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.
Metal detectors and security guards or other security measures. Its 100x easier to add elements to a situation rather than try to take away a tool that is used to react to the problem or root cause.
Like someone said elsewhere, nobody is shooting up banks, airports, armored cars, police stations, court houses. Schools have almost no security.
You will never be able to add enough security to prevent incidents like this. What happens when students leave schools to take buses, sporting events. Easier to separate assailants like this from guns.
The so-called "gun control" advocates have spent the last several decades proving (inadvertently) that their half measures do not work. "Assault weapons" bans, waiting periods, "gun free" zones, background checks, and all the rest rarely reduce the crime rate, and often result in an increase instead. And yet they keep coming back and saying we need "just a little more" of their "reasonable restrictions".
When they point to countries whose results they like, they invariably point to places like England, Japan, Australia, etc. - countries that have almost completely banned guns from their subjects.
Take the hint.
In fact, complete bans of all guns are the only things that have ever reduced "gun crimes". And they must be accompanied by ruthless confiscation. Advocates who say they want "just some reasonable regulations", know by now they won't work. The only thing they could now be intending, is an eventual complete ban on all guns. While pretending they will do only just a little, to fool you into going along with "just a little". And then next year, just a little more.
Their total gun bans must be accompanied by SWAT teams going door to door to every house and apartment in America, taking people's guns whether they want to give them up or not. They know that many people will object to giving up their guns voluntarily... but a gun ban won't work unless everybody turns in their guns.
Advocates who say they want a few "reasonable regulations", are either astonishingly ignorant of the results of their own policies, or are lying to you.
Here is the deal. If gun lovers and second amendment advocates do not get a handle on all these events that are happening, there WILL be laws passed that they are not going to be happy about. People are only going to stand for so long and see slaughter after slaughter, before some really drastic measures and legislation happens.
Say it can't happen ? I remember when people had the "freedom" to order guns of all types mail order, and they would show up at your door, with zero checks or restrictions. Then, things like the Kennedy assassination happened, and today you have to pass background checks and meet certain requirements before you can legally buy a gun.
The NRA and gun lovers need to see the handwriting on the wall, and NO amount of NRA support or threats by gun lovers can stop the inevitable. Time for SENSIBLE laws to be passed, they might not entirely stop these killings, but they would certainly not hurt.
This gun control talk might save Remington from bankruptcy. Gun sales are going to skyrocket.
Gun banning will never happen, the fact is nobody wants it.
It does explain a little more....and confuses me a little more. Thanks for taking the time.
I do appreciate it.
Anytime! I wasn't very good at explaining. My point was the AR-15 is very similar to many other rifles, and hunting rifles. It looks a bit different as it is made a lot from aluminum, and plastic, for lighter weight, and it came out of the 1950's/60's era where a lot of things were made to look "Space Age", and more modern. The image of the rifle, and its black color scares some people, but it operates just the same as many other rifles. I won't get into the Direct Impingement system which is a bit different, but it is still a gas operated, semi auto rifle.
Many are against it because it accepts magazines of 20, or 30 rounds. However, my 74 year old USGI M1 Carbine used in WWII can do the same thing. You don't need that for hunting. Most use a five round magazine or less for that. However, facing multiple intruders in a home invasion scenario you may.
Not only has this proven to be false, it seems that the opposite is actually true. More slaughter = more guns, which in turn = more slaughter. Sad.
I have yet to see any evidence that more law-abiding people buying guns, results in "more slaughter". Including from you.
It seems more likely that more govt restriction of law-abiding people, results in more slaughter. As criminals take advantage of the fact that their victims (or law-abiding bystanders) are less and less likely to be able to shoot back.
Not only has this proven to be false, it seems that the opposite is actually true. More slaughter = more guns, which in turn = more slaughter. Sad.
Still not accepting reality? There are 5,000,000+ new guns made or imported into the US every single year and yet "gun crime" has been dropping for decades across the US - except for a few dense, urban, liberal areas.
If you want to be simplistic more guns clearly = less slaughter. Or is there just maybe something other than guns causing shootings? Most anti gun nuts will never admit that.
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.
