We don't need to put them to death, just longer sentences with NO parole. Parole is a bunch of bull crap. They need to do away with that and you serve your entire sentence.
Really? So instead of working to prevent school shooters from obtaining firearms, you would rather send little Suzie and Tommy onto the schoolbus with a fully loaded Glock 19 in their backpack. Because that totally makes sense. Wrong. Stricter illegal firearm laws have been shown to shrink the black market. Stop shilling for the NRA. Laws do, in fact, deter a large number of illegal arms dealers. It's happened over and over in other nations, and there's no reason to believe it can't happen in the US. Once we shrink the black market, we'll then double up by making it more difficult to obtain and maintain firearms legally, as well, so that the only people who obtain them are sane individuals with no shady backgrounds. It won't stop 100% of shootings but it will drastically cut the number down. Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for guns as self-defense. But anything more powerful than a pistol or a hunting rifle needs to be outlawed. A public shooter can still be taken down with a pistol. Rights are considered inherent in American law, meaning they don't depend on your citizenship status. ("...that all men are created equal...") This is why liberals advocate the right of even foreign terrorists to a fair trial. Rights are not given by the government, as right-wingers are eager to always point out but never eager to put into practice; rather, rights are inalienable. In other words, if you have the "right" to arms, then so do illegals. How about this: Anyone who illegally sells a firearm that ends up being used to murder somebody will face the death penalty. Watch how quickly people stop selling firearms illegally. But something tells me that right-wingers wouldn't want such a law because they're morons.
Not really. It's much more powerful than a .22 LR, but compared to a .308 or .30-06 or .300 Winchester magnum (all common deer hunting guns), it's not very powerful. In many states, the .223 is illegal to hunt deer with, because it is underpowered. (FL allows it, but deer tend to be small here).
Because it's a light cartridge that can be easily shot at full automatic by smaller people using lighter guns. You can carry much more .223 ammo than .308 or .30-06 ammo (the previous two rounds used by the military) It's not less than lethal, but it is fairly weak compared to previous military cartridges.
All rifles, including so-called Assault weapons, accounted for 248 murders in 2014. There were about 8,000 gun murders in 2014, and about 12,000 total murders in 2014. All rifles made up less than 3% of gun murders, and about 2% of all murders. There is no rational reason to ban weapons so little used in crimes. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
No but I would make firearm training for children mandatory and I would train and arm all the teachers.
Wouldn't it be better to crack down on the black market? Laws against stealing and rape don't prevent stealing and rape 100% of the time, but they do diminish it. If we enact extremely harsh laws against sales of illegal firearms (say, "accessory to murder" if the firearm you illegally sold ends up being used to murder), then the number of people selling illegal firearms will diminish. A diminished black market means that a madman is less likely to obtain an illegal firearm, which means that, if he decides to kill, it will be by other means (say, a pistol or a knife). The carnage won't be so severe. Instead of a guy using an AR-15 to unload lead on 100 people and killing 50, he may only up killing 2 or 3 before he's stopped. It's the lesser of two evils, and it's what we should strive for. I fully support everyone having a pistol for self-defense. It's a good thing. But if we outlaw everything more powerful than pistols and hunting rifles, and then enact draconian penalties against illegal firearms dealers, we will attack the problem directly at the source while allowing citizens adequate ability to defend themselves in the unlikely chance a shooter manages to slip through these barriers to obtaining an illegal firearm.
If it's to save lives, then ban abortions and Liquid Drano because abortions account for a heck of a lot of dead babies and poison causes more deaths per year
almost 1/2 million babies have been put to death in the USA so far this year http://www.numberofabortions.com/ It has nothing to do with saving lives because 1/2 million babies sure would have liked to have had their lives saved
I think if the perp knew that there was a possibility that most folks in that nightclub were armed he wouldn't have chosen to do what he did and, if he did, he would have been cut down before he could kill so many. It is not the prevalence of guns that is the problem it is the banning of them that is the problem.
He probably would have had a suicide vest and killed everyone if he had not had access to an AR-15 but, I suppose we can "IF" all day long. A bad guy with a gun is almost always stopped by good guys with guns.
You're totally missing the point. Yes, he probably would have found another way to kill, but if his terrorist attack was an inevitable event, then it would have been best to keep the death toll to a minimum. If he only had access to a pistol, he would have merely killed a few people rather than 50. Make sense? By your logic, we might as well legalize grenades and rocket launchers. Hell, lets get rid of ALL laws. The gun nut argument that "gun laws won't stop criminals because criminals don't follow laws" can be applied to ANY law. You might as well repeal laws against rape and stealing and kiddie porn. Laws don't stop 100% of crime but they DETER some people some of the time, and that's better than anarchy.
No YOU are missing the point. If everyone was armed, the guy would not have killed so many no matter what type of gun he used. In fact, if guns were part of everyone's life and generally carried I doubt if anyone would consider going into a place like that and start shooting. Prohibiting guns is making everyone a victim.
We actually agree on arming citizens. Nobody except a minority of far-left loons wants to outlaw pistols for self-defense. I explained all about my support for an armed populace in the post you had quoted. Did you even read my post before quoting it? But there's a difference between pistols and an AR-15. Nobody needs to own an AR-15. A pistol is adequate for self-defense.
Name a civil mass shooting using a bayonet? - - - Updated - - - STUPIDITY IS THE RULE OF THE DAY. No, they really are NOT alive since he did NOT use an AR15.
You have to register noise suppressor with your local law enforcement. Even though can can make homemade noise suppressors. Pretty much everything you suggested is irrelevant. A bayonet lug, lol.
Please watch and listen. [video=youtube;eZo4hbGJjVI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI[/video]
The terrorist in France who killed the two policemen used a knife you know. But no they are not the best for self-defence but for a sneak up close offense when the person has their guard down. It's best not to let someone who wants to kill you get that close and that is where a gun works much better.
And yet not one single individual has ever explained conclusively just why no one needs to own an AR-15. There has been no rational statement on why the rifle is simply unnecessary.
Because it's overkill. (No pun intended.) You don't need a nuclear weapon or machine gun for self-defense, either. It's too powerful of a weapon to have on the streets, and if someone is shooting people with an AR-15, a guy with a pistol can still take him out.
