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.
It shows that in the United States, shootings that involved a semiautomatic rifle resulted in nearly twice as many deaths compared with shootings carried out with only regular handguns, shotguns or rifles. I don't see mention of semiautomatic handguns in the study.
Thoughts? Should semi-automatic firearms be regulated as tightly as fully automatic firearms?
So what. With Kavanaugh joining the Court, gun rights are going to be safe for generations. Get over it. Guns are tools. They only kill when loaded, aimed, and fired by a person. Stop focusing on the tools and focus on the underlying mental health issues that cause someone to try to commit mass murder.
We can start by implementing tighter regulations on who acquires guns and how they acquire them. A mandatory mental health evaluation before purchase of a firearm would be a start. Doing nothing is not an option.
Universal background check.
Willing to compromise?
I pass your universal background check. I get universal access to whatever weapon I want. Machine guns, the works. No limits no arbitrary bans.
I pass your screening, I walk right in and scoop up newly manufactured MG42, M60s, BARs, 1919s, 249s and 240s. PKM. MP5. G3. FALs. Every weapon I want. Belt feds magazine feds.
I passed your background test. You can't tell me what weapons I can have access to.
It's my money. I'll spend it however I want. If I want to convert cash into spent links and brass, you can't tell me no. I passed your universal background check.
Same with everyone else. Universal background check for the dissolve of the NFA and Hughes amendment. No registry. No limits.
Yeah. Universal background check. Doesn't solely apply to the right to keep and bear arms. Let's go down the list of every other civil right and civil liberty there is.
Want to own a firearm, vote, protest, assemble, operate in the press, legal representation/lawyer, you must pass a universal background check.
How about it? You might scoop Alex Jones up. But I see many a TV show host/hostess, and MSM pundits being put on the funny farm with the unhinged that seek to carry out heinous murderous acts.
How about it Ken? Apply your universal background check and rewrite the constitution. We can name it in honor of you. The KenFresno act of 2019. In order to exercise any right pass a criminal and mental background check. Can't pass it? Funny farm for you.
We can start by implementing tighter regulations on who acquires guns and how they acquire them. A mandatory mental health evaluation before purchase of a firearm would be a start. Doing nothing is not an option.
You talk as if there is some kind of problem. Firearm deaths are a statical anomaly. I will settle for your idea when the same rules are applied to bring able to vote.
You talk as if there is some kind of problem. Firearm deaths are a statical anomaly. I will settle for your idea when the same rules are applied to bring able to vote.
Having the highest homicide rate in the developed world along with the most and deadliest spree shootings doesn't constitute a problem? If these aren't problems, then by all means, what is?
LOL we aren't looking to ban cars. We aren't looking to ban knives.
...
What kinds of lame response was this???
1. Nobody accused *you* of wanting to ban cars or knives. The fact that you aren't looking to do so, in fact, supports *my* claim: If nobody is trying to ban knives (or chairs, or cars, or ...), then you don't need a *gun* as a weapon. Plenty of other things will suffice.
2. Everything you just accused me of regarding logic and emotion, I can accuse *you* of. *You* are afraid your rights will be restricted - that is a position based on emotion, not logic. *You* are afraid a method of defending yourself will be restricted - that is an emotional position, not a logical one. It's all about fear - an emotion - on your part. You think you have the moral high ground, but you don't.
3. I don't know where you pulled rifles from. Out of thin air, it appears. Nobody's asking hunters to turn in their rifles. We were talking about the validity of owning firearms as a means of protecting ones self, and of using them as a means to fight back against a tyrannical government. What does that have to do, specifically, with rifles? Nothing.
Quote:
As far as your 1989 east Europe tyranny, it wasn't the citizens that did it on their own LOL was Reagan that got the commies to surrender and dissolve their Soviet Union and satellite nations.
But do go on and show where the citizens got it done. LOL
It would appear you know absolutely nothing about 1989. Nobody "surrendered" to Reagan, Reagan (or Bush) did not invade anybody and overthrow any government, and in fact, each and every communist government was perfectly intact at the time of the revolutions. And yet, each and every one of those governments fell.
Last edited by James Bond 007; 09-13-2018 at 01:50 PM..
We can start by implementing tighter regulations on who acquires guns and how they acquire them. A mandatory mental health evaluation before purchase of a firearm would be a start. Doing nothing is not an option.
Minus just a few, most of the mass shooters of the last 20 years would have passed both universal background checks and mental health screenings.
Minus just a few, most of the mass shooters of the last 20 years would have passed both universal background checks and mental health screenings.
Next idea?
Just because a law might not capture every potential criminal does not mean the law should not be implemented. A law is a starting point. Speed limits don't capture every speeder (in fact, they only capture a small % of them), so does that mean we shouldn't bother with speed limits? Hardly.
Just because a law might not capture every potential criminal does not mean the law should not be implemented. A law is a starting point. Speed limits don't capture every speeder (in fact, they only capture a small % of them), so does that mean we shouldn't bother with speed limits? Hardly.
So basically nothing will change but we can claim we "Did something" even if that something can't be measured. Great idea. Let's attach a bunch of taxes and fees to it to so we can say we did something more. I already have to jump through hoops and pay ridiculous fees just to obtain something for home protection. In many cases the stupid fees can equal the price of the firearm.
So basically nothing will change but we can claim we "Did something" even if that something can't be measured. Great idea. Let's attach a bunch of taxes and fees to it to so we can say we did something more.
Are you telling us speed limits are a waste of time? How about murder laws? Do we get rid of laws against murder just because they don't prevent everyone from murdering?
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.
Universal background check. 
