Why don't we ban alcoholic beverages instead of making it illegal to drive drunk?

[BluesLegend]

How many are killed by slippery bathtubs? National background check to use your shower, lets make sure clumsy people are not putting themselves at risk.

 

[bendog]

Whatever happended to drive through bars? GD fascists telling others what to do.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Odd fact. Federal regulations have led to a huge reduction in traffic fatalities over the past three decades.

So fucking oppressive!

And the murder rate is at it's lowest level in 3 decades

Yep. And?

You making the argument that this is because we have more guns? That's retarded, you know.

 

[Nosmo King]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

 

[Nosmo King]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

While no law would have prevented this particular attack

Assumes facts not in evidence

Would someone go to a lot of trouble if he didn't have the firepower provided by large magazines and bump stocks?

It appears to me like Paddock was going for a Guinness record.

 

[Nosmo King]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

While no law would have prevented this particular attack

Assumes facts not in evidence

Would someone go to a lot of trouble if he didn't have the firepower provided by large magazines and bump stocks?

It appears to me like Paddock was going for a Guinness record.

I went on to say that there may be laws that could have limited the body count in this particular attack.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Odd fact. Federal regulations have led to a huge reduction in traffic fatalities over the past three decades.

So fucking oppressive!

And the murder rate is at it's lowest level in 3 decades

Yep. And?

You making the argument that this is because we have more guns? That's retarded, you know.

No I'm saying that guns don't increase the murder rate just like gun laws don't decrease the murder rate

So why all the fuss about guns?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

Bump stocks were approved during his administration. One can "blame" him or not.....Lots of people love the blame game.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on gun control. The current laws seemingly are doing fine with the 300+ million guns in America.

I've seen many advocate for the government confiscation of all guns. People like Matt Damon, who makes millions of dollars from glorifying gun violence has said that all guns should be banned.

if that is accomplished, only criminals and the government will have guns...not law abiding citizens. I simply disagree with that. it's how Hitler was able to commit genocide.

 

[bendog]

How many are killed by slippery bathtubs? National background check to use your shower, lets make sure clumsy people are not putting themselves at risk.

There should be no regulations as to bathtub construction. It's our freedoms at steak here.

 

[bendog]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

Bump stocks were approved during his administration. One can "blame" him or not.....Lots of people love the blame game.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on gun control. The current laws seemingly are doing fine with the 300+ million guns in America.

I've seen many advocate for the government confiscation of all guns. People like Matt Damon, who makes millions of dollars from glorifying gun violence has said that all guns should be banned.

if that is accomplished, only criminals and the government will have guns...not law abiding citizens. I simply disagree with that. it's how Hitler was able to commit genocide.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say LV or Sandy Hook demonstrated "current laws are doing fine."

Now what could/should be changed is a point that could be debated.

 

[Nosmo King]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

Bump stocks were approved during his administration. One can "blame" him or not.....Lots of people love the blame game.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on gun control. The current laws seemingly are doing fine with the 300+ million guns in America.

I've seen many advocate for the government confiscation of all guns. People like Matt Damon, who makes millions of dollars from glorifying gun violence has said that all guns should be banned.

if that is accomplished, only criminals and the government will have guns...not law abiding citizens. I simply disagree with that. it's how Hitler was able to commit genocide.

Of course,banning all guns is neither practical nor constitutional. However banning certain types of guns based on a combination of their lethality and practical use could be what is termed a 'common sense solution'.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

Bump stocks were approved during his administration. One can "blame" him or not.....Lots of people love the blame game.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on gun control. The current laws seemingly are doing fine with the 300+ million guns in America.

I've seen many advocate for the government confiscation of all guns. People like Matt Damon, who makes millions of dollars from glorifying gun violence has said that all guns should be banned.

if that is accomplished, only criminals and the government will have guns...not law abiding citizens. I simply disagree with that. it's how Hitler was able to commit genocide.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say LV or Sandy Hook demonstrated "current laws are doing fine."

Now what could/should be changed is a point that could be debated.

I guess I am insane.

Sandy hook was a mental heath issue and a mother who handled her mentally ill child the exact wrong way.

Again, if there are no laws being proposed that would prevent these types of shootings, it's fucking stupid as shit to propose legislation that has nothing to do with the incidents.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say that the laws being proposed would have prevented those 2 incidents.

Like I already said, my 13 year old son can't go into a sporting goods store and buy a fully automatic M-60 machine gun.....because we have GUN LAWS.

 

[TheDude]

More than twice as many Americans are killed by drugs than guns. Therefore we must eliminate the drugs.

 

[bendog]

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

Bump stocks were approved during his administration. One can "blame" him or not.....Lots of people love the blame game.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on gun control. The current laws seemingly are doing fine with the 300+ million guns in America.

I've seen many advocate for the government confiscation of all guns. People like Matt Damon, who makes millions of dollars from glorifying gun violence has said that all guns should be banned.

if that is accomplished, only criminals and the government will have guns...not law abiding citizens. I simply disagree with that. it's how Hitler was able to commit genocide.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say LV or Sandy Hook demonstrated "current laws are doing fine."

