Yes... in much the same way that "potato" answers the question of "what is 1+1?" Ah yes.... Post hoc ergo propter hoc. How did I know that was coming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc Feel free to try again.
Yeah, they forget about smugglers. It also escapes them that lever action rifles and twelve gauge pumps can do immense damage in confined spaces. So they won't stop at assault type rifles if another type is used by a killer.
Gun banners pretend to complain about armed criminals when in reality, they are invariably far left activists who hate the NRA and gun rights activists for opposing idiots running for office like Hillary, Al Gore and other Bannerrhoid politicians - - - Updated - - - None in the USA with legally owned ones. lots around the world with government supplied ones.
that's a complete falsehood the M16 military rifle was not designed to KILL but rather to inflict casualties. its far less powerful than the generation of battle rifles it supplanted. The idea was wounding 4 of the enemy was tactically superior to killing one. so you are incorrect. and modern AR15s are mainly sold and bought for target shooting, competition, and self defense. AND BTW killing in self defense is not wrong or immoral
true but there is no reason to ban weapons that are used in the majority of criminal homicides for two reasons 1) the vast majority of handguns are not used illegally 2) punishing millions of honest owners for the crimes of those who already are subject to severe penalties for misusing a firearm is moronic - - - Updated - - - they made a movie about a society like that It was called Schindler's List
It was a term popularized by a far left propagandist named Josh Sugarmann which was adopted by Feinstein, Schumer and others in the ARC (Anti Rights Coalition)
No, it's not. Mexico has extremely strict gun laws. IT also has a much higher gun homicide rate than the U.S. The U.S's gun homicide rate is at historic lows (since it's been systematically collected in 1960). Crime and homicide now is pretty low. The other thing is in 2014, there were only 248 homicides by rifle (all rifles--single shot, bolt-action, lever action and semi-autos). There were about 8,000 gun murders and about 12,000 total murders. All rifles made up about 2% of all murder weapons. There were over 1500 murders by knives in 2014. There were over 600 people killed by people's bodies. Every single crazy I can recall that did shootings in the last year or so had a bunch of warning signs. The last one had so many warnings that I honestly don't understand how come he was allowed to continue on in his profession. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
This is why gun banners wail and gnash their teeth. They blame the NRA, but it's not the NRA voting anti-gun goofballs out of office. That's us.
that demonstrates ignorance of the shooting sports. you cannot own nuclear weapons and to own the other stuff you have to wait months and get local law enforcement permission. Any firearm local police officers (civilians BTW) or civilian federal law enforcement officers use for self defense in a civilian environment-other civilians ought to be able to own
you hit on a great point those who think murder can prevented by banning honest people from owning something that criminals already break the laws by possessing are invariably going to support complete gun bans. its a mind set that does not stop at a certain round count in a magazine or the rate of fire of a handgun or rifle. - - - Updated - - - do you REALLY think public safety is what motivates those who want to ban weapons for honest citizens?
do you REALLY think Freedom and the Constitution is what motivates those who want to make it easier for criminals and Islamist terrorists to access guns?
well since no one I have met on this site or others wants to make it easier for CRIMINALS and ISLAMIST terrorists to access guns as a motivation, that question is a straw man and has no use in this discussion. at best it might be a byproduct of not wanting a fascist police state.
ending background checks would make it MUCH easier for criminals to get guns, thereby increasing profits for gun makers connect the dots.
If it were, their first reaction to the Orlando shooting would not have been to scream for another ban on 'assault weapons'.
getting rid of the Bill of rights would make it much easier to jail people the cops claim are criminals. did it ever occur to you that what sells the most guns is not criminals buying them (or having people with clean records buy guns for them so there is no perjury charge danger), but rather than anti gun whiners calling for gun bans?
Should we ban assault weapons? An assault weapon has the ability to fire fully automatic. Automatic weapons are already banned.
Of course you can get permission from the government for a fully automatic firearm. The catch is, you have to find one built and/or imported to the U.S. before 1986. Then, you have fingerprinting/background check, a $250 tax, and have to get permission from local law enforcement.
And I haven't heard anyone seriously demanding the end of background checks. Most of us can live with what we have, we just think that expanding background checks does nothing to help, and is just a costly waste of time and money and effort.
No one has made any call whatsoever for what you are claiming they have. If they were, then you would be posting examples of the message you are claiming they are supporting. You would show the NRA lobbying to have questions removed from the background check forums, rather than arguing against ending due process for those merely accused of being suspicious. The bar for being placed on the no fly and terrorist watch list is so low, simply having the wrong name is more than enough to keep you on it for years, if not your entire life.
True. In Florida, permission has to come from the Governor himself. Effectively, normal Americans can't get fully auto assault rifles.
