If more guns makes a country safer

[M14 Shooter]

Correct. I leave my door wall open all the time. All it would take to prove you right is for three guys to storm in here and rape me and I’ll never have that illusion again.

The US sees 3.7 million home invasions per year; in over a million of these home invasions, someone is home.
1 million per year is >2700 day.
Why do you think it won't be you?
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

 

[M14 Shooter]

I had guns before I ever heard of the NRA or voted for any party. The safest place in the world right now is under my roof.

What are you so afraid of that you need guns for protection?
I live on the border and I don't need guns for protection

Well then...
Since we're all safe, why do we need more laws that limit the rights of the law abiding to keep and bear arms?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then good for me. Life is fine here on the border. The weather is fabulous and the food is the best in the world. And the best part? No guns necessary.

Well aren't you "special"? The fact is, like your name, it's "not your body."

My body can have as many guns as he cares to own. My body gets a 9mm Glock 19 and two spare magazines strapped onto it every day before he leave the house. My body reloads ten different calibers of his own ammunition and shoots thousands of rounds per year.

Do whatever the hell you want with your own body, but don't tell me what I can or cannot do with mine.

As long as it's legal. And us use them legally. And you don't intimidate others with them.

Are you saying that I have "intimidated" someone with a firearm? Are you nuts or something?

You still don't get it, do you. If you are following the law, then I support you. If you aren't then duck and cover.

No, I don't get it and I don't have a clue where you're coming from. What makes you think I have not followed the law? I have no problem with the law or those who enforce it. You seem to, though.

I never said you didn't follow the law. You seem to have a soft spot here. I wonder why that is? Actually, I don't really care. And I don't really care that you seem to care what you think of me. Get over yourself.

 

[sealybobo]

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

 

[sealybobo]

Functionality an AR 15 is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that has been used by civilians for over a century
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Used for what? Mass shootings?

Since 1982, 15 AR15s have been used in mass shootings to murder fewer than 7 people per year.
Somehow, you believe this justifies a ban on same.

Thousands Of Americans Are Gunned Down Each Year, But Few Die By Assault-Style Rifle
That doesn’t make it any less terrifying when these powerful civilian weapons are used to kill.

At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend.

There have been at least 267 incidents involving assault-style rifles in 2016, including reported weapons thefts, crimes in which the guns were brandished, arrests for illegal possession and other legal interventions in which they weren’t fired.

Those deaths account for about 2 percent of the 6,153 gun deaths and less than 1 percent of the 12,560 gun injuries the Gun Violence Archive has counted so far this year. This tally consists largely of homicides and assaults, but also includes suicides that were part of a murder-suicide. It also counts accidental deaths, the majority of which involve handguns, not rifles.


So you are correct. We can't stop people who want to kill using hand gun revolvers. What we don't want is for someone to be able to do mass damage with an assault rifle that holds 20 rounds in each magazine.

The goal is to lower the numbers of fatalities. There is no silver bullet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

You are fully aware of the fact this is not true, because you are fully aware the fact that anyone who wants to get a gun, can.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down.

Oh look - moving the goalpost. Surprise, surprise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Functionality an AR 15 is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that has been used by civilians for over a century
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Used for what? Mass shootings?

Since 1982, 15 AR15s have been used in mass shootings to murder fewer than 7 people per year.
Somehow, you believe this justifies a ban on same.

Thousands Of Americans Are Gunned Down Each Year, But Few Die By Assault-Style Rifle

As I said:
Somehow, you believe this justifies a ban on the AR15.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We’re interested in what makes us all safer. Background checks and maybe we don’t allow people to buy assault weapons and wmds

As you are well aware, you cannot demonstrate that any of these things makes anyone safer.

background checks make us safer because they will stop some nuts from getting their hands on guns.

And we all know limiting magazines to 10 rounds slows you shooters down. If it doesn't then why cry about not being allowed to have 20 round mags?

All background checks do is make it harder to get a weapon--not impossible. If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they will get one.

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

If the Orlando Pulse shooting -- 300 people, one gunman - is any indication, the answer is exactly zero.

But then, their objective isn't to save lives, or make people safer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you saying that I have "intimidated" someone with a firearm? Are you nuts or something?

You still don't get it, do you. If you are following the law, then I support you. If you aren't then duck and cover.

No, I don't get it and I don't have a clue where you're coming from. What makes you think I have not followed the law? I have no problem with the law or those who enforce it. You seem to, though.

Why, just because you say so? Damn, the world according to Galt. We should make a move about that.

So how would I have had a valid concealed carry permit for the last 8 years and carried every day, if I had not followed the law?

Do you even carry bro?

As a group those with concealed carry permits are some of the most law abiding people in the country.

