Honest debate: Libs...would the "AR15-pistol" w 10 Rd mag still be an "Assault Weapon"

[Slade3200]

[
They should all be illegal. There is no point to put more of those out on the street

You cannot present an argument for making these guns illegal that is not based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

It's pretty simple actually, I have every right to an opinion that a weapon is to dangerous and possesses to much destructive capability for me to think it is safe for legal sale in my country. You are entitled to the opposite opinion. It should be discussed and voted on. Majority rules. What's the problem?

 

[Slade3200]

I'm not answering g your questions...

.... because you know you have no honest answer that allows you to keep your position intact.
I understand.
Since you're an honest, thoughtful guy, maybe you ought to reconsider re-examining your position.

I'm constantly examining my position, I was against banning any guns and was open to high capacity mag bans before this discussion. Now I'm leaning more on the side of banning. Weapons like the ones you posted shooting 10 rounds a second are completely rediculous and unnecessary.

As you have been shown any number of times in any number of ways, banning these guns does not limit access to them.
Similarly, unless you forcibly confiscate those already in circulation, banning 20- and 30-rd magazines does not limit access to them.
Thus, there's no argument for a ban on said items that does not stem from a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Wrong you have shown that banning or regulating weapons does not ELIMINATE access to them. It absolutely limits access, how can you claim it doesn't? Somebody like Mr Orlando went to a gun store to purchase his arms and ammo to shoot up that club. He bought what was available in their inventory. He was limited to what was available. He was limited to what was available. He was limited to what was available. Did I studder?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
They should all be illegal. There is no point to put more of those out on the street

You cannot present an argument for making these guns illegal that is not based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

It's pretty simple actually, I have every right to an opinion that a weapon is to dangerous and possesses to much destructive capability for me to think it is safe for legal sale in my country.

And thus, a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong you have shown that banning or regulating weapons does not ELIMINATE access to them. It absolutely limits access....

Incorrect.
As I proved, the ban in question did not limit access to the weapons in question, or the magazines, in any way, as each of these were every bit as available during the ban as they were before, and after.
Did you not understand the point made by the illustration of the banned/not banned rifles?

In case you missed it:



How did the ban limit access to "weapons that cause quick and massive damage"?
Please be sure to answer this question.

 

[Slade3200]

[
They should all be illegal. There is no point to put more of those out on the street

You cannot present an argument for making these guns illegal that is not based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

It's pretty simple actually, I have every right to an opinion that a weapon is to dangerous and possesses to much destructive capability for me to think it is safe for legal sale in my country.

And thus, a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty. Thank you for proving my point.

So you describe my OPINION as "a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty" and i'm the dishonest one here??

Look in the mirror man, i've made my case, i've used examples, i've shown comparisons... you don't want to hear it. You regurgitate my points in a completely distorted way. You're mind is set and your ears are closed.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

Well we saw what happened inside a gun free zone where once again, a criminal bent on destruction & murder opened up on law abiding innocent civilians who had no means to defend themselves. To answer your question, chances are the body count would be low & here's why. If law abiding people had no restrictions on them as far as weapons purchases were concerned, most criminals would do a risk/reward analysis & probably realize it wouldn't be worth it. They wouldn't know who was carrying & who was wasn't. And those who open carry would be visible. Think a thug is going to start something with that individual?

I'll even offer you a real life example. I go to the gun range every now & then. Do you want to know how many mass shootings occur at those places? Zero. Why? Everyone is armed to the teeth, so who would be stupid enough to try it. It's a simple act of nature. There are threats in the world, every living organism on the planet has some sort of defense to reasonably try to defend itself. Nations build vast arsenals of military hardware, animals have natural forms of defense from teeth & claws to venom. But only liberals have it worked out in their heads that despite all these examples, somehow society will be safe if we just punished the gun owner for the act of a criminal.

Winner!

 

[Slade3200]

Wrong you have shown that banning or regulating weapons does not ELIMINATE access to them. It absolutely limits access....

Incorrect.
As I proved, the ban in question did not limit access to the weapons in question, or the magazines, in any way, as each of these were every bit as available during the ban as they were before, and after.
Did you not understand the point made by the illustration of the banned/not banned rifles?

In case you missed it:



How did the ban limit access to "weapons that cause quick and massive damage"?
Please be sure to answer this question.

If the ban didn't limit access to high ammo capacity and rapid fire weapons then it was a poorly written ban and should be rewritten with better language.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
They should all be illegal. There is no point to put more of those out on the street

You cannot present an argument for making these guns illegal that is not based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

It's pretty simple actually, I have every right to an opinion that a weapon is to dangerous and possesses to much destructive capability for me to think it is safe for legal sale in my country.

