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.
There has been a solution available that shows good potential for actually reducing the crime rate, not just for years, but for centuries. But it's never been tried - the big-govt advocates are strictly against it, sight unseen, and continuously violate the laws that would put it into place. The constant failures of their own policies mean nothing to them.
The solution has been available to us for years now. Centuries, in fact.
If all laws restricting gun ownership and carry were repealed, most people still wouldn't bother to carry a gun. But a few would. And some guy planning to mug an old lady, or assault someone at an ATM - or even shoot up a church in Texas - wouldn't know if someone in the crowd nearby was carrying in a pocket or purse. But he could be fairly sure that a one or two people were.
And some criminals would decide not to commit their crime in the first place because of that. Presto - a reduction in crime. And without a shot being fired.
And when a few truly insane ones go ahead and commit the crime anyway, let's just say they quickly get distracted from their plan, and often their recidivism rate does down suddenly.
A good solution, producing far better and safer results than anything the so-called "gun control" advocates have ever offered.
There has been a solution available that shows good potential for actually reducing the crime rate, not just for years, but for centuries. But it's never been tried - the big-govt advocates are strictly against it, sight unseen, and continuously violate the laws that would put it into place. The constant failures of their own policies mean nothing to them.
The solution has been available to us for years now. Centuries, in fact.
If all laws restricting gun ownership and carry were repealed, most people still wouldn't bother to carry a gun. But a few would. And some guy planning to mug an old lady, or assault someone at an ATM - or even shoot up a church in Texas - wouldn't know if someone in the crowd nearby was carrying in a pocket or purse. But he could be fairly sure that a one or two people were.
And some criminals would decide not to commit their crime in the first place because of that. Presto - a reduction in crime. And without a shot being fired.
And when a few truly insane ones go ahead and commit the crime anyway, let's just say they quickly get distracted from their plan, and often their recidivism rate does down suddenly.
A good solution, producing far better and safer results than anything the so-called "gun control" advocates have ever offered.
There's also another way that has been successfully implemented.
Still no "gun control" advocate has reacted to the statement that they know the "just a little more reasonable regulation" doesn't work. And that their continued demands for them anyway, are really a scheme to eventually achieve a complete ban on all the people's guns. They change the subject, post irrelevances and insults, but never address the actual issue of the thread.
It looks like nobody on this board can refute it. Or even wants to try.
Pretty sure they will still keep popping up and asking for "just a little more reasonable regulation" anyway, once enough time goes by that they hope people would have forgotten they had their noses rubbed in it this time.
An AR-15 is a hunting rifle??? LOL. Since when? Are these people afraid that a herd of angry deer or elk are going to come at them in groups armed with handguns?
This is one of the funniest posts I’ve seen. If this is what hunting has become the “sport” (psst, it’s not really a sport) has devolved into a bunch of “macho” men proving they can kill something. Let me guess...these “hunters” own pit bulls and wear their pants pulled half way down their butts.
That's funny, i don't think any hunter would take a standard AR 15 sporter in .223 hunting for Elk....it's to weak.
One looks like something you would see advertised in a 1960's Boy's life magazine, while the other looks like something you would see in a modern action movie.
If some deranged lunatic unloaded either one into a crowd, the results would be the same
No, that magazine increases the capacity from 10 to 25. Firing 15 more rounds would not give you "the same" results, which is one of the reasons that magazine is illegal to sell in about 10 differen states.
No one ever said "ban the big scary looking guns with too many attachments." People want to ban the guns that are capable of putting out large #'s of rounds over a short amount of time, regardless of what they look like.
In particular, you can't add some clip that increases the capacity and pretend the two are identical. That's just silly.
True for the .223, but since we do not have elk here, but plenty of varmints, they still have a hunting use. Now my AR10 or M1A, both in .308/7.62NATO do have the punch to put down an elk, so that takes care of that thought
No, that magazine increases the capacity from 10 to 25. Firing 15 more rounds would not give you "the same" results, which is one of the reasons that magazine is illegal to sell in about 10 differen states.
A magazine change takes less than 3 seconds. The magazine capacity is not an issue.
There has been a solution available that shows good potential for actually reducing the crime rate, not just for years, but for centuries. But it's never been tried - the big-govt advocates are strictly against it, sight unseen, and continuously violate the laws that would put it into place. The constant failures of their own policies mean nothing to them.
The solution has been available to us for years now. Centuries, in fact.
If all laws restricting gun ownership and carry were repealed, most people still wouldn't bother to carry a gun. But a few would. And some guy planning to mug an old lady, or assault someone at an ATM - or even shoot up a church in Texas - wouldn't know if someone in the crowd nearby was carrying in a pocket or purse. But he could be fairly sure that a one or two people were.
And some criminals would decide not to commit their crime in the first place because of that. Presto - a reduction in crime. And without a shot being fired.
And when a few truly insane ones go ahead and commit the crime anyway, let's just say they quickly get distracted from their plan, and often their recidivism rate does down suddenly.
A good solution, producing far better and safer results than anything the so-called "gun control" advocates have ever offered.
You're literally copy-and-pasting the same words, over and over.
Not only has it been debunked about 15 times in the past few days (which you haven't noticed), I bet you didn't even write it.
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.
