothing. All rifles (bolt action, single shot, and semi auto) represent about 3% of the gun deaths in this country. MAYBE it reduces the total fatalities at some of these mass shootings. However, the largest school shooting is still Virginia Tech and that was done with a 9mm and 22 pistol. As prevalent as the mass shootings have become they are still a small percentage of the total gun deaths in this country. The AR15 has been available since the 1960s to the public. In fact, back then you could buy a brand new M16 (the full auto version of the AR15) if you paid a 200 dollar tax. The weapons are the same. Society has changed. I don't know that banning anything will make a difference in these psychos wanting to kill.
I'm not against stricter gun control either. My parents never owned guns. I don't own a gun. I don't have much interest in ever owning a gun. The measures I see bandied about feel like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.... ban assault weapons, minimum age raises, magazine capacities, etc.. etc... Like, let's be real, there are 400 million guns circulating amongst the population, if you want to do something about it, propose doing something meaningful about it. Propose some "full measures." Talk about getting these guns out of circulation and stopping the flow of new guns into circulation. That's what has to be done to meaningfully effect change. Even if you have these tighter laws, there are 400 million guns out there and if you're determined to get one, you will be able to. The only gun you need to commit a slaughter is a hand gun. There are plenty of shooters who will pass the stricter requirements with no problem. It feels like candidates are dancing around this truth because proposing something like a mass buy back and an abolition of gun ownership rights might be too extreme a policy but it's what is necessary to stop these slaughters.The half-measures proposed seem like a waste of time to me.
