Maybe more like incorrect wording. Most criminals own guns uses them. That is my to reply to your own statement. Criminals don't buy fast cars, drink alcohol or eat at Macdonald to do their major crime.
You position is silly, you let the best become the enemy of the good. Such a outlook would drive us into complete inaction. If we can't prevent people from going nuts we can't tell who they are, maybe we should at least limit their access to the most deadly of weapons. A question for you, do you believe that everyone should have nukes and we should not pursue nuclear non-proliferation? Heart disease has killed way more people than nukes have, should we just completely give that up as well? Heart disease has killed more people than violent rapes, should we give up on worrying about that? There will always be something worse in the world, but we shouldn't let that drive us to do nothing.
That's the problem arguing with these type of people. No wonder there are problem in this world because of these type of people with this type of mentality. You take away their toy and they get all pissy and rage like an ignorant.
That seems pedantic. Then explain it him and the rest of us. It seems obvious to me that a semi-automatic weapon is more dangerous in a crowded area than say a personal handgun, but maybe I am missing something critical that needs to be known about the exact magnitude of the danger or lack thereof.
But more people die in traffic fatalities combined with alcohol, and heart disease...gun control ban & regulate advocates - what is the goal? What is the methods? Lets pretend the goal is to save lifes thru ban & regulation of guns. I brought up why only stop there to illustrate a point. Once you ban and regulate rights and activities, then other rights and activites can fall in the name of saving lives- (think overt ethnic profiling to stop terrorists at airports). We don't talk about alcohol control, or fast food control because ppl who abuse this don't "intend" to kill themselves or others but they do. You excuse the intentions and ignore the results. Criminals will find the guns ala fast & furious. The true victims would be the incredibly vast majority of responsible gun owners not the criminals who abuse guns
this is usually the same terminology. just for your information- I think you needed to term "semi-auto rifle" to differentiate. Most personal handguns are semi-auto & a weapon...welcome
This is the slippery slope argument. The idea that if you take away your bazooka, next thing we will do is take away your kitchen knives! Fact is, Alcohol consumption IS REGULATED. You can't drink if you are under 21 - in order to save lives. Not the lives of a drunken college student. But the victims of that drunk kid behind the wheel of a car. And you can't have an open liquor bottle in a car at all. That's regulation. I am all in favor of letting people do whatever ridiculous and idiotic things they want. That is what Darwanism all about. But...people shouldn't be allowed to put other people's lives at risk for their stupidity. And just as alcohol regulations seek to keep people from hurting other people, there is a need for gun laws that prevent the idiots from obtaining guns. That includes pysc evaluations and deeper background checks, as well as training. And yes, assault weapons should be banned. States have local militias already. They are called the National Guard.
There is already laws that prevent idiots, and regulations exist on guns fyi. I just don't want more, and nope assault weapons should not be banned.
There is an easy solution for scare home owners. TASER Guns. Easy guns access=more criminals with deadly weapons. Strict guns control=criminals with less deadly weapons. So what's the big deal making it hard for them to get guns in the first place? Sure criminals will find a way to get their hands on firearms but it will deter a large amount of criminals who don't have those type of connections.
I am completely in favor of gun control and all of that, I just don't think it will do any good. People are still gonna get guns.
Tasers don't often work against a drup induced criminal. Guns are already difficult for criminals to obtain legally. The fact is they get access to them and have the criminal will to act, and I'd rather be able to defend that risk thru 2nd admendment rights
That you can't stop but at least you cut down or deter larger percentage of criminals, psycho or mental person having easy access to them.
These arguments all boil down to how much are you willing to sacrifice for the right of self defense. People have fundamental disagreements on it. Politically, when you start telling people what they need (and you have no idea about guns thus talk nonsense using buzz words) you really piss them off.
My mistake. I used it in the common parlance. I will now use the more precise term of semi-automatic rifle or the term of art, assault rifle to differentiate. The problem is that not all rights are created equal. Any action constrains the freedoms available to an individual, so the question is always to what degree does it constrain individual freedom (at what cost) and to what end (at what benefit).The right to say free speech is not equal to the right to be able to purchase semi-automatic rifles free of encumbrance. Neither is the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater = to the right to free speech in general. I'm not against the ability of people to own personal handguns and hunting rifles, but why do we need assault rifles, weapons whose sole purpose is to take life en masse. Are they thought of as something like a bulwark against the government taking away people's hunting rifles? Or is there some greater purpose to having them other than the ability to go shoot at the gun range?
Or how much you are willing to sacrifice so that others may shoot off semi-automatic rifles at their local gun range. So, instead of getting pissed off, educate and explain why semi-auto rifles are no more dangerous in the hands of lone gunman than personal handguns. Or just bow out I guess if it is too upsetting for you.
When I purchased my most recent firearm I was surprised that there was no 3 day waiting period. Clearly I hadn't been paying attention because it has obviously been this way for a while -- if you pass the instant online check the weapon is ready to take home within minutes. I think the waiting period might be good for some rare cases, but for the most recent mass shooting -- the AP with his level of planning would have found a way to acquire the weapons he wanted.
Ever since the 2000 election, the Democratic party has washed its hands of proposing gun control legislation. If Obama were to say half the things Bloomberg is saying now, the political backlash would be enormous. Had Al Gore not made new gun control laws a big part of his 2000 campaign, George W Bush would have never been president.
If you ban the guns, or do a voluntary buy back, like they did down here in Australia, the law abiding citizen will do what is right, but the criminals will keep their guns and be the only ones armed. In my city we have been averaging a drive by or 2 every week. Saying guns were the problem that caused the deaths today is like blaming spoons for making people fat.