Now what could/should be changed is a point that could be debated.

I guess I am insane.

Sandy hook was a mental heath issue and a mother who handled her mentally ill child the exact wrong way.

Again, if there are no laws being proposed that would prevent these types of shootings, it's fucking stupid as shit to propose legislation that has nothing to do with the incidents.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say that the laws being proposed would have prevented those 2 incidents.

Like I already said, my 13 year old son can't go into a sporting goods store and buy a fully automatic M-60 machine gun.....because we have GUN LAWS.

You are irrational to call these instances purely mental health issues.

 

[Nosmo King]

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

Bump stocks were approved during his administration. One can "blame" him or not.....Lots of people love the blame game.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on gun control. The current laws seemingly are doing fine with the 300+ million guns in America.

I've seen many advocate for the government confiscation of all guns. People like Matt Damon, who makes millions of dollars from glorifying gun violence has said that all guns should be banned.

if that is accomplished, only criminals and the government will have guns...not law abiding citizens. I simply disagree with that. it's how Hitler was able to commit genocide.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say LV or Sandy Hook demonstrated "current laws are doing fine."

Now what could/should be changed is a point that could be debated.

I guess I am insane.

Sandy hook was a mental heath issue and a mother who handled her mentally ill child the exact wrong way.

Again, if there are no laws being proposed that would prevent these types of shootings, it's fucking stupid as shit to propose legislation that has nothing to do with the incidents.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say that the laws being proposed would have prevented those 2 incidents.

Like I already said, my 13 year old son can't go into a sporting goods store and buy a fully automatic M-60 machine gun.....because we have GUN LAWS.

You are irrational to call these instances purely mental health issues.

Correct. The mentally frazzled would find some means of turning their disturbances into violent actions. But without the means of rapid firing guns, their violent actions could be less impactful in terms of body counts.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Automatic weapons are illegal.

Just as is murder.

How do we make Automatic weapons and murder MORE illegal? Specifically?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Drunk driving kills roughly 30 people EVERY SINGLE DAY IN AMERICA.

Alcohol is legal to consume with certain age and location limitations.

Drunk Driving is illegal....yet it happens...and people die.

We should ban all alcohol to make sure we never have any more drunk driving fatalities.

It's the only way to be sure and save 10,000 lives per year in America.

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

Bump stocks were approved during his administration. One can "blame" him or not.....Lots of people love the blame game.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on gun control. The current laws seemingly are doing fine with the 300+ million guns in America.

I've seen many advocate for the government confiscation of all guns. People like Matt Damon, who makes millions of dollars from glorifying gun violence has said that all guns should be banned.

if that is accomplished, only criminals and the government will have guns...not law abiding citizens. I simply disagree with that. it's how Hitler was able to commit genocide.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say LV or Sandy Hook demonstrated "current laws are doing fine."

Now what could/should be changed is a point that could be debated.

Do tell us, what law is gonna prevent a nut from being nuts? You think a maniac hellbent on killing people is going to be deterred by something being illegal?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Like most gun lovers you're looking at laws as a perfect solution while knowing perfection does not exist. Your paradigm of drunk driving is, of course, a specious argument.

By extension, you seem to say that as laws are not a panacea, no laws should be enacted. But do you deny that the incidence of,drunk driving laws have not been effective?

Could that be said of gun laws?

I never claimed there should be no gun laws. Can you please cite the specific quote so we can start with some common ground?

I'm claiming guns should not be BANNED as so many seemingly want to do.

Bump stocks were approved by the ATF DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

We already have MANY gun laws. My 13 year old son can't go to CABELAS and buy a fully automatic M-60, so there are laws.

The need to just "DO SOMETHING" even if it would not have prevented THIS ATTACK is what concerns me.

While no law would have prevented this particular attack, there are some steps that could have made this particular attack less deadly and vast in its circumstance.

Gun technology has developed weapons providing a greater rate of fire. Is there a need among the citizens for such a deadly rate of fire? Could the technology have been responsibly checked?. Yes.

And there is something that could be done.

If you seek to blame President Obama for bump stocks, go ahead. That blame only serves to provide cheap political points and, as President Obama is no longer in office, what possible difference could that make today?

Bump stocks were approved during his administration. One can "blame" him or not.....Lots of people love the blame game.

We seem to fundamentally disagree on gun control. The current laws seemingly are doing fine with the 300+ million guns in America.

I've seen many advocate for the government confiscation of all guns. People like Matt Damon, who makes millions of dollars from glorifying gun violence has said that all guns should be banned.

if that is accomplished, only criminals and the government will have guns...not law abiding citizens. I simply disagree with that. it's how Hitler was able to commit genocide.

I don't think any marginally sane person can say LV or Sandy Hook demonstrated "current laws are doing fine."

Now what could/should be changed is a point that could be debated.

Do tell us, what law is gonna prevent a nut from being nuts? You think a maniac hellbent on killing people is going to be deterred by something being illegal?

He had 50 pounds of explosives in his car and was going to blow up giant fuel tanks next to the venue.

the explosives were illegal to have in his possession, yet he had them.