Mass stabbing in Florida - it's time to implement knife control.

[iceberg]

Then, define it so it doesn't impact other guns. I'm trying to stick to the issue you keep making people the issue.

Bullshit...you're trying to pretend there is some confusion on this issue...so that nothing gets done

if there's no confusion then you should be able to accurately define JUST an assault rifle's characteristics that you are out to ban. both you and hutch seem to whine emotional rants and FOR THE CHILDREN but have yet to give exactly what you're after; preferring the liberal broad based brush to wipe it all out cause you don't like it.

so, if there is no confusion, then define "assault rifle" so it just pertains the the AR15.

lets hear it.

 

[Lesh]

Then, define it so it doesn't impact other guns. I'm trying to stick to the issue you keep making people the issue.

Bullshit...you're trying to pretend there is some confusion on this issue...so that nothing gets done

if there's no confusion then you should be able to accurately define JUST an assault rifle's characteristics that you are out to ban. both you and hutch seem to whine emotional rants and FOR THE CHILDREN but have yet to give exactly what you're after; preferring the liberal broad based brush to wipe it all out cause you don't like it.

so, if there is no confusion, then define "assault rifle" so it just pertains the the AR15.

lets hear it.

If you want to play games let's simplify it and ban all semi-auto magazine fed long guns.

There. Simple

 

[Lesh]

Gun laws are like tits on a boar and even more useless. I checked out Armslist.com for my area, did some shopping, and had the guy deliver me a 45 auto by 1pm. No paperwork, no nuffin...

And that is EXACTLY the problem

 

[iceberg]

Then, define it so it doesn't impact other guns. I'm trying to stick to the issue you keep making people the issue.

Bullshit...you're trying to pretend there is some confusion on this issue...so that nothing gets done

if there's no confusion then you should be able to accurately define JUST an assault rifle's characteristics that you are out to ban. both you and hutch seem to whine emotional rants and FOR THE CHILDREN but have yet to give exactly what you're after; preferring the liberal broad based brush to wipe it all out cause you don't like it.

so, if there is no confusion, then define "assault rifle" so it just pertains the the AR15.

lets hear it.

If you want to play games let's simplify it and ban all semi-auto magazine fed long guns.

There. Simple

like i said - you can't do it.

now, kindly and within topic here, FUCK OFF.

 

[2aguy]

All pointy or sharp tools and knives should require government oversight immediately.

Tallahassee, Florida, police investigate 'massive stabbing' at business
Tallahassee, Florida, police investigate 'massive stabbing' at business

Horse$hit... with a knife, it was 5... with an AR-15, it would have been 50... that's a big difference.

BTW... did anybody end-up actually dying as a result of this so-called 'massive' knife attack?

Hey....dumb ass....

dead from mass public shootings in 2018.... 93.

Dead from knives in 2017... 1,591.

Can you tell which weapon is used to kill more people every single year....you dumb ass...

 

[2aguy]

This makes the point I've been making very clear. These people won't be stopped by taking away guns. They will find ways to kill people. Knives, cars, bombs etc. It's not the weapon. It's PERSON!

Yep. But it's a matter of scale. The fewer assault rifles, the fewer innocent little schoolkids with their brains splattered on the classroom floor.

The life of a single child is worth all the phukking assault rifles in private hands across the entire country... with change left over.

Moron....total dead from all gun types in mass public shootings in 2018.... 93.

Schools are not in danger you dumb ass.....

Knives kill over 1,500 every single year......

Cars kill more kids every single year.....even when you include all gun murder...you dumb ass...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017, gun murder...319

<1...12
1-4...44
5-9...78
10-14...185

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017.... Kids (<1 - 14)

Guns....62

Cars...1,208

2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261


Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

 

[2aguy]

I'm not out to win points dumass. I'm out to ridicule you worthless leftist traitor wannabe's.

What a crock. Of course political points were your motive...and you failed.

Five people injured...no one died. Imagine what the carnage would have been had the creep used an assault rifle

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed. You failed to see the point of the op, which is ever-increasing governmental control over a naive populace.

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed

Yes. Guns are a problem.

