Anti Gun rights activists proven wrong... again.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

umm, we have a mass shooting problem.

Who is doing all that shooting? Maybe what you think is the cause is simply a symptom? Try the five whys

Originally Posted by pxmcc

it's not even debatable.

uh, no. It is debatable. Anytime you say it's not, then you are simply a fcuking fascist

Originally Posted by pxmcc

we need bipartisan laws and regs to fix that.

According to a self professed firearms NON-EXPERT. Alternately, we could try enforcing the laws that are already on the books. with zero time off for anyone that commits a crime with a firearm. That won't happen because a certain political party thinks gun crime is useful as a tool to disarm it's enemies (the american voter; not just the right but ALL voters). So that down the road, they don't have to worry about being fired upon as they load people onto cattle cars for re-education because CLIMATE CHANGE!, or RAYCISS!, or whatever the thought for the day may become.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

we're the only first world country that is totally off the charts on mass shootings and gun deaths.

Would you care to educate us on the racial makeup of all this gun crime? Who is shooting whom? etc?

It's okay, I know you won't because to do so would break the narrative you've had established for you by the media, and the cool "P's" at college. You can figure it our for yourself... life often has a way to educate the ignorant.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

the status quo is not acceptable.

Why? Explain what the status quo is and why it's not acceptable and according to who?

Originally Posted by pxmcc

banning assault rifles would be a great start.

A great way to start the government on the way to full blown authoritarianism. When the government doesn't fear the citizens it will do as it pleases... see China, USSR, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, any time and place where a free people have been disarmed.

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Who is doing all that shooting? Maybe what you think is the cause is simply a symptom? Try the five whys
uh, no. It is debatable. Anytime you say it's not, then you are simply a fcuking fascist
According to a self professed firearms NON-EXPERT. Alternately, we could try enforcing the laws that are already on the books. with zero time off for anyone that commits a crime with a firearm. That won't happen because a certain political party thinks gun crime is useful as a tool to disarm it's enemies (the american voter; not just the right but ALL voters). So that down the road, they don't have to worry about being fired upon as they load people onto cattle cars for re-education because CLIMATE CHANGE!, or RAYCISS!, or whatever the thought for the day may become.
Would you care to educate us on the racial makeup of all this gun crime? Who is shooting whom? etc?

It's okay, I know you won't because to do so would break the narrative you've had established for you by the media, and the cool "P's" at college. You can figure it our for yourself... life often has a way to educate the ignorant.
Why? Explain what the status quo is and why it's not acceptable and according to who?
A great way to start the government on the way to full blown authoritarianism. When the government doesn't fear the citizens it will do as it pleases... see China, USSR, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, any time and place where a free people have been disarmed.

you are conflating banning assault rifles and disarmarment. why is it that civilians can't buy an Abrams? because an Abrams isn't designed for civilian use. it's a weapon of war. the same applies to assault rifles.

will that end all mass shootings? probably not. will it reduce gun deaths? as demonstrated in Australia, yes.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

you are conflating banning assault rifles and disarmarment. why is it that civilians can't buy an Abrams? because an Abrams isn't designed for civilian use. it's a weapon of war. the same applies to assault rifles.

will that end all mass shootings? probably not. will it reduce gun deaths? as demonstrated in Australia, yes.

Deliberately? Or unwittingly?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

you are conflating banning assault rifles and disarmarment. why is it that civilians can't buy an Abrams? because an Abrams isn't designed for civilian use. it's a weapon of war. the same applies to assault rifles.

will that end all mass shootings? probably not. will it reduce gun deaths? as demonstrated in Australia, yes.

Most murders are committed with Semi Auto Hand Guns and Revolvers. The reason why the Government wants to ban AR-15's is because it's a bigger threat to them than a pistol. Don't let them fool you they play numbers games and statistics games when it comes to Gun Control. They aren't interested in your safety or well being one dam bit.

[pxmcc]

to EccieUser: i can't speak to motivation.

^^let's allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers and retailers. suddenly these folks will start paying attention to the impact of selling inherently dangerous products to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants an assault rifle.

ideally, let's permit handguns and shotguns for personal defense and rifles for hunting, while carefully considering whether a given wannabe gun purchaser should even have a gun at all; furthermore, restricting assault rifles to SWAT Teams and the military.

this would build on the already-passed bipartisan reforms. obviously, they didn't go far enough because we're still having mass shootings.

[offshoredrilling]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

to EccieUser: i can't speak to motivation.

^^let's allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers and retailers. suddenly these folks will start paying attention to the impact of selling inherently dangerous products to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants an assault rifle.

ideally, let's permit handguns and shotguns for personal defense and rifles for hunting, while carefully considering whether a given wannabe gun purchaser should even have a gun at all; furthermore, restricting assault rifles to SWAT Teams and the military.

this would build on the already-passed bipartisan reforms.