And thus, a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty. Thank you for proving my point.

So you describe my OPINION as "a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty"

Correct. Your opinion:
"Too dangerous" - an appeal to emotion.
"too much destructive capability" - an appeal to emotion

and i'm the dishonest one here??

I dont recall calling you dishonest. Cite, please.

So... care to make another attempt at an argument for banning the weapons in question, without making a fallacious appeal to emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the ban didn't limit access to high ammo capacity and rapid fire weapons then it was a poorly written ban and should be rewritten with better language.

I accept your concession of the point, that the ban indeed did not and will not limit access to the weapons and magazines in question.
Good to see you now believe.

 

[Slade3200]

If the ban didn't limit access to high ammo capacity and rapid fire weapons then it was a poorly written ban and should be rewritten with better language.

I accept your concession of the point, that the ban indeed did not and will not limit access to the weapons and magazines in question.
Good to see you now believe.

haha I get it now, I see guys like you all the time on this board, just looking to puff your feathers and "win" an argument. You get so obsessed with "winning" that you would debate anything until your opponent "concedes" I don't need that kind of validation, i'm fine with you thinking you've "won" if it means avoiding pointless circular debate.

I've made a simple point that speaks truth, makes sense, and is shared by many Americans. I understand the anti-gun control arguments but simply feel our country is safer with current gun control measures and will be safer with more and better measures taken. I own 14 handguns and riffles, I have no need for anything more powerful. I don't think anybody else does either without a special permit and/or reason. We don't need our gun stores legally putting more high powered weapons on the streets and we can enforce stricter punishments for people who use, carry or sell these types of weapons illegally.

Now go make some popcorn and lets see how this all plays out. I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall.

 

[2aguy]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

There is not one mass shooting that we have had that could not have accomplished the same death count with a shotgun or pistol....Virginia Tech...32 dead with a pistol....

The main cause of high death counts....gun free zones for the victims...and confined spaces with low lighting, and hampered ability to escape.....

 

[2aguy]

If the ban didn't limit access to high ammo capacity and rapid fire weapons then it was a poorly written ban and should be rewritten with better language.

I accept your concession of the point, that the ban indeed did not and will not limit access to the weapons and magazines in question.
Good to see you now believe.

haha I get it now, I see guys like you all the time on this board, just looking to puff your feathers and "win" an argument. You get so obsessed with "winning" that you would debate anything until your opponent "concedes" I don't need that kind of validation, i'm fine with you thinking you've "won" if it means avoiding pointless circular debate.

I've made a simple point that speaks truth, makes sense, and is shared by many Americans. I understand the anti-gun control arguments but simply feel our country is safer with current gun control measures and will be safer with more and better measures taken. I own 14 handguns and riffles, I have no need for anything more powerful. I don't think anybody else does either without a special permit and/or reason. We don't need our gun stores legally putting more high powered weapons on the streets and we can enforce stricter punishments for people who use, carry or sell these types of weapons illegally.

Now go make some popcorn and lets see how this all plays out. I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall.

How many people have AR-15s and rifles with detachable magazines murdered in mass shootings? Do you even know?

in 34 years rifles with detachable magazines have been used to kill 149 people.....34 years.

there are 8 million rifles with detachabale magazines in this country and about 5 million or more AR-15s in the country...


So please tell me that with 149 people dead, out of a country of over 320,000,000 people in a period of 49 years, that you can rationally say those rifles are a problem.....

Keep in mind...knives killed 1,567 people in 2014, and over 1,000 people every single year....

cars accidentally kill 33,000 people a year, and injure over 2,000,000 people a year....

How can you use your argument when any rational person sees those numbers and asks what exactly is the problem...?

 

[2aguy]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

Who said no gun control....and they didn't sell him body armor but he bought everything else he needed.........

again, he could have used a pistol or a shot gun and killed just as many people....target selection caused the high body count...that is why mass shooters with the highest counts have targeted children.....he targeted drunk and high people....

 

[2aguy]

Absolutely, it should remain legal.

There are a few weapons that may be even better for defending the security of one's State but the AR-15 is definitely in the top 10.

By defending the security of one's State are you referring to fighting our military should our government turn on us?

That's only one of the several possibilities where weapons can be Constitutionally used to defend a State and it's security but the short answer is yes.