Then feel free to try and change the 2nd. But you are not free to ignore it

I'm not "ignoring" anything. You haven't seen me call for it's abololition. A ban on a particular class of firearms does not remove an individual's right to "keep and bear".
We have a problem with our cultural thinking on guns. I think you know that.

Yes...it does.......as the Supreme Court has already ruled....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

All pointy or sharp tools and knives should require government oversight immediately.

Tallahassee, Florida, police investigate 'massive stabbing' at business
Tallahassee, Florida, police investigate 'massive stabbing' at business

So far no dead. Yeah a lot less deadly than our shootings.

Yes...if they really wanted to kill a lot of people they could have used a rental truck...in Nice, France a muslim used a rental truck to murder 86 people and injure 435....more than any of our mass public shootings....so trucks are obviously deadlier than guns and need to be banned.

Trucks and knives are NOT built solely to kill or wound people.

Guns are.

Which shows they are even more dangerous than rifles...since they kill more people every single year than all rifle types do....knives and cars kill more people no matter how you try to play games with the facts.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What a crock. Of course political points were your motive...and you failed.

Five people injured...no one died. Imagine what the carnage would have been had the creep used an assault rifle

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed. You failed to see the point of the op, which is ever-increasing governmental control over a naive populace.

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed

Yes. Guns are a problem.

Then feel free to try and change the 2nd. But you are not free to ignore it

I'm not "ignoring" anything. You haven't seen me call for it's abololition. A ban on a particular class of firearms does not remove an individual's right to "keep and bear".
We have a problem with our cultural thinking on guns. I think you know that.

Yes...it does.......as the Supreme Court has already ruled....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

SCOTUS has not ruled at all on this matter.
It's been done before.
There are plenty of restrictions already in place. The is nothing in the 2nd that stipulates what "arms" must be.

 

[2aguy]

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed. You failed to see the point of the op, which is ever-increasing governmental control over a naive populace.

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed

Yes. Guns are a problem.

Then feel free to try and change the 2nd. But you are not free to ignore it

I'm not "ignoring" anything. You haven't seen me call for it's abololition. A ban on a particular class of firearms does not remove an individual's right to "keep and bear".
We have a problem with our cultural thinking on guns. I think you know that.

Yes...it does.......as the Supreme Court has already ruled....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

SCOTUS has not ruled at all on this matter.
It's been done before.
There are plenty of restrictions already in place. The is nothing in the 2nd that stipulates what "arms" must be.

I just gave you one decision, and one clarification on the topic by the guy who authored the opinion in Heller, you dope.......

To repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

-----

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

----

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[2aguy]

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed. You failed to see the point of the op, which is ever-increasing governmental control over a naive populace.

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed

Yes. Guns are a problem.

Then feel free to try and change the 2nd. But you are not free to ignore it

I'm not "ignoring" anything. You haven't seen me call for it's abololition. A ban on a particular class of firearms does not remove an individual's right to "keep and bear".
We have a problem with our cultural thinking on guns. I think you know that.

Yes...it does.......as the Supreme Court has already ruled....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

SCOTUS has not ruled at all on this matter.
It's been done before.
There are plenty of restrictions already in place. The is nothing in the 2nd that stipulates what "arms" must be.

And after Heller......

Caetano v Massachusetts, that ends the "Assault weapons are dangerous," and military weapons aren't protected....if the Decision in Miller wasn't enough for you........the B.S. that you asshats push....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes. Guns are a problem.

Then feel free to try and change the 2nd. But you are not free to ignore it

I'm not "ignoring" anything. You haven't seen me call for it's abololition. A ban on a particular class of firearms does not remove an individual's right to "keep and bear".
We have a problem with our cultural thinking on guns. I think you know that.

Yes...it does.......as the Supreme Court has already ruled....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

SCOTUS has not ruled at all on this matter.
It's been done before.
There are plenty of restrictions already in place. The is nothing in the 2nd that stipulates what "arms" must be.

I just gave you one decision, and one clarification on the topic by the guy who authored the opinion in Heller, you dope.......

To repeat...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

-----

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

----

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller has not a thing to do with this, dope.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Yes. Guns are a problem.

What about the people who pull the trigger?