If not, THE most law abiding in the country.

Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

If the Orlando Pulse shooting -- 300 people, one gunman - is any indication, the answer is exactly zero.

But then, their objective isn't to save lives, or make people safer.

Agreed. It's just one of many baby steps to make gun ownership or possession so difficult that most people will abort the use of firearms.

First it's 10 round magazines, then 5, then 3, then no sami-automatics at all. If they get to that point, the next is to make speed loaders for revolvers illegal. Then reduce the amount of rounds a barrel can have like they did with magazines.

They really believe we don't know what they're up to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It takes about one second to drop a magazine and pop in another one. How many lives do you suppose that would save?

If the Orlando Pulse shooting -- 300 people, one gunman - is any indication, the answer is exactly zero.

But then, their objective isn't to save lives, or make people safer.

Agreed. It's just one of many baby steps to make gun ownership or possession so difficult that most people will abort the use of firearms.

First it's 10 round magazines, then 5, then 3, then no sami-automatics at all. If they get to that point, the next is to make speed loaders for revolvers illegal. Then reduce the amount of rounds a barrel can have like they did with magazines.

They really believe we don't know what they're up to.

Ol' Bobby O'Rourke let the cat out of the bag.
But then, they've been calling for the repeal of the 2nd for some time now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Funny, around here, the biggest threat is from the right wingers who are armed. About 50 feet away is a ultra right winger who is armed that gets my vote for the most unstable. He's a Rumpster all the way through. If Rump were to lose the election or were to be convicted for removal by the Senate and call for an armed response, he would be one of the first to respond. And guess what, I would be his first target. That means that he wouldn't fare too well in the exchange. Rumps Army would fall pretty quickly since they would be mostly be made up of fruitcakes that would wage direct war on anyone that they deem as Liberals. And that means anyone not fruitcakes like them. That means that many Conservatives will be targeted as well. Your idea that you will need to get rid of all the Liberal's guns means that anyone not a Rumpster needs to be disarmed. Shades of Tyranny on that one. And that hasn't worked out real well in the past for other groups of people either. So keep spewing your crap. But do us all a favor and don't follow through with it.

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

Once a President is in office, he is bound to operate within the confines of the Office. If he doesn't then there is a system in place to deal with it. What you are seeing is that system in action. One of the jobs of the Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Rump has tried (and been very effective because of your free rides) in negating that. Well, the chickens have come to roost.

Same goes for gun regulations. At some point, society will demand some gun regulation. You and I may not fully agree on the level that Society settles for firearms regulation but it will happen. The only thing one side or the other can do is to dump hundreds of millions into the system to delay it. But in the end, Society will get what it wants. It could be from a ballot box, Executive Branch, Legislative or Judicial. But all of these, in the end, go back to the ballot box and the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitutions.

Meanwhile, you are going to scream that it's Unconstitutional and cry "Just wait until our next Savior comes, you'll see".

And they want to pretend that it's unfair that the House is going after Trump when he breaks the law. Or they're hoping like Comey did with Hillary, they'll see what Trump did was wrong but not charge him. Well Comey looked at what Hillary did and didn't see that she did it with bad intentions. In fact, all of them use private emails and phones. Even the Trump's use private emails and phones. Hell Trump takes calls that would implicate him and he hides them on a server meant for top secret stuff. In other words he's covering up his crimes. No one can prove Hillary was using private emails to cover up crimes. But we know Trump did this. That's why he needs to be impeached.

And if Republicans didn't like what Hillary did, how come they are ok with Trump doing shady similar stuff?

Trump is stone cold busted.

Top U.S. Diplomat Unravels Story Of Trump's Ukraine Aid Holdup | HuffPost

Trump didn't do anything Hil-Liar did. Trump never busted up 2 government cell phones to destroy evidence. Trump doesn't keep classified information on a personal server, and then have it bleach bitted if subpoenaed. Trump never sent classified information to his aide, who's husband used the very same computer to send nude pictures of himself to strange women all over the world.

Trump hide evidence of what? There was no crime to hide. The only crime is Schiff face and the other Democrats making up lies about what Trump said.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I had guns before I ever heard of the NRA or voted for any party. The safest place in the world right now is under my roof.

What are you so afraid of that you need guns for protection?

I live on the border and I don't need guns for protection. According to the GOP I am living in the middle of the Meemaw raper/killers flooding across the border in what must be one of the most dangerous places in the world. And still, I've never needed a gun.

I guess I'm braver than you are. Gun nutters are the biggest snowflakes on the planet. Afraid of every damn thing and person in the world. Either that, or you have teeny tiny mushroom shaped peckers.

Nobody needs a gun........until they really need a gun one day or night.

 

[JGalt]

I'll join up with the zombies.