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

Most of these are great ideas which I support and agree with. I dont like the idea of everybody carrying all the time. If that was law the kid in Vegas would have surely put a few into trump last week (another real life example for you)... don't you find it a little hypocritical that you can't carry at trump properties, trump rallies or even the republican national convention? What do you think the reasoning for that is?

The secret service does this......they have jurisdiction over securty wherever Trump is.....when Trump first appeared the NRA meetings years ago they permit concealed carry at their conventions....

Do you understand that as more Americans have actually carried guns, our gun murder rate and gun crime rate went down? Do you understand that that is a fact.....?

In the 1990s about 2 million people carried guns for self defense....in 2007, 4.7 million people...and in that time period the gun murder rate went down, not up. Do you acknowledge that fact? Between 2007 and 2013......12 million people were carrying guns...and the gun murder rate went down....do you acknowledge that fact?

in 2016, 13 million people now carry guns....and up to 2015 our gun murder rate went down........do you acknowledge that fact?

So you are simply wrong in your belief....

Normal people carrying guns does not increase the crime rate, the murder rate or the gun crime and murder rate......that is a fact..

 

[Slade3200]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

There is not one mass shooting that we have had that could not have accomplished the same death count with a shotgun or pistol....Virginia Tech...32 dead with a pistol....

The main cause of high death counts....gun free zones for the victims...and confined spaces with low lighting, and hampered ability to escape.....

Thats just fine, I don't think you are unjustified with your argument. I"m not even a big advocate of banning guns, I just support the debate and I do support some measures be taken. Personally, I see no need for anything more than a handgun or riffle to be legally sold in this country and don't know why we would want or need to put more of anything more powerful on the streets.

The thought of people carrying in public places does not give me comfort. Trump would likely have been killed in Vegas if that was allowed. The thought of the V Tech shooter using an Uzi over the Pistol with 50 rounds makes me believe the body count would have been higher so i'm glad he was limited with a smaller weapon and limited ammo that he got from the gun store.

I don't think my points are unconstitutional or unjustified just as yours are not. Both should be acknowledge, respected and discussed without the bloated political banter.

 

[Slade3200]

Is your point....

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

What if we just limited ammo capacity to 10 rounds...

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

and required a single trigger pull

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

Who said no gun control....and they didn't sell him body armor but he bought everything else he needed.........

again, he could have used a pistol or a shot gun and killed just as many people....target selection caused the high body count...that is why mass shooters with the highest counts have targeted children.....he targeted drunk and high people....

Many that i've interacted with on this board say no gun control, which is why i use the uzi reference. "It's not the gun, its the shooter". But the reality is the power of the weapons we sell do have an effect. If that store sold Uzi's and hand grenades common sense tells us there would likely have been more body's in Orlando.

 

[2aguy]

My point is abundantly clear and perfectly articulated by the pic I posted:
The 1994 AWB would not have stopped the Orlando shooting, and will not stop another, because it did nothing to to limit access to weapons that "cause quick and massive damage"
Why do you not believe this?

Do you plan to forcibly confiscate the tens of millions of existing 20- and 30-magazines?
No?
If not, then you do not limit access to 20- and 30-rd magazines; that being the case, your proposed limit is senseless.

Why are you under the fake impression that 'assault weapons' fire more than one round per trigger pull?

Slow down and please try and understand this because i've said it a dozen times and you still don't get it... Nobody is saying that regulating guns is going to prevent shootings from happening. The argument is that it will cause less damage during shootings if less powerful weapons are used. It is people who commit the shootings. Please tell me you understand that, I can't repeat it again.

and why is it that liberals can't understand that criminals will not obey the law & will still get their hands on weapons regardless? All a gun ban does is disarm law abiding citizens & make them more susceptible to attack from thugs. Worse, you libs continue to focus on the inanimate object which can't commit a crime by definition instead of the bastard pulling the trigger. This is why gun owners do not trust liberal intentions. Your desire is to make innocent citizens & their families sitting ducks & to circumvent a Constitutional right through whatever means necessary. Stop with this ridiculous concept that a gun ban will somehow make the world a safer place. It didn't work during the first Assault Weapon Ban, it didn't work during Prohibition & it won't work now....

Jesus man, if you really don't understand let me use a real life example. Take mr Orlando whacko... He was a legal gun owner. Went to a gun store to buy ammo and body armor... Luckily they didn't sell to him. So he went into the club with what he had. Now let's say we did things your way and there was no gun control. He walks in and sees and uzi sitting there... Buys it along with some hand grenades for the big finale. How do you that would of impacted the body count that night? Here's your test to see if you can be honest and logical...

