Yes, I’m very aware that all you want to discuss is assault weapons.
So, you assign me my position, IOW strawman me, provide cites to defeat that strawman, then get pissed when I won’t argue for that strawman.
But I’m the one that’s not debating fairly?
I assume any day now the US Marine Corps will be switching over to 5-shot snubby revolvers and a stockpile of loaded muskets and suffer little to no loss of efficiency.
Guns are now (and have been for some time) the leading cause of death in American children. If you think you can semantics that away with “not an assault rifle” and “not a mass shooting” you are most definitely not on the side of angels.
I think this demands a cite. Not the ‘change the tool’ side, but the “not confront the root cause” side.
Do you have anything vaguely resembling proof that the gun restriction crowd does not want to confront the root cause of mass shooting / gun violence? Anything at all to support this ridiculous claim of yours would be appreciated. A crumb of evidence, a mere shadow of an inkling that an actual gun grabber doesn’t want improvements to mental health services.
Can you show me what steps the left has taken to quash the instances of mass shootings that they did prior to pushing bans on entire classes of firearms? Becaue bans are always their first knee jerk reaction. Never once do they say “let’s try this before we start banning things that many law abiding citizens own”.
Interesting that “the gun restriction crowd” became “the left”. Almost as if for some this argument is about ideology and not about people getting shot.
Let’s be honest, for the most part it is the case that the left favors bans and restrictions and the right doesn’t. Ideology is a big part of the argument.
I used to use the word “antis” which was met with “I’m not anti gun rights” which was then followed by “I just want to ban…[fill in the blank].”
Seems much more likely that’s based on the relative difficulty of getting a bomb versus getting a gun. If Walmart sold Claymore mines alongside AR-15s, you’d see a lot more bomb-based rampages.
Now that’s funny.
This is true. Sadly, this is due to the fact that gangs are now recruiting older teens, and also their drive by shootings are killing children. The Police are now seeing 17yo with guns doing gang stuff.
You mean like expanding access to mental health services? Something like that would have happened if it wasn’t for the right being dead set against any government led expansion of… well… anything.
Is there something else you had in mind?
I don’t recall them trying to do that when they controlled both sides of Congress and the White House, like they do now and in the past.
I do recall them passing gun bans.
You might have recalled things like health care reform, proposed at least as far back as Clinton in 93, that ALL include provisions to increase access to mental health services, and that ALL have been virulently opposed by people who blame mental illness for gun deaths and say “you should do something about these mentally ill terrorists who shoot up schools”.
What has the right done to prevent these killings?
On the subject of guns anyway, the political Left and Right are reversed with respect to the original meaning of the word “liberal”.
He had the votes to pass a gun ban but not any legislation aimed at mental health concerns? But it was an all or nothing argument by the left then, wasn’t it,
Irrelevant, as mass shootings were not the phenomenon they are now, were they? Then what was the purpose of the 1994 ban? Oh, I remember, “assault weapons” are scary looking even though they function like common firearms that don’t look like them, and in the movies drug dealers use them.
Least I post that “mass shootings” today by, so called “assault weapons”, still only account for 1-3% of all firearm related murders.
I missed the part of your reply where you detailed the right’s efforts to reduce the 97-99% of firearm murders that actually count.
Well, to be fair, I guess you did fully detail those efforts, didn’t you?
Sadly, because of our loose gun laws, those gangs have no problem getting ahold of all the guns they need.
And also sadly, it’s not just gangs that are getting kids killed, about once a day, a kid finds a gun unsecured about the home, and shoots themself or someone else with it.
Modnote: Dial it down please. This is really pushing the GD rules at this point. Debate what is written and not what you infer please.
How the heck did this thread come back to life anyway?
Do note that the newest Gun control act should put the brakes on many of the “Straw man dealers” who are the primary source for criminals getting guns. But I think that part wasn’t strict enough. We need more regs and enforcement to stop these “Straw man dealers” .