Take the gun away and life is great again?

Can you really be that stupid?

Here's a prediction......All the Red Flag Laws states are implementing ?
What's going to happen is the exact same thing that happened in UK...those people will turn to knives, vehicles, explosives and acids etc.

As reasonable people have always said, you're not fixing the root of the problem, only putting a band aid on cancer.

So when the dust settles, you'll have an unarmed society fully subject to government abuse and no way to defend against it.....and have exchanged 100 or so gun related deaths a year for100 or so vehiclular homicides and knife stabbings a year.

But I also predict it won't be an even swap. The amount of crime will dramatically increase.

I'm totally convinced that the ONLY agenda is disarming Americans. They don't give a flying shit about saving lives. Be warned, if you allow this, it's you and your family that will suffer.
It's how tyranny works.

 

[Paulie]

Totally missed the point. Time to change your username bro.

You seem to have missed my point. You prefer killers have the most dangerous weapons?

No but I do prefer to have access to the same dangerous weapons as killers. Why should I, a law abiding gun owner, only be allowed to own certain guns while criminals will acquire them without regard to that law? This is why you people are insane

Planning a mass shooting are you? How many shootouts with bad guys you been in?

This is why you people are insane. Why do I have to be planning a shooting or have had a shootout with a bad guy to want to be able to be equal to criminals? What is so foreign about the concept of preparedness with you people? I mean Jesus Christ I hope I NEVER have to use my firearms to protect myself in a situation but it’s nice to know they’re there if I ever do need them.

You're missing the point. You feel the need to have commensurate firepower to "criminals". IOW, you need a gun because the other guy has one. This is the problem with America's gun culture. The common denominator and the driver of the arms escalation in our society is the availability of the guns themselves.

What a waste of your time. That’s only one of the many reasons for the right to bear arms. But I’m sure you’ll have a great explanation as to why prohibition of firearms would be any more successful than prohibition of drugs or alcohol. It wouldn’t. Not a single thing the government has ever tried to prohibit has been a success, the end result is always a dangerous black market that doesn’t give a single fuck about laws.

 

[Leo123]

Wouldn't it be ironic if some armed criminal broke into Brainless's house in the middle of the night and started shooting up his family. All Brainless could do is watch, because he's not armed. And right before Brainless gets shot, he exclaims - "But I thought guns were illegal!"

Won’t happen. That mostly happens to people involved in criminal activity, I’m not.

Yeah, ok numbskull. You go ahead and take that chance with your family. No sweat off my nose. As for me, I have my family protected.
As a member of our neighborhood watch, I got a phone call from a neighbor at two in the morning that a white pickup was slowly driving through our neighborhood. So I go down to our garage, turn on the lights, sit in my chair, and begin cleaning my AR-15 and my Mossberg 590. The white truck slowly approaches my house, sees me cleaning my weapons, and screeches out of there - never to be seen again. Try that with a slingshot.

Oh course that happened. Sounds like you could have done that with realistic toy gun. No shooting needed eh?

Realistic toy guns are already banned.

 

[rjs330]

This makes the point I've been making very clear. These people won't be stopped by taking away guns. They will find ways to kill people. Knives, cars, bombs etc. It's not the weapon. It's PERSON!

Yep. But it's a matter of scale. The fewer assault rifles, the fewer innocent little schoolkids with their brains splattered on the classroom floor.

The life of a single child is worth all the phukking assault rifles in private hands across the entire country... with change left over.

What about regular rifles. Should they be outlawed too? Because I guarantee that if assault rifles are gun these deranged people will use a regular rifle.

 

[rjs330]

I'm not out to win points dumass. I'm out to ridicule you worthless leftist traitor wannabe's.

What a crock. Of course political points were your motive...and you failed.

Five people injured...no one died. Imagine what the carnage would have been had the creep used an assault rifle

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed. You failed to see the point of the op, which is ever-increasing governmental control over a naive populace.

There is carnage every day with guns, pistols, rifles. Which is exactly why I am armed

Yes. Guns are a problem.

Then feel free to try and change the 2nd. But you are not free to ignore it

I'm not "ignoring" anything. You haven't seen me call for it's abololition. A ban on a particular class of firearms does not remove an individual's right to "keep and bear".
We have a problem with our cultural thinking on guns. I think you know that.