Well we saw what happened inside a gun free zone where once again, a criminal bent on destruction & murder opened up on law abiding innocent civilians who had no means to defend themselves. To answer your question, chances are the body count would be low & here's why. If law abiding people had no restrictions on them as far as weapons purchases were concerned, most criminals would do a risk/reward analysis & probably realize it wouldn't be worth it. They wouldn't know who was carrying & who was wasn't. And those who open carry would be visible. Think a thug is going to start something with that individual?

I'll even offer you a real life example. I go to the gun range every now & then. Do you want to know how many mass shootings occur at those places? Zero. Why? Everyone is armed to the teeth, so who would be stupid enough to try it. It's a simple act of nature. There are threats in the world, every living organism on the planet has some sort of defense to reasonably try to defend itself. Nations build vast arsenals of military hardware, animals have natural forms of defense from teeth & claws to venom. But only liberals have it worked out in their heads that despite all these examples, somehow society will be safe if we just punished the gun owner for the act of a criminal.

I understand the argument but here is a flip side and I don't think that is a culture or society that most people would feel safe in. How many bar fights would turn into shootings if everybody was armed? You think everybody would be tame and well mannered because they sit in a state of fear that if they give somebody the wrong look they could be shot? No thank you, that's not an environment I want to live in nor I want my kids to live in.

And again reality shows you are wrong....Virginia passed a concealed carry law for bars...allowing people to carry in them....they can't drink and carry.......and the crime rate in Bars went down 5.9%......

The idea that normal, law abiding citizens are going to turn into cold hearted murderers at the wrong look is just make believe....and has no bearing in reality........

actual research shows that 90% of murderers, including gun murderers are violent people with long histories of violence and crime...and at least one felony conviction....they are not John Q. Citizen..they are hardened sociopaths....

of the 10% that are not felons....they are also people with long histories of violence or dangerous mental illnesses.....the abortion clinic shooter....had a long history of violent abuse of his wife and had been accused of rape..the woman didn't testify against him because she was afraid...

So you are wrong again....normal people are not shooting other people over fender benders or looks in a bar......

 

[2aguy]

I'm not answering g your questions...

.... because you know you have no honest answer that allows you to keep your position intact.
I understand.
Since you're an honest, thoughtful guy, maybe you ought to reconsider re-examining your position.

I'm constantly examining my position, I was against banning any guns and was open to high capacity mag bans before this discussion. Now I'm leaning more on the side of banning. Weapons like the ones you posted shooting 10 rounds a second are completely rediculous and unnecessary.

As you have been shown any number of times in any number of ways, banning these guns does not limit access to them.
Similarly, unless you forcibly confiscate those already in circulation, banning 20- and 30-rd magazines does not limit access to them.
Thus, there's no argument for a ban on said items that does not stem from a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Wrong you have shown that banning or regulating weapons does not ELIMINATE access to them. It absolutely limits access, how can you claim it doesn't? Somebody like Mr Orlando went to a gun store to purchase his arms and ammo to shoot up that club. He bought what was available in their inventory. He was limited to what was available. He was limited to what was available. He was limited to what was available. Did I studder?

And you are wrong again......France has completely banned rifles with detachable magazines...you can't buy them in gun stores...gun stores do not exist, you can't buy them in gun shows, gun shows do not exist.....AR-1s, Uzis, and fully automatic rifles are completely illegal and banned.........

And criminals in France and terrorists on French government, terrorist watch lists get them easily.....I have in the past linked to the stories by European law enforcement showing how easy they get them.......

You are just wrong, again.

 

[Slade3200]

By defending the security of one's State are you referring to fighting our military should our government turn on us?

That's only one of the several possibilities where weapons can be Constitutionally used to defend a State and it's security but the short answer is yes.

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

Most of these are great ideas which I support and agree with. I dont like the idea of everybody carrying all the time. If that was law the kid in Vegas would have surely put a few into trump last week (another real life example for you)... don't you find it a little hypocritical that you can't carry at trump properties, trump rallies or even the republican national convention? What do you think the reasoning for that is?

The secret service does this......they have jurisdiction over securty wherever Trump is.....when Trump first appeared the NRA meetings years ago they permit concealed carry at their conventions....

Do you understand that as more Americans have actually carried guns, our gun murder rate and gun crime rate went down? Do you understand that that is a fact.....?

In the 1990s about 2 million people carried guns for self defense....in 2007, 4.7 million people...and in that time period the gun murder rate went down, not up. Do you acknowledge that fact? Between 2007 and 2013......12 million people were carrying guns...and the gun murder rate went down....do you acknowledge that fact?

in 2016, 13 million people now carry guns....and up to 2015 our gun murder rate went down........do you acknowledge that fact?