You already have...

Then good for me. Life is fine here on the border. The weather is fabulous and the food is the best in the world. And the best part? No guns necessary.

Well aren't you "special"? The fact is, like your name, it's "not your body."

My body can have as many guns as he cares to own. My body gets a 9mm Glock 19 and two spare magazines strapped onto it every day before he leave the house. My body reloads ten different calibers of his own ammunition and shoots thousands of rounds per year.

Do whatever the hell you want with your own body, but don't tell me what I can or cannot do with mine.

You have some serious fear issues. I've never said you can't have guns. I have no power over you. I am not a threat to you, despite your paranoia.

I fear nothing or no one, and you have no power over anyone.

 

[Markle]

Wrong wrong and wrong.

China has more people less guns and hence less gun crimes and deaths, India is the same thing.

I'm curious, do those two countries have more or fewer deaths caused by auto crashes than the United States? Why does it matter?

China? China? Are you serious? China, like India, as you know, are homogeneous societies. Yes, this makes a monumental difference.

Do you think this might have something to do with a lower crime rate than the US?

"BEIJING - China may scrap the death penalty for nine out of 55 crimes, including counterfeiting and smuggling nuclear materials, state media said Monday."

"China executes more people every year than the rest of the world combined, according to Dui Hua, a U.S.-based rights group that focuses on legal justice."

China considers scrapping death penalty for several crimes

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would you sell it only to liberals? Liberals are the reason we need to be armed in the first place. If we were ever to consider getting rid of guns, we'd have to get rid of liberals first.

Funny, around here, the biggest threat is from the right wingers who are armed. About 50 feet away is a ultra right winger who is armed that gets my vote for the most unstable. He's a Rumpster all the way through. If Rump were to lose the election or were to be convicted for removal by the Senate and call for an armed response, he would be one of the first to respond. And guess what, I would be his first target. That means that he wouldn't fare too well in the exchange. Rumps Army would fall pretty quickly since they would be mostly be made up of fruitcakes that would wage direct war on anyone that they deem as Liberals. And that means anyone not fruitcakes like them. That means that many Conservatives will be targeted as well. Your idea that you will need to get rid of all the Liberal's guns means that anyone not a Rumpster needs to be disarmed. Shades of Tyranny on that one. And that hasn't worked out real well in the past for other groups of people either. So keep spewing your crap. But do us all a favor and don't follow through with it.

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

Once a President is in office, he is bound to operate within the confines of the Office. If he doesn't then there is a system in place to deal with it. What you are seeing is that system in action. One of the jobs of the Congress is to oversee the executive branch. Rump has tried (and been very effective because of your free rides) in negating that. Well, the chickens have come to roost.

Same goes for gun regulations. At some point, society will demand some gun regulation. You and I may not fully agree on the level that Society settles for firearms regulation but it will happen. The only thing one side or the other can do is to dump hundreds of millions into the system to delay it. But in the end, Society will get what it wants. It could be from a ballot box, Executive Branch, Legislative or Judicial. But all of these, in the end, go back to the ballot box and the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitutions.

Meanwhile, you are going to scream that it's Unconstitutional and cry "Just wait until our next Savior comes, you'll see".

Our state was one of the late states to get CCW laws in place. Since then, classes have been backlogged and still are. Now, more females are getting their CCW licenses than men. When our CCW law came about, we had a liberal Democrat Governor at the time. Even he wasn't stupid enough to veto the bill, and the following bills making carrying a weapon more lawful than ever.

Bottom line is that the interest in gun ownership and self-defense grows every day in this country. At one time, we had one indoor firing rage in the Cleveland area. You walked in, and got a booth right away. You had your choice of stalls.

Men would bring their guns to the range, and the women would sit behind the glass either watching them, or reading a book or something. Today, it's at least an hour wait to get a booth at that same range. And the women are not sitting behind the glass watching their menfolk having fun. They are in front of the glass now with them.

That's besides the fact that several other ranges have opened up in the area, and while I've never been to the other ones, I've been told they too have an hour wait to get a booth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would you sell it only to liberals? Liberals are the reason we need to be armed in the first place. If we were ever to consider getting rid of guns, we'd have to get rid of liberals first.

Funny, around here, the biggest threat is from the right wingers who are armed. About 50 feet away is a ultra right winger who is armed that gets my vote for the most unstable. He's a Rumpster all the way through. If Rump were to lose the election or were to be convicted for removal by the Senate and call for an armed response, he would be one of the first to respond. And guess what, I would be his first target. That means that he wouldn't fare too well in the exchange. Rumps Army would fall pretty quickly since they would be mostly be made up of fruitcakes that would wage direct war on anyone that they deem as Liberals. And that means anyone not fruitcakes like them. That means that many Conservatives will be targeted as well. Your idea that you will need to get rid of all the Liberal's guns means that anyone not a Rumpster needs to be disarmed. Shades of Tyranny on that one. And that hasn't worked out real well in the past for other groups of people either. So keep spewing your crap. But do us all a favor and don't follow through with it.

