How To Argue For Gun Control.

Being used and being issued to every soldier are two different things. It's only been fairly recently that bulletproof vests became standard issue for every soldier.

They already do despite machine guns still being regulated. Departments are starting to issue out automatic weapons to patrol officers. In fact, my sheriff's office issue out MP5s in both semi auto and full auto configurations to patrol deputies.

You can't guarantee that. A prime example is Mexico. They basically ban any firearm yet the cartels have access to RPGs.

And how many gangs were prosecuted because of it?

Can you name one raid that was for automatic weapons?

 

naw, this type of shit takes skill boy, skill...

 

To be honest I never looked it up to begin with (don't want to get into trouble). So I don't know exactly how much skill you need. But from indirect sources, it seems that all one needs is a fine tuned machine, small pieces of metal, and time and practice.

 

LAPD wanted long rifles for a long time before the Hollywood shootout. It was only after the incident did everybody realized that they needed it. And it wasn't so much as the robbers had automatic weapons (which they killed no one which supports my stance that machine gun serve limited effective rolls) that they wanted long rifles. It was because they had bulletproof vests. And actually, if I'm not mistaken, the Hollywood robbers made their weapons automatic, in a state which bans them in the first place. And the only data you gave was "since the 1934 act, machine gun crimes dropped." I may have missed something but you didn't provide any evidence that the act was the cause of the decline. I stated that at that time, the prohibition also ended as well and that was the main cause of the crimes.

No. I expect you to do research that backs up your claim and disproves mine.

No I won't. Although if they were stolen to begin with them that does kinda defeat your claim.

If that's your opinion.

 

First off, it would be nice if you linked to the articles you quoted. I couldn't get any of links by the article to work. Now for your first link, it's using the flawed logic I pointed out. They're assuming that it was the act that curbed machine gun violence. It makes no attempt to address the prohibition ending just a year before. The second link is also flawed. The only raids mentioned were raids unrelated to the fact that they had automatic weapons. Not only that but even if they were related, they were in the 80's and 90's. up to 60 years apart from when the act was implemented. If the act was implemented to curb machine gun violence, then why did it took them 60 years to actually find and confiscate the unregulated machine guns? As for the people who used machine guns in the 30's, they used them because of the prohibition. As for proof that the NFA wasn't effective, I can only find this article.

https://www.quora.com/Did-1934s-NFA-or-1933s-21st-Amendment-have-a-greater-effect-on-reducing-firearm-violence

 

My bad. I think this one is more appropriate.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/08/14/machine-gun-control/

However the gang violence was due to the ban of alcohol.

I may have missed something but as far as I can tell, you have yet to provide the many raids of that time that produced automatic weapons. Much less automatic weapons that were legally obtained because of their accessibility.

As were machine gun of the 20's.

Aren't bombs also regulated? Also aren't cars registered?

 

I'm not questioning their reason as to why they wanted to regulate automatic weapons, my only contention is that they're wrong in their reasoning. It's like the current (or recent) debate over banning so called assault rifles. I'm not saying that people don't want to ban them because of their accessibility. It's the very reason why they want to ban them. My contention is that their reasoning is flawed and puts the blame on the wrong thing.

So despite them being regulated, America has experienced hundreds of successful and failed bombings since the NFA act.

 

A woman is facing criminal charges after pulling a gun on two other women in a row over a school notebook.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/woman-gun-walmart-row-last-notebook-detroit-michigan-a7924371.html

Yes, by all means, let's keep ensuring that just anyone can buy, own, carry guns.

 

Things like this are few and far between. CCW holders on average are more law abiding than cops.

 

Automatic weapons don't shoot more people faster. If anything they fill the same if not less people with a lot of bullets. A standard 30 round magazine out of a M16 on full auto will be empty in 2 seconds. It's the very reason why modern variants of the M4 used by the military are only capable of three round bursts. The only way you even have a chance of shooting more people faster with an automatic weapon is to either attach a hundred round drum on the M16 (which is unwieldy and prone to malfunctions) or go with something like a SAW (which is also unwieldy). Even then, their primary purpose in the military is covering fire.

Yes except for the thing I addressed about automatic weapons.

That's irrelavant. A truck was more effective at killing people than our worst mass shooting.

I never said we should sell nitroglycerin at Home Depot. However like you said, bomb components are readily available which does negate the whole reasoning behind the NFA. I'm sure you can make a home made bomb by ordering what you need online.

 

Mac

So do Trump supporters agree with his views that suggest that those that don't like racist ideologies are exactly the same as those that are racists, Nazis, KKK, that such racists are 'good' people?

But you must realise that such groups as Nazis and KKK are inheritably violent philosophies they are about removing the rights (and in some cases lives) of people they see as been inferior and even the dumbest amongst them knows that cannot be done peacefully.

Anyone that chooses to support or join such racist groups knows they have signed up to a violent movement.

Some of whom?

The Oath Keepers are described as a far-right organisation.

And people that say they wish to remove the rights (and in some cases lives) of those they see as inferior are ‘good’?

Don't you claim to be a black man but you think the KKK are ‘good’ people and you have suggested that you would kill police officers for political reasons, but think political violence is always and in every case ‘bad’.

Can you explain your seemingly contradictory thinking?

 

^^^

The KKK was one of the earliest gun control organizations in US history. They were supported by the democrat party in the beginning. Their goal was to try and keep black people from owning guns. So white supremacists can terrorize black households without worrying about being shot at.


It really explains why gun control has deep seeded roots with the Democratic Party.

 

6

LOL same MO but then hell what was I to expect from the most propaganda savvy person on the forum at the moment.

I mean this is brilliant – dishonest bullshit – but brilliant - so let’s look at it.

First make a connection to something bad to something that you oppose and want to portray as bad.

I mean is crap of course the KKK were not about ‘gun control’ they were into power and it comes back to criticisms 6 has never been able to address –

Another variation along the lines of making a ‘connection to something bad to something that you oppose’ this time the Democratic Party, yep the Democratic Party of the present day America is hugely supportive of the KKK – Oh sorry that is untrue, yes at one time back in the mid-1800’s the DP was very different which isn’t surprising really after more than 150 years I mean it has to be remembered that at one time the Republican Party was the one promoting black American’s rights while today many in that party seem to be trying to disenfranchise as many black people as they can.

LOL - the implication being that it’s because the Democratic Party are still in league with the KKK oh come on man really, you just couldn't resist just pushing it a little too far could you – how much bull shit do you think people will swallow.

Oh yeah many voted for Trump so…..

But what would have happened if a black person in a household had shot at the KKK taking into account that the law and judicial system in the South of that time was also widely supportive of suppressing blacks?

As several people here have implied here at one time or another the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this a justified and come to their defence or just seem it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?

Think about US history, did the Native American that fought back, get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese descent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them, and what if they had shot at the police would they have got general popular support? What about these hauled in front of McCarthy, would people rallied to them if they had refused to go before such a witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

The question being why didn’t the decent and good white people of those areas protect the black people being abused, they had access to guns, they had votes, they filled juries, they could have done a lot to stop what was happening, why didn’t they?

 

6

You’re a good propagandist (are you self-taught or did you do a course)?

The problem is that nothing can hide the fact that you and all the others that oppose prudent gun control seem unable to address the many criticisms of that stance.