How To Argue For Gun Control.

The Saw-Mag 150 round magazine : $ 433 .67

+ U.S. federal sales tax

Total cost : $ 10,000

 

For sake of gun regulation , a severe tax could be initiated . Police depts. , of course , would request an exemption . No!

 

Actually it is. Theres a thing called sixth sigma and mass shootings fall well into it.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8D18LYUlhBI

The thing is, you have to take account risk vs reward. Are shootings such a problem that the proposed regulations you laid out (buried in this thread) would fix it?

He didn't said that. He said that there were fine people on both sides. Not everybody protesting the removal of the statue were neo nazis. Even if he did said that and everybody there were nazis, it's true. Some people are fine in every aspect except for they believe blacks are inferior. Other than that some of them are completely normal. Also this isn't even relavant to what I said

That's exactly my point. With his words, he convinced others to kill 6 million Jews.

Simple, I'm not lying.

If you noticed, I put "accept" in quotes when I said it. Meaning that I was using MeAgain's phrasing and that the word itself has a broader meaning

Car regulations mostly pertain to either driving behavior or making sure the car itself functions as it should.

We want tougher enforcement of current laws.

 

That isn't even what I asked. I asked had the bump stock not have been at play, woukd he still be able to shoot that many people and if so what is the evidence. I didn't asked whether a musket could do the same amount of damage as an AR fitted with a bump stock.

Since this isn't what I asked, I'm skipping it. I'll ask again, what evidence do you have that the bump fire stock contributed more damage than if he used a normal AR?

 

My bi-annual check in.

It seems like the left on this thread seem ok with just 20 dead if they were done with revolvers instead of 50 because they were done with automatic weapons.

We should be looking at the root cause of the problem and it's not guns. (People don't go on mass shootings just because they can get them)

 

As we discussed before, when dealing with automatic fire or even rapid fire, you tend to hit less people with more bullets. By the time you make your way to your next target, you already expended 2 or three rounds on your original target. Let's assume for a moment that you're right about the higher rate of fire, the more targets you hit. For one, this guy was rich with no criminal record. Had he not have been able to buy a bump stock, he could've gone through the process of obtaining a fully automatic M240 or M249. Even if that wasn't an option, you can replicate rapid fire with rubberbands.

 

Wow! Not at all what he said. He's basically saying that the juice isn't worth the squeeze so to speak. The few hundred people (assuming that number is correct) isn't worth an all out ban on an object. If that were so, pools, cars, surgeries, etc would be banned by now as far more people die from those than by mass shootings.

No, not at all. I'm saying that the tragedy isn't worth banning an object because it happens so rarely. In fact, my solution to tragedies like tgis is for more law abiding citizens to be armed. I'll admit the people on the ground couldn't do much, howeverthe people next door to the shooter could've intervined.

We all have differnt opinions. As asinining you are to me with your opinions, I'm pretty sure had we met, I woukd consider you a fine person.

Wasn't my original point anyway. My point was speech is far more powerful and deadly than firearms yet we don't hear of people calling for required background checks to exercise it.

I don't own guns primarily to have fun. I own guns to protect myself and others if need be against a would be assailant.

 

The military knew of this already. That's why their M4s are three round burst instead of full auto and why they they use dedicated machine guns mainky for suppressive fire. Meaning that they mainly keep the enemy's heads down to allow theur fellow soldiers to move into position. The gatling gun is an extreme example and actually proves my point. Firing from an aircraft is extremely inaccurate. To make up for it, they up the rate fire to give them a better chance of hitting their target. Meaning they hit less targets with more rounds.

I don't think I said anything about aim. If I did you have a point. However, even when you're shooting into a crowd, you spend a certain amount if time in one small area and filling that area with rounds.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about this.
https://m.youtube.com/results?q=bump%20fire%20with%20rubber%20band&sm=1

 

As soon as your party stops defunding healthcare we can explore that even though it's incorrect.

 

Above in a post I mused that it seemed to me right wing gun owners were threatening to act if progressive lefties tried to change US society into something they would not like, because in their view any move toward the left is inevitably the road to tyranny.

I said I thought it a subliminal threat, hinted at in whisper but someone sent me the below advert for the NRA and pointed out it might not be so overt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGOQFf9VCE

Sorry but this is a well-worn propaganda trope, support the right wing law and order authoritarians that are taking over society OR you will be taken over by the heathens, the barbarians, the lefties, the socialist the communists and there will be tyranny and chaos and your women and children will be raped and you will be….taxed at a higher rate.

As I’ve said before I don’t think there has been a full out civil war in a nuclear armed country.

 

I didn't know "independent" was a party.

Please tell me who their candidate was because I voted for the wrong one.

 

Equally as brilliant as just a select few having guns.

 

Mac

All the other stuff we’ve been through before and your stance has never come out well - but I did come to this

Which is interesting, it’s that old question does evil think it is evil, I mean many people that organised the Holocaust thought of themselves as refined and cultured, I’m sure even some of the guards at Auschwitz thought of themselves as ‘fine’ people.

In much the same way I’m sure that people that oppose gun control and are happy with the number of people that are unnecessarily killed because of the ease of access to guns in the US, also feel they are fine people.

The other thing is that if someone holds one set of irrational beliefs its likely they will hold others, and such close mindedness and or adherence to an irrational dogma means people are likely to support or promote bad ideas that have bad outcomes.