So you are simply wrong in your belief....

Normal people carrying guns does not increase the crime rate, the murder rate or the gun crime and murder rate......that is a fact..

I haven't looked into the numbers but for argument sake i'll take your word for it. I don't think just because more people are buying guns it is necessarily a direct cause to the gun murder rate going down. There are many other factors at play... Education and law enforcement better security being a few. I do acknowledge that people will be more cautious in areas where more people are carrying and criminals will be less inclined to cause trouble in those areas... it is a valid point.

I personally would not let my kids go to a concert, bar or event where any jerk off can carry... Armed security is just fine, but get one drunk or emotional kook spouting off and pulling their gun instead of their fist and you have a whole new level of trouble.

 

[2aguy]

That's only one of the several possibilities where weapons can be Constitutionally used to defend a State and it's security but the short answer is yes.

Yeah, I hate to break it to you but if your state goes to war against the US military, there is no number of guns that is going to help your cause... We've moved way beyond the days of muskets and swords.

If you want to look at real world problems you have to look at the violence on our streets and how we protect ourselves and how our officers enforce the law. Sport and hunting are secondary bonuses that come with gun ownership.

Simple enough. Stop blaming gun owners for the crimes of thugs. Increase penalties with use of firearms during criminal activity significantly with no early parole. Get rid of gun free zones immediately. Support your local police since they are truly are on the front lines of this. Allow national reciprocity on concealed carry (this one is absurd that I even to have write it---a privilege [drivers license] is not even questioned nationally, but an actual Constitutional right [self defense] has to be checked at each state line. Teach gun safety in schools so that kids develop a healthy respect for firearms. Do this & then gun owners will know you are serious about wanting to stop the problem.

Most of these are great ideas which I support and agree with. I dont like the idea of everybody carrying all the time. If that was law the kid in Vegas would have surely put a few into trump last week (another real life example for you)... don't you find it a little hypocritical that you can't carry at trump properties, trump rallies or even the republican national convention? What do you think the reasoning for that is?

The secret service does this......they have jurisdiction over securty wherever Trump is.....when Trump first appeared the NRA meetings years ago they permit concealed carry at their conventions....

Do you understand that as more Americans have actually carried guns, our gun murder rate and gun crime rate went down? Do you understand that that is a fact.....?

In the 1990s about 2 million people carried guns for self defense....in 2007, 4.7 million people...and in that time period the gun murder rate went down, not up. Do you acknowledge that fact? Between 2007 and 2013......12 million people were carrying guns...and the gun murder rate went down....do you acknowledge that fact?

in 2016, 13 million people now carry guns....and up to 2015 our gun murder rate went down........do you acknowledge that fact?

So you are simply wrong in your belief....

Normal people carrying guns does not increase the crime rate, the murder rate or the gun crime and murder rate......that is a fact..

I haven't looked into the numbers but for argument sake i'll take your word for it. I don't think just because more people are buying guns it is necessarily a direct cause to the gun murder rate going down. There are many other factors at play... Education and law enforcement better security being a few. I do acknowledge that people will be more cautious in areas where more people are carrying and criminals will be less inclined to cause trouble in those areas... it is a valid point.

I personally would not let my kids go to a concert, bar or event where any jerk off can carry... Armed security is just fine, but get one drunk or emotional kook spouting off and pulling their gun instead of their fist and you have a whole new level of trouble.

We can talk about the cause later......the core of the anti-gun argument is that more access to guns leads to more gun crime and more gun murder......the fact that as more Americans not only own but actually carry guns, and the crime rate and gun murder rate went down shows this argument to be wrong....and not based in facts, truth or reality.

The anti-gunners also use the same argument for normal people carrying guns...you just used it.....that normal people carrying guns will lead to more people shooting each other....over fender benders and burnt dinners at home......and the truth, the facts and the reality show that this isn't true.

The fact that there are 8 million rifles with detachable magazines in the country....and only 1 or 2 a year are used for mass shootings, if that......shows that what you believe about the rifles is not based in truth, the facts or the reality......

Research...actual research into mass shootings and magazine capacity has shown that magazine capacity has no bearing on the shooters ability to kill.....actual research shows this......so again, your position on magazine capacity is not borne out by facts, the truth or the reality.

So if you continue to believe in banning these things......you are not doing so from a rational position......you are doing so based on feelings about them.....

And our Right to bear arms is not controlled by false emotions that you have.