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.
Apparently all the mass shootings over the last few years used AR-15s. Time to ban that weapon.
Pretty much it, the AR-15 has been banned at times, only the way our legal system works depends on the exact location of a comma. Just as soon as a law is passed the tinkerer finds a work around the letter of the law and the weapon's enthusiast says that is not model 12345 thus is not banned. And thousands of the new model are sold until the next incident causes a law with a period or comma in a different place.
I know, it is like we now live in Syria or Iran. "Well, no suicide bombers killed any of us today, it is a good day !"
I realize this gun ownership thing is a hot topic, and I shot Sharpshooter in the service and have had guns all my life, starting with a .22 at 8 years old. However, it is insane to let people, who have no valid reason to own one, have a gun that is capable of spraying hundreds of rounds in a short period of time.........there is NO reason to own one of those, they serve NO purpose.
What it boils down to is two reasons people want them:
1) Because the CAN, and there is no law saying they can not.
2) Because it is a macho trip to be firing them and owning one to show you buddies.
No one is trying to take away pistols, shotguns, or rifles, all we are saying is that nuts to allow these assault weapons to be in the hands of people who have no purpose for having them.
I dont get this? Handguns serve no other propose than killing humans, and why are handguns given a pass in all this? We all know handguns homicide outnumber AR-15's by a long shot - its not even close.
And true assault riffles (i.e full automatic) only accounts for less than 4% of all shooting deaths.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the UK, Denmark, Germany, France, Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Ireland.
You know, the entire developed world. The UK as an example has a gun homicide rate of 0.07. The US is 3.85.
I lived in Switzerland for years, and all my friends had assault riffles in their homes. Heck, most everyone ages between 18-35 in Switzerland have military issued assault riffles in their home. Yet they dont have a mass shooting problem.
There WERE restrictions, yet he still managed to get a gun illegally. Please share with me what new gun laws would have prevented this tragedy. Short of outright confiscation, there are none.
Some kind of computerized registry for those convicted of domestic violence. A system that does not rely on self-report. Because even though this shooter had been convicted of domestic violence he was able to purchase a gun. He purchased the gun at a store, didn't he?
Or if it was a private gun sale, the states that have extended background check requirements to private gun sales have lower rates of gun deaths.
Gun laws work. It's sheer stupidity not to adopt the stricter gun laws that work in many states.
Reality Check: NRA will single issue vote someone out on this issue.
Reality Check: Those with opposing views won't.
But lefties happily voted Joe Lieberman out for a single Iraq war vote in Ct. So they do have important issues they will not allow dissent on, gun control just isn't one.
So I am questioning lefties on this issue, as I find their POV all "hot air", based on their actions in the voting booth.
PS: This is not a signal I support mass gun control, but rather abhor those who "talk the talk, don't walk the walk".
NRA gets their money from firearm and ammunition manufacturers, giving them vast sums of money with which to 'persuade' congress to do their bidding.
And the 5 million members, that amounts to 6-7% of gun owners, really not a BFD Bob.
The NRA has very little interest in what individual gun owners want; their sole purpose is to make sure that more guns and more ammo are sold this year than last.
I lived in Switzerland for years, and all my friends had assault riffles in their homes. Heck, most everyone ages between 18-35 in Switzerland have military issued assault riffles in their home. Yet they dont have a mass shooting problem.
Why is that?
European countries have very strict gun laws. Sweden, which most here view as a bastion of liberalism has the 2nd highest gun ownership rate in the western world (although still only like 1/3 of the US rate). Yet their gun homicide rate is .11 compared to our 3.85.
I lived in Switzerland for years, and all my friends had assault riffles in their homes. Heck, most everyone ages between 18-35 in Switzerland have military issued assault riffles in their home. Yet they dont have a mass shooting problem.
Why is that?
Americans have a horrible mental health system, which is a disgrace in and of itself. Americans want low taxes and no services, and they pay the price.
NRA gets their money from firearm and ammunition manufacturers, giving them vast sums of money with which to 'persuade' congress to do their bidding.
And the 5 million members, that amounts to 6-7% of gun owners, really not a BFD Bob.
The NRA has very little interest in what individual gun owners want; their sole purpose is to make sure that more guns and more ammo are sold this year than last.
The NRA is really nothing but a MARKETING group. They should be called marketers, and not lobbyists.
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.
