Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Banning certain classes of arms or reclassifying them like machine guns will certainly slow them down a bit, however. And prosecution for all involved in an illegal arms sale.
Six shot maximum capacity and no carry concealed or open would put a serious dent in the ability of someone to shoot a hundred people.
There are millions of high cap mags. There will be no "dent" for hundreds of years.
Banning certain classes of arms or reclassifying them like machine guns will certainly slow them down a bit, however. And prosecution for all involved in an illegal arms sale.
Six shot maximum capacity and no carry concealed or open would put a serious dent in the ability of someone to shoot a hundred people.
Would this apply to cops too? Take away their 17 round Glocks. Give them 6 shot revolvers. S&W model 10. Then we wouldn't have incidents like the cop in Chicago shooting a kid 16 times while he was lying on the ground.
Do we then also disarm the Secret Service staff who protects these talking heads and their families with...guns???
Do they deserve protection but no one else does? How does that work?
If they are so anti-gun, then why don't they become repulsed by the sight of the guns of those who are paid to protect them and their loved ones?
How do they suggest that average Americans like us protect ourselves from those who own weapons illegally? If they have an idea for that, then could their bodyguards and Secret Service staff employ the same techniques so that they wouldn't have to carry guns either? That would only be fair, right?
Until the underlying problems of broken families that leave hurting, broken, disenfranchised people in the wake, a loss off definitive right and wrong, and the invasion of our country by those who hate us and wish to harm us, this will continue to happen, regardless of if guns are bought legally or illegally.
This hate crazed lunatic who shot up the club in Orlando would have used explosives or some other method of mass destruction had he not had access to guns, which he still would have on the black market anyway. If someone wants this badly to kill, they will do it. Take away the reasons why people kill and you take away the killings.
So why don't we work on the reasons why people kill?
A sincere expression of their belief would be for the current leaders, and all who support disarming others (the VP, Democratic leadership, Hillary) to immediately remove weapons from the Servret Service, Capitol Hill Police, Federal Protective Service, etc.
Anything else is hypocrisy. Period.
My life, and that of my family, is just as important as any of theirs.
Would this apply to cops too? Take away their 17 round Glocks. Give them 6 shot revolvers. S&W model 10. Then we wouldn't incidents like the cop in Chicago shooting a kid 16 times while he was lying on the ground.
Just take guns away from cops, problem solved.
Liberal logic - Whenever there is a murder, just ban whatever instrument the person, or terrorist, used to commit the murder. Take away guns, pressure cookers, fertilizer, pipes, nails, knives, box cutters, automobiles, underwear, shoes, jumbo jet airlines and aviation fuel, etc... Problem solved.
The GOP failed to extend the assault weapons ban in 2004 and we get to see the results in real time.
The assault weapons ban of 1994 came as a big scare to gun owners but the manufacturers were able to find loop holes.
The very common AR15 was their target to ban yet very few shootings ever involved that type of gun until recently. Criminals prefer smaller easily concealed guns to commit their crimes.
After the ban gun manufacturers of AR15's type rifles removed the flash suppressor, the bayonet lug, collapsible stock and limited the magazine to 10 rounds and were then allowed to sell the rifle as a post ban model.
Larger capacity mags were still available in the after market. If Congress had renewed the ban in 2004 there would still be plenty of AR15 type rifles on the market.
Banning guns (to the law abiding) will not stop terrorist or criminals from using them.
Here is a better idea why not enforce the laws that are already on the books and increase the prison terms for anyone that uses a gun in the commission of their crime.
Far more people are shot every day in America then are shot in a random terrorist attack and most of those guns are illegal.
I know this is a well known and very basic argument, but it seems that a lot of people just don't get it.
Banning the legal sale of any or all guns in the U.S. will do nothing to stop mass shootings or terrorism here. Nothing. People who want to kill, especially people filled with as much rage and blind hatred as the Orlando shooter, will still have guns. You don't have to go to a gun store to buy a gun, they are sold illegally everyday in every state on the street. If it becomes illegal to buy and own guns, the only people who will stop buying and owning guns will be people who actually care about abiding by the law.
Heroin is illegal in every state in the U.S., yet deaths by heroin overdoses are skyrocketing everywhere and it can be found in every state and probably every city and town in the country. People don't go to heroin stores and buy it, they buy it from dealers on the street. Why does anyone think that it would be any different with guns?
The only thing that would change if guns were outlawed for once and for all is that law abiding citizens who own them for recreation or self protection would cease to have them and become more vulnerable to attacks by thugs and criminals, and thugs and criminals would keep on doing what they have been doing, unabated.
I know this is a very basic argument, but can anyone really dispute it? Why can't people like Hillary and Obama see this and then begin discussions on the fundamental reasons for why people want to kill in the first place so that that can be addressed, since these people will always be able to get weapons of mass destruction, legal or not? It seems like digging at the root of the problem would make a lot more sense. I don't personally know anyone who, if they suddenly came into possession of a roomful of weapons, would ever remotely use them on another human being, so it seems that the problem is not so much the weapons themselves as the people who are using them. How is this not obvious?
America has lost the war on illegal drugs, why would the war on illegal guns be any different?
You are attempting to inject logic and common sense into what is basically an emotional controversy.
Sorry, that is not allowed.
It is similar to asking "Will this anti-gun law stop any possible future mass shooting? Can the sponsors of this law give any guarantee that there will never be another mass shooting if this law is passed? If not, there is no real reason to pass this law, is there!"
It is obvious that there can be no such guarantee, and it is obvious that no gun control law will ever stop another mass shooting. BUT, the antis still whine that "We need common sense gun control laws!" But, they don't know what those common sense laws are.
"We have to do SOMETHING, even if it is wrong!" seems to be the prevalent attitude.
They even want to deny people their Constitutional Rights based on SUSPICION, not conviction!
I find that frightening!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