And when the gunmen start killing kids with a different class of firearms will you call for their ban as well?

 

[rjs330]

Then, define it so it doesn't impact other guns. I'm trying to stick to the issue you keep making people the issue.

Bullshit...you're trying to pretend there is some confusion on this issue...so that nothing gets done

if there's no confusion then you should be able to accurately define JUST an assault rifle's characteristics that you are out to ban. both you and hutch seem to whine emotional rants and FOR THE CHILDREN but have yet to give exactly what you're after; preferring the liberal broad based brush to wipe it all out cause you don't like it.

so, if there is no confusion, then define "assault rifle" so it just pertains the the AR15.

lets hear it.

If you want to play games let's simplify it and ban all semi-auto magazine fed long guns.

There. Simple

I'm not sure of you overall stance on guns so here is my response. Let's ban all semi-autos. Then these nuts use bolt rifles and or revolvers and kill children with them. Maybe not as many, but still enough. Would you call for a ban on those guns?

 

[rjs330]

This makes the point I've been making very clear. These people won't be stopped by taking away guns. They will find ways to kill people. Knives, cars, bombs etc. It's not the weapon. It's PERSON!

Yep. But it's a matter of scale. The fewer assault rifles, the fewer innocent little schoolkids with their brains splattered on the classroom floor.

The life of a single child is worth all the phukking assault rifles in private hands across the entire country... with change left over.

Moron....total dead from all gun types in mass public shootings in 2018.... 93.

Schools are not in danger you dumb ass.....

Knives kill over 1,500 every single year......

Cars kill more kids every single year.....even when you include all gun murder...you dumb ass...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017, gun murder...319

<1...12
1-4...44
5-9...78
10-14...185

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017.... Kids (<1 - 14)

Guns....62

Cars...1,208

2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261


Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

I'm not sure I like the knives vs guns argument without an apples to apples comparison. Guns were used to kill 93 people in mass shootings. How many people were killed by knives in mass stabbings? Not near as many.

Same goes for cars. How many people are killed ON PURPOSE in mass attacks by cars each year? Probably not as many as guns.

My big thing is that there will be NO END to gun control. You may slow down the mass deaths by banning the AR, but soon the nut jobs will be using the "plain ole hunting rifle" or shotguns to commit mass murder. Then the lefties will call for their ban right?

Let's face it, they will ultimately be calling for banning ALL firearms OR regulating it to the point where it will be nearly impossible to obtain a firearm.

 

[Leo123]

This makes the point I've been making very clear. These people won't be stopped by taking away guns. They will find ways to kill people. Knives, cars, bombs etc. It's not the weapon. It's PERSON!

Yep. But it's a matter of scale. The fewer assault rifles, the fewer innocent little schoolkids with their brains splattered on the classroom floor.

The life of a single child is worth all the phukking assault rifles in private hands across the entire country... with change left over.

Moron....total dead from all gun types in mass public shootings in 2018.... 93.

Schools are not in danger you dumb ass.....

Knives kill over 1,500 every single year......

Cars kill more kids every single year.....even when you include all gun murder...you dumb ass...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017, gun murder...319

<1...12
1-4...44
5-9...78
10-14...185

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017.... Kids (<1 - 14)

Guns....62

Cars...1,208

2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261


Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

I'm not sure I like the knives vs guns argument without an apples to apples comparison. Guns were used to kill 93 people in mass shootings. How many people were killed by knives in mass stabbings? Not near as many.

Same goes for cars. How many people are killed ON PURPOSE in mass attacks by cars each year? Probably not as many as guns.

My big thing is that there will be NO END to gun control. You may slow down the mass deaths by banning the AR, but soon the nut jobs will be using the "plain ole hunting rifle" or shotguns to commit mass murder. Then the lefties will call for their ban right?

Let's face it, they will ultimately be calling for banning ALL firearms OR regulating it to the point where it will be nearly impossible to obtain a firearm.

I basically agree and..

If cars are killing more people by accident (not on purpose) than guns are killing people by accident, it would seem cars are much more dangerous.