How To Argue For Gun Control.

Oh yes it does. Hitler killed 6 million Jews at the word of his mouth and the papers he wrote and signed.

Evidence?

Again, evidence? After all, there are at least 200,000 cases per year of people defending themselves with firearms.

 

You have to have a background check to buy a firearm at a FFL. Why don't we make you pass a background check to exercuse free soeech to maje sure you're not soreading radical ideas?

 

Which could've been done with a regular semi auto rifle of even a hunting rifle.

We "accept" car deaths and while I personally don't have much use for a bump stock, I'm for the right of others to have them. The thing to remember is, this guy was a millionaire. Meaning, he really had no need to buy a bump stock. If he wanted fully automatic firepower, he would've gone through the process of owning one as he had a clean record.

Again, the bump stock wasn't what made the firearm anymore deadlier.

 

How so?

 

Wrong link. I think this should fix it.


https://m.youtube.com/results?q=shane%20killian%20mass%20shootings&sm=1

I think it might lead you to the search results rather than the video itself. If it did, just watch the first video that comes up.

I did. However I provided the wrong link. I'm on mobile and I'm learning my new phone. As to you point, again, how can a state transfer crime it doesn't have? Why aren't the states with lax gun laws having more mass shootings?

 

Such as Nazism that killed 6 million Jews? Besides, that's not even the point.

 

But i'm not accusing anyone of being a nazi.

 

Do you have evudrnce that it did other than the fact that he used it? I mean, he had a shirt on. Did that contributed to his deadliness?

 

The killer's purpose was to unite the people through sorrow and empathy . The purity of it has been evolutionary via
advancing Terrorism as a modern global demon . Logically now , anti-gun activists will imagine the genocide of the gun
possessors hoodoo not submit to punishment .

 

I've never wanted (in adulthood) to have a firearm.
I do understand there is a need for some countries to carry them where danger is a constant threat (US and South Africa as cases in point)
The constant fear of home invasion, carjacking and racial crimes - not to mention the random factor
- Whether; because of a generation or credo of faith, - and whilst mindful of the real dangers out there - I use a combination of common sense and confidence and feel safe in the environment in the world which I live in, and despite the fact that there are Drugs, Sex and Gun Crime I am glad that I live in the UK.
It is in this opine that I feel is the most relevant. - One can make judgement about others, it it down to the experience and considered assessment of the individuals to -
(i) Make appropriate choices
(ii) Make representation to defend the legal statute or change the amendment accordingly - with conviction and conscience

 

Yes I'm serious. What makes you tgink the bump stock contributed anything other than a faster rate of fire? What evidence you have that the faster you are, the more you hit?

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Oh and once again you bring up things covered at length before – to repeat risks are treated in a holistic way so as to lessen the possibility of crime – for example we have many regulations to make cars safer it’s not rational to disregard one type of regulation because it causes less deaths in proportion to overall deaths.[/SIZE]

Yes but Trump thinks some Nazis are fine people LOL

But as pointed out many Germans supported Hitler on his rise to power, he could not have done what he did without that support, in the main they went along with his lies and irrational beliefs that lead to the crackdown on those that talked out against him, the lefties the liberal it was the road that led line of Jews outside the gas chambers.

Now on the main those opposed to gun control are of the right and those for it are on the left and those opposed to gun control seem happy to spread irrational beliefs and even lies to promote their ideas.

It makes me wonder which group would have been more likely to have supported…..

For fuck sake man – we have spent pages on this and you know perfectly well that statement doesn’t stand up to even the slightest scrutiny – how do you live with been such a liar

You might accept car deaths (just as you feel nothing for those that are killed by guns) but ‘we’ that is society does not.

There are numerous regulations for trying to make cars and motoring safer. Car manufacturers have spent and are spending millions on making safer cars like ones that automatically apply brakes if you get too close to another car or stop if you are about to hit someone or something.

Then you have to have a license to drive you have to have a road worthy car, then there are laws against things like drunk driving, and people that are physically or mentally unable to drive are barred.

Then there are numerous experts monitor roads to look for accident hotspots so they can make them safer and so on and so on and so on society spends a lot of time, energy and money to not just ‘accept car deaths.

The whole approach used to try and reduce car related deaths (to try and reduce them) is the very opposite of what gun lobbyists want in relation to gun related deaths.