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.
No, carrying multiple revolvers was a tactic commonly and effectively used over a century ago. A Lemat revolver holds 9 loads in its cylinder and has a shotgun barrel as well, and that's 1860's technology.
You are correct, we do need to take meaningful action, but banning certain types of weapons is not the answer. The action we need to take is in addressing the issues that cause someone like Adam Lanza to go on a shooting spree in an elementary school, not the tools that he used to carry that shooting spree out.
What you are advocating for the is the status-quo. If we go by what you say, mass murders involving firearms will continue in America just as usual and that is totally unacceptable.
I tried very hard, but I can't think of any reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own an assault weapon. If your true motive for owning a gun is to protect yourself, why isn't a normal gun good enough? What's next, your own miniature nuclear bomb under the guise of "Second Amendment rights"? Where does it stop?
First you've gotta define "assault weapon." It's not a term that has ever been used by firearms makers. Don't we kinda want to know what we are banning before we ban it?
A couple pairs of old cap and ball 6 shooters (or just 2 or 3 LeMats) would have accomplished the same. The weapon used is irrelevant. It's a people problem not a gun problem.
As mentioned I'm not a gun expert, but, quickly Googling those weapons, looks like the AR-15 has the capability of firing more rounds with greater speed (and without having to juggle an arsenal of weaponry).
Anywho, weapon of course is relevant. The exact same attack played out a few hours earlier in China. Except because access to guns is restricted, the attacker used a knife. No one died. But, to your point, it is also a people issue, particularly as it relates to mental health, exposure to violence, and, access.
And, yes, folks will say, eliminate guns and they'll just find an alternative method. Sure, that's the case with everything. But if restricted access over time significantly decreases the chance of these types of events occurring, (as it has successfully done in China, Japan, France, etc.), I'm all for some form of change.
I tried very hard, but I can't think of any reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own an assault weapon. If your true motive for owning a gun is to protect yourself, why isn't a normal gun good enough? What's next, your own miniature nuclear bomb under the guise of "Second Amendment rights"? Where does it stop?
Do you have a hobby?
Shooting is a hobby and a sport.
Self defense is a right.
"Assault weapon" sounds so dangerous. Not one was used in this tragedy.
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.
