After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

You need to go back an reread those posts because nowhere does anyone say that mass shootings would be avoided if everyone were carrying concealed weapons. If you believe they have, then quote them and bring it here.

 

Why? Do you think that a judge has some kind of magical powers that makes untrue statement true? They're really not the supermen you seem to believe they are.

 

No, my point is that your source indicates 91% of law enforcement supports concealed carry. It doesnt indicate that these same 91% think concealed carry would make a positive difference in a mass shooting situation; thats merely an assumption on your part

 

And what do you suppose those law enforcement personnel believe the person carrying a concealed weapon would do in a case where someone is shooting up a restaurant? Nothing?

 

How should I know what they think? I dont know any more than you do. I was just pointing out the source you used didn't prove the point you were trying to make.

Hopefully law enforcement understands better than anyone that adding untrained civilian guns to the mix in an active shooter situation would likely just make the situation even more chaotic and confusing

 

Do you actually believe that they are so clueless that they would advocate people carrying concealed weapons, but not consider what that would mean in a scenario where someone is shooting people in a restaurant? Why do you think they advocate the right to concealed carry?

 

Again, hopefully they have considered what it would mean in terms of a mass shooting.

Are you saying preventing mass shootings are the only reason to carry concealed?

 

Like how limited?

And what type of incentive are you talking about when it comes to the US?

Why woukd the founding fathers allow us to have guns but allow the government to be able to restrict or outright ban ammunition? They wouldn't. The Federalist Papers outlined what the founding fathers intended and allowing ammunition was one of them.

That's a rather obvious way of saying "I don't have a good argument but I want my way to be enforced anyway."

I'll address the other points.

 

Illinois for one. Bjt even if that's the case we can see how they don't work when it comes to getting a CCW.

The fact that the countries that implemented registration failed to reduce even their gun crime is evidence enough.

How? A registered gun will only provide who was the last legal owner which we already have a system that does that. This doesn't even touch on the fact that serial numbers are easy to remove.

The only legitimate reasons you gave for anyone to own a firearm was if they're hunting or target practicing. You completely ignore self protection.

 

Just because something is a weapon of war doesn't mean there is any reason to ban it. Semi-auto pistols are weapons of war for example.

I do not agree that rulings by extremist lower court judges are reliable.

Sure I do. But that doesn't mean I'm going to disregard reality when they say something that isn't true.

I suppose it depends on their argument. If they made a good case for their position that would be one thing.

But if they merely proclaim that reality isn't true, I'm not going to start disregarding reality.

The right to have guns for self defense includes the right to have enough ammo for adequate self defense.

We've had such registration for 50 years now. Every time a gun is sold at a store it is recorded on a Form 4473.

He's not talking about hunting. He's talking about self defense against criminals.

 

The AR-15 may have been the first to introduce lightweight rounds to a military setting, but that does not mean that it is any easier to fire than any other rifle that fires lightweight rounds.

The pistol grip does not make it easier to fire. The lack of recoil that is inherent in a lightweight round is what makes it easier to fire.

 

No, I never said concealed carriers would prevent mass shootings.

You tried making the point that the 91% of law enforcement personnel who support concealed-carry don't think it would make a positive difference in a mass shooting. In response, I asked you what you suppose those law enforcement personnel believe the person carrying a concealed weapon would do in a case where someone is shooting up a restaurant. I'm now telling you that your idea that 91% of law enforcement personnel wouldn't approve of a concealed carrier putting a stop to someone like a resaurant shooter is not logical.

 

I'll take that as a no, then.

 

I know you think that what you've just posted changes the fact that the AR-15 is not an automatic weapon, and is not used by the military, but it doesn't. All you've shown here is that you're willing to ignore the truth of the matter and bow down to illogic so long as it comes from the mouth of an authority figure. You've also shown that you don't understand what an appeal to authority means.

 

No. I did not try to make that point. I actually made the point that you cant assume how they feel about concealed carry helping in a mass shooter situation (which is what okie requested) based on the source you provided.

Am I speaking Greek? I feel like I am sometimes