"selling inherently dangerous products to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants an... " like a car or pickup ????

[pxmcc]

Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

"selling inherently dangerous products to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants an... " like a car or pickup ????

we make it way easier to buy a gun than to get a driver's license. that makes zero sense.

sure you can buy a car, but you can't legally drive it until you pass a 2-part test. i failed my field test twice before i finally succeeded on my 3rd try.

and of course car manufacturers and dealers can be held liable for negligence. why should gun manufacturers and dealers be any different?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

to EccieUser: i can't speak to motivation.

^^let's allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers and retailers. suddenly these folks will start paying attention to the impact of selling inherently dangerous products to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants an assault rifle.

ideally, let's permit handguns and shotguns for personal defense and rifles for hunting, while carefully considering whether a given wannabe gun purchaser should even have a gun at all; furthermore, restricting assault rifles to SWAT Teams and the military.

this would build on the already-passed bipartisan reforms. obviously, they didn't go far enough because we're still having mass shootings.

The gun lobby has too strong of a strangle-hold on lawmakers. Their long-money talks too much sense to politicians who leech off tax payers.

I'd like to put gun manufacturers to the sword myself as well.

Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

"selling inherently dangerous products to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wants an... " like a car or pickup ????

No. What the fuck? Vehicles are made for what? Transportation.

Weapons are made for what? Protection or execution. Do you get the difference? Sir?

Originally Posted by pxmcc

we make it way easier to buy a gun than to get a driver's license. that makes zero sense.

sure you can buy a car, but you can't legally drive it until you pass a 2-part test. i failed my field test twice before i finally succeeded on my 3rd try.

and of course car manufacturers and dealers can be held liable for negligence. why should gun manufacturers and dealers be any different?

Any sort of gun control is fought vehemently by their lobbyists. Who, they themselves, write the law.

[offshoredrilling]

so a gun is like a car

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

so a gun is like a car

... I see yer point, mate.
... People who speed and kill people with a car,
sue the car companys... See how far THAT goes.

... Me-own problem with gun control is that I DON'T WANT
the police and military being the onley ones with guns.

#### Salty

[offshoredrilling]

lots of illegal driving going on in NYS
just like no permit for that pop gun

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Red Flag laws allow guns to be removed from the possession of those thought to be threat against themselves or others.

"The Red Flag Law, also known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order law, prevents individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing or possessing any kind of firearm.

The Red Flag Law provides procedural safeguards to ensure that no firearm is removed without due process while helping to prevent tragedies, like the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the racist mass shooting in Buffalo."

A person's guns are not removed from his possession until that person is deemed unfit at the time to have possession of those guns and that determination is made by close family/friends and agreed to by a judge.

You may also be correct when you state that when concealed carry is allowed, violent crime goes down. But it is also true that the states with more guns per capita have more homicides per capita. 9 of the 10 states with the most homicides per capita are red states. There is also a high correlation between states that are considered to be "gun-friendly" and high homicide rates.

https://www.criminalattorneycincinna...ides-by-state/

And while many, but far from all, the mass shootings do occur in schools which are fun-free zones, there is little to indicate that the locations for the shootings were chosen because of that. Usually the shooter has a vendetta against the school.

Nobody has the right to assume that.

[ICU 812]

When it comes to "mass shootings" it is my belief that the problem is not so much guns as it is mental health and how we deal with it. A much larger category of gun related deaths is suiside. . . .also a mental health issue.

As has been noted in another post, most killings, be they the murder of one person or several at once, are committed with a hand gun not a rifle. Most of these guns turn out to be illegally owned. It is my understanding that many to most of these killings are gang or drug related. This is a societal problem that more gun laws will not eliminate or even ameliorate, but effective law enforcement will.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

you are conflating banning assault rifles and disarmarment.

Again... you can't define what it is that you want to ban. THAT's why it is essentially a disarming of the citizens.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

why is it that civilians can't buy an Abrams? because an Abrams isn't designed for civilian use. it's a weapon of war. the same applies to assault rifles.

You claim that an object whose attributes you cannot define is a "weapon of war" and thus we should not allow civilians to own. "Keep and bear ARMS".... not artillery, ARMS. A tank is essentially a mobile artillery platform. In the same way the Founders were not advocating personal ownership of artillery, an Abrams is not covered by the 2nd Amendment. And nobody is advocating for your reductio ad absurdum.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

will that end all mass shootings? probably not. will it reduce gun deaths? as demonstrated in Australia, yes.

If you want to reduce gun deaths in the United States, you should be focused on handguns and perhaps not allowing convicted criminals back out on the streets. There's a racial element to who is killing Americans, and we all know who that is... but you won't address that because, well because you're a leftist.

[Yssup Rider]

They should ban mental illness. That seems to be the true cause of all the mass shootings in America these days, errrr, this month, errr, this week…