I require a certain level of, let’s call it… reasonableness… in order to have a discussion. The good Dr is flat out stating that policies that effectively reduce homicides and mass killings in dozens of other countries “don’t work”.
I’m not discussing that, it is pointless to discuss things with people that don’t accept reality.
What makes you think that “people of color” dont already have concealed weapon and open carry privileges? They do. Thinking they dont is pretty racist.
The Mulford act had nothing to do with racism.
If that POS had had to worry about counterfire, he would have been more concerned about cover and less about aiming.
The amendment says otherwise.
Then let’s not hear from you about the intent of the Framers, okay?
Or if you can convince yourself of that, and I suspect it doesn’t take much.
You don’t want to be shown it’s wrong; that would undermine your illusory sense of moral superiority
Just who is violating those peoples’ rights? Millions of gun owners who don’t want to be punished for what someone else did, and thus (in your eyes) are collectively responsible for stubbornly blocking a simple(not), easy(not) solution(doubtful)? Or-maybe… the evil bastard who actually killed them?
No.
You do know that it’s the votes of millions of gun owners which congresscritters pay attention to?
:dubious: also.
Counterfire from what, a pistol? Or do you expect people to attend concerts armed with hunting rifles?
Not according to the people whose opinion on the subject matters:
That’s not what you said “I’d like to make all guns illegal that allow, among other things, one to kill or maim 30 or more people in 30 seconds, yes.”
Firing rapidly is not the same as *killing *rapidly.
As for firing rapidly- So can a bolt action or a lever action.
Unfortunately, *civilization *decrees that the right to life is at or near the top of the list of rights, while the right to kill is, well, not.
Every Law-Abiding Citizen who suddenly stops being one. Who do you think shot all those people in El Paso?
“Punished” means having to abide by sort of regulations that control every other dangerous item and their owners, even those whose primary purpose is not causing death? Nope.
Helluva an argument there. Care to expound on it?
And that’s why the Republicans are quaking in fear.
Great, so lets pass a federal law that prevents you from going to a state where it is easy to buy a gun, and taking it back where they have strict gun control! Nationwide law, right? Wait- **they already have such a law.
**
Sure, except it doesnt work to reduce gun crime after the laws go into effect.
But other nations still have levels of violence. What you advocated is removing a self defense option from those who need it.
And Australia’s Category D? In the real world, a Ruger Mark IV (.22 caliber) can kill just as well as what the New Zealand, Orlando, El Paso, or Port Arthur murderers used. Which is why I, for one, oppose efforts to effectively ban such weapons from the general public- when rifles are banned (oh, excuse me, (regulated) and someone remembers Virginia Tech, then pistols will follow. Then shotguns. Then whatever is left.
Nitpicking stats a few days after 9 people were killed and 14 others shot in 30 seconds is pretty fucking ugly.
Do you want the claim adjusted to “kill or maim 23 people in 30 seconds”? Would that soothe your precious fee fees?
It’s a bit too late to register those 300 million guns at the time of purchase. And guns are a tad easier to hide than a car is.
Yes, I do. Get the media to voluntarily stop glorifying the killers. Have them not name them. Sociologists have made it clear that is the cause of mass shootings.
Stop straw man sellers. Tighten up background checks.
YES, a pistol. When someone is shot at, or even shot toward, the impulse is to seek cover.
The laws already in place which check to see if a potential buyer is listed as insane.
You guys watch too many action movies. Possessing a gun does not make you John Wick or John McClain. These shootout fantasies are downright disturbing.
I think it’s ugly to use a tragedy to accomplish your aims. Like former Australian PM John Howard:
-During the same television interview, Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as “an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country”.
I think it’s ugly to impugn the motives of your opponents in an attempt to prevent discussion when we are discussing the repeated slaughter of our fellow citizens.
You want to be dismissive and condescending, fine. But have you seen what people do when they are shot at? Have you been in the military and in the line of fire, or spoken to anybody that was?