There will always be support by the ignorant masses for feel good moves that don't actually accomplish anything positive even if you spell out how it hasn't done anything positive in the past when tried before. I think that's the lesson from this thread. That and the fact that there will always be those who think that prohibition is an awesome idea that will definitely work.
Why are you asking yahoo on this thread to do this - did not occur to you that somebody may have done this on a professional level, given that it is a much discussed and studied subject?
Last time I saw something reported there was a large number of rounds.... like hundreds fired. If the shooters were limited to a hunting rifle or a handheld firearm such as a 9MM, etc. how in the world could they possibly get off hundreds of rounds?? Just asking out of curiosity... do you know what type of guns they were using in the Cali shootings? In Paris do you know as well? .............. Well maybe there are problems with the no-fly list then, but I'd assume that the purpose of the no-fly list gives reasoning to you having issues with your background that need to be reconciled by the individual. I don't see there being much difference between that and a background check point mark that you need to be aware of that might limit what you can and can't have access to in any situation. Constitutional rights??... I don't really know why that has to constantly be a throw back argument. The no-fly list is a background check issue that would need to be reconciled just as if I was pulled over and didn't pay my ticket its my responsibility to pay what I need to, or go to court to have reconciled. And again... read what I said about the constitution, and focus on what makes logical sense based on the present time. If there are issues with the no-fly list that I'm unaware of, I'm all ears but let's try to avoid going back to that one.
Because I was a little busy. I'm sorry if I should have asked if someone could pull the data from the internet Why are you always so condescending?
Yes, whenever I need access to empirical information, my first reaction is "I don't have time to locate the per capita GDP of Lesotho, therefore I will probably leave some commentary on clutchfans, and hope a fellow rockets fan can supply me with the information I need!"
China has the strictest gun laws. By the end of 6/21/2015, China has only total 8 cases related with guns in 2015 and to them this is a number that should raise serious concerns already. California has strictest gun regulations but they are still a joke
Okay. Thank you for that. Are you trying to impress us all with your big words? Is there any particular reason you are derailing the thread with insults. I'd kind of like to stay on topic if you don't mind. Besides, it was really simple math to figure it out when I had a few minutes free. It's really not that big of a deal.
More impressive is that according to the Chinese government, only 17 people have died in China in the last 75 years. We all know that reports from the Chinese government are always 100% accurate.
He's just upset that the numbers won't paint the picture he wants it to. No prohibitionist likes it when you show that prohibition doesn't actually work.
"Absolutely, everything that comes out of the PRC is 100% truth" -no one with a fully functioning brain
Feel free to check the numbers, in 2002 the assault weapons ban was still in place and there were 488 murders using rifles that year, the number is in the low 300's today and the ban has been lifted now for 11 years so people can get all the assault rifles and "large capacity magazines" they like....they just aren't using them to kill people as much now.
In fact, in 2004 there was a study done to see if the assault weapon ban had done any good whatsoever and they concluded it did not. It in no way positively affected gun violence. Yet here we are talking up that "feel good" measure as if it will help if passed again.
