How To Argue For Gun Control.

Lol maybe

 

I'm for gun control but don't see it as the main issue. Have to agree to disagree, I guess.

 

It's the second AMENDMENT. Meaning it's not a guaranteed right as gun owners say. It's currently legal but amendments can have been put into law and removed from it when society wanted that change as a majority of Americans do now. So I agree it was different when there was only muskets. To kill 60 men would take a long time you would be better of with a sword for stabbing if you wanted to do it quickly. If you had a sword and musket you had as much as any goverment. Maybe they have some canons and horses you do not but if you have enough men you can challenge a country but there is also a limit on your ability to kill.

We don't have that kind of situation now. Even if you have fully automatic weapons you don't have a tank, drones, EMPs, bio weapons, nukes, missiles, CIA mind control, none of it. You are not going to challenge the United States government on that level anymore and it seems to the illusion that you can that keeps this gun debate going. You need the gun because someday....

They don't care about it being illegal to own a "automatic" gun because it's not that hard to make many guns full auto. In their mind they are giving the finger to the goverment and preparing for someday. But they sure do care about "assault" weapons because when you take those away you are honestly taking away many weapons which are good for warfare. So they say it's for hunting and get into semantics and other complications about guns that really only gun fans understand. The point being to muddy the difference between guns and allow the warfare guns to remain illegal. I get it I buy bongs for "tobacco use only" your gun is for hunting use only.

 

Any part of the world that doesn't have a 2nd Amendment has authoritarian gun laws

 

Anyplace without a river is dry. Funny thing though people who don't want to get wet are fine with not living in the river.

 

These things DO happen every week - more than every week. Once a day. More than once a day, actually, on average. Not to the extent we're seeing here but mass shootings as defined where four or more people are shot at a time do happen on average more than once a day in America

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/how-often-do-mass-shootings-occur-on-average-every-day-records-show.html

I agree with your points on mental health too, I think our lack of universal, affordable healthcare is really hurting us as a nation but I don't see this as an either/or thing.

 

Neoprene

So does that mean you would be opposed to prudent gun control measures aimed at trying to lessen the likelihood that guns would fall into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible?

But the thing is that many would say otherwise, they oppose virtually any measure to try and lessen the likelihood that guns would fall into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible?

They simply don’t care about what happened in Vagas or about the people that were killed – you might think that’s harsh but if you read through this thread you will see it is true - for many that are opposed to gun control such deaths are statistically acceptable, a ‘reasonable price’ that has to be paid for the freedom to bear arms.

As I keep having to point out – not one of the anti-gun control people have been able to put up any rational or reasonable arguments in defence of their stance and seem totally unable to address the many criticisms of it (and don’t believe them when they say they have and do because that is a lie since they can present no evidence).

 

Oh good, I'm glad you posted this. I meant to post it last night

I adore him. He is spot on with just about everything

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/las-vegas-shooting.html

This is an interesting article as it discusses how there are no laws to alert federal authorities on the purchase of multiple guns, unless they are purchased in that same day. So, sounds like this guy had been planning this maybe, and knew the laws. I can't believe that someone can stock pile weapons over a period of time, and basically, it's legal. You shouldn't be allowed to own an arsenal of weaponry, as a private citizen.

 

Yet most mass shootings happen in states with strict gun laws.

 

This could've been done with a number of weapins without the bump stock modification.

 

Why is it even relevant on how many guns he owned. He can only shoot one of them at a time.

 

Idk, ask the author of the article. They found it relevant. Why did he have a bunch of guns in the hotel room?

 

Right but he can rotate through several guns very quickly, which is exactly what he did

 

An argument for gun control and medicare for all, all in one.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/02/cost-of-gun-violence-hospital-expenses-johns-hopkins-study

Treating gunshot wounds costs over 2 billion dollars a year

 

Shooter had two hands like these guys----v

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ybtfsd3Spo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOCuegVxrpc

 

Or this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F_Pay7MErw