I am sorry, but how can you have “dealt with this.” You might disagree, you might poo poo, but “dealt with” would imply you have assuaged all concerns. Obviously not.
“Dealt with” means I responded to it and pointed out that it’s not factual. Whether people are assuaged or take note of the facts is not in my hands.
Thanks, I’ll stand by original comment. You poo pooed it, you never “dealt with it.”
Like I said: it’s out of my hands. But the statement about Cuomo isn’t supported by anything, and it’s very clear that even if that’s what Feinstein wants, she’s known for 20 years it isn’t possible - so much so that she’s not trying to do it. The system doesn’t work that way.
Thanks for the nice edit. What Ms. Feinstein wants and what she gets are really irrelevant to your assertions of her motives. Possible, no. Desired by her, obviously, despite your protestations.
Of course its factual, your argument has been “so what? they can’t act on their desires.” Are you now saying that they don’t want to get rid of all the guns?
And they can’t. But I also pointed out that Cuomo never said anything of the kind. Cuomo said buyback programs were “an option,” and they didn’t happen. He also said confiscation wasn’t an option, and it didn’t happen. So to put it mildly I have no idea how you can justify saying it is CLEAR AS DAY he would take away guns when he said he wouldn’t and then didn’t. I think that ought to be an obstacle to this kind of rhetoric.
Feinstein said 20 years ago that she would have gotten rid of assault weapons if she could have, but she was upfront about the fact that she couldn’t. If it was impossible then, it’s even moreso now. It wouldn’t pass the Senate, wouldn’t pass the House, and wouldn’t survive the courts. Perhaps because of all of those things, nobody has proposed it. I struggle to see how you can get from this basic set of facts to ‘they’re out to get us.’
If “they” means American gun-control activists, then “they” accept as a fact that America will not in their lifetimes be a totally disarmed society like Japan or the UK. The point of their movement is to make America a less-armed society, like Canada.
You’re assuming that criminals would be fully armed (just like you assumed that a fear of guns is irrational and is only because of media manipulation). But criminals in Canada and Australia and the UK aren’t fully armed despite more restrictions on legal ownership. It’s fairly obvious that it’s easier to obtain a gun illegally when “legal” guns are so numerous and widespread.
I think you mean “level the battlefield”.
An arms race among the populace is hardly the mark of civilized life. There are too many people, and not just criminals, who can’t be trusted with guns because of the easy power they wield. To me, the question is, “Why keep making the same mistake instead of trying to fix it?”
Does that mean you are in favor of gun confiscation/mandatory buy backs? For “assault weapons” only, handguns too, or all guns?
Since you ask for my opinion, I think semi-autos of any kind, whether they’re military-style weapons or handguns, are literally too much overkill in the hands of civilians, and they’re way too easy. I’ve speculated that spree killers might not go on their rampages if not for the ease of the killing power of their weapons.
How you’d get those weapons from current owners, I don’t know. Buybacks sound like the fairest method, but that’s something the U.S. would have to figure out.
My turn now.
Do you think the massive numbers of weapons in the U.S. has led to more illegal use of weapons?
Do you define double action revolvers that fire one round per trigger pull as semi-auto? Like this kind:
At fair value? That would be quite the tax burden!
Probably.
Are you sure you don’t want to ban all guns? This guy killed 12 people and wounded 11 others with a bolt action .22 and a side by side shotgun.
Cheaper than hiring armed guards for all the schools and training, arming and buying Kevlar and bullet proof white boards for the teachers?
Good Lord. These gun discussions are always the same. Nobody will give an inch…and if one side does, well…then there’s a mile!
[quote=“Kable, post:172, topic:649186”]
Do you define double action revolvers that fire one round per trigger pull as semi-auto? Like this kind:
[/QUOTE]Whether it’s a semi-automatic or not, it’s too much firepower to be available to every civilian. In the hands of a trained professional, sure, but not on every street corner.
Well, there’s always confiscation. If a law was passed, which would you prefer?
That’s a rather anorexic answer. Mind fleshing it out a bit? Do you think more illegal gun activity is okay as long as you have freer access to guns yourself?
Yes, I’m sure I don’t want all guns banned, but thanks for double-checking.:rolleyes: The Cumbria shooting shows that the body count would have been higher with semi-auto weapons. The guy was probably wishing he was in the States–he could have had the world record!
Both sound pretty wasteful to me. I’m for balancing the budget for real, so I would just get rid of the gun free zone stuff and let any faculty member carry concealed that want’s to and call it a day.
OK, so you want to gather up all semi-auto rifles and shotguns and most every modern handgun. How about bolt action rifles like Charles Whitman used to kill those people from afar? Should we ban those too?
Confiscation for sure. If you people want to disregard our rights I hope you go for it all at once without any false pretense.
Yes, I think a certain amount of illegal activity is tolerable if it allows me freer access to guns myself. It’s about the greater good. Do you think alcohol should be outlawed, or do you think drunk driving is okay so long as you have freer access to getting a buzz on?
That’s just speculation. The Columbine shooters had semi-autos and didn’t kill as many as the UK guy. McVeigh killed a lot more with bags of fertilizer, so if you really want to kill a lot of people, you can, guns or not.
There have been plenty of options presented by the pro gun side in many of the recent threads that would actually make a difference and offer win-win solutions.
The anti gun side, cannot get away from outright bans or the additional significant restrictions with no real chance of making an impact. They have no concern for compromise. They continue to wallow in their ignorance of firearms technology and rely on emotions instead, wearing that ignorance as a badge of honor in some circumstance.
The AWB proposal is a compromise, and if it passes it’ll be changed further. The new laws in New York are a compromise.