What a dreamer you are. First off, Trump would never lead any of his supporters into a civil war. Secondly, most people on the right are law abiding people, and we take out our anger at the ballot box, not in the street and on police officers.

But you do bring up a good point, and that is the left is pushing us to the brink of war. When these anti-Americans do anything possible to remove a duely elected President, that means the commies have taken over, and my vote no longer counts. Because if they can do that to one Republican, they'll be able to do it to any Republican, and that is a call out for war.

This is why I've always been behind having two countries instead of one. Make a division line from north to south. On one side will be the Democrats, and on the other the Republicans. We will have a national vote to decide who gets which side.

If we don't do this soon, eventually the Democrats will do something to spark a civil war.

One real problem with what you are saying. The only side that even brings up a civil war is yours. And yours talks about stockpiling for WHEN it happens. Are you saying that if the Dems win heavily at the ballot box that you will see that as a reason to have a civil war? If that is the case, it's not the Dems that are the danger of causing a Civil War. It's your bunch.

And you need to quite giving Rump so many free rides. He's a friggin embarrassment. He goes from one embarrassment to another almost weekly. And the only reason he does this is because you won't call him on any of his BS. He's always been a spoiled little boy. Spoiled little boys will always push the envelope until they find the limits. So far, you haven't shown him the limits. So he just gets worse and worse. Now he's in serious trouble because the Dems have had enough and so have the Moderates. Your 33% isn't enough to pull him out of it this time. It's like a spoiled little brat that didn't get the spanking as a child finally getting in serious trouble with the authorities. Well, Congress is the Authorities this time. Now, in his own way (by demanding) he is begging you to cover for him once again. It's too late.

This is part of the commie revolution. The legislative branch does not have the power to control the executive branch. That's why we have separation of powers.

I never said if the commies win, we need to have a civil war. What I said is that when the commies remove a President unjustly, such as having secret clandestine inquiries, refusal to let the opponents even so much as see their transcript, and overturn an election, it is time for a civil war, because everything they do is unconstitutional.

The election is where citizens get to vote in or out a candidate for Prescient, not the legislative branch. This is particularly true when it's the opposing party that has been talking impeachment, and looking for a crime to match their punitive actions. That's not the way it works for real Americans.

But that won’t happen. You’ll see all the evidence. And if he’s removed republicans will have gone along.

8 Times trump put pressure on taylor to get Ukraine to announce they are looking into Biden.

Trump is guilty af. So nothing unjust if he’s removed. Sorry

That's the problem: we're not seeing any evidence because the Democrats are hiding the fact they have none. Now they announced a possible delay until after the holiday. Why? Because like the phony story by the Balls broad, they continue to find something.....anything they can get Trump on.

Every other evil scheme your side has tried failed miserably. When are you going to learn this is the trend?

 

[Markle]

But that won’t happen. You’ll see all the evidence. And if he’s removed republicans will have gone along.

8 Times trump put pressure on taylor to get Ukraine to announce they are looking into Biden.

Trump is guilty af. So nothing unjust if he’s removed. Sorry

Those hearings are closed door, secret. Republicans have been shut out of the meetings so who are the sources of what you have heard?

 

[Blues Man]

Functionality an AR 15 is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that has been used by civilians for over a century
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Used for what? Mass shootings?

Since 1982, 15 AR15s have been used in mass shootings to murder fewer than 7 people per year.
Somehow, you believe this justifies a ban on same.

Thousands Of Americans Are Gunned Down Each Year, But Few Die By Assault-Style Rifle
That doesn’t make it any less terrifying when these powerful civilian weapons are used to kill.

At least 84 people have been killed and 119 have been injured so far this year in 86 shooting incidents involving assault-style rifles, according to data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit corporation that tracks gun violence. Those numbers include the casualties at Pulse nightclub over the weekend.

There have been at least 267 incidents involving assault-style rifles in 2016, including reported weapons thefts, crimes in which the guns were brandished, arrests for illegal possession and other legal interventions in which they weren’t fired.

Those deaths account for about 2 percent of the 6,153 gun deaths and less than 1 percent of the 12,560 gun injuries the Gun Violence Archive has counted so far this year. This tally consists largely of homicides and assaults, but also includes suicides that were part of a murder-suicide. It also counts accidental deaths, the majority of which involve handguns, not rifles.


So you are correct. We can't stop people who want to kill using hand gun revolvers. What we don't want is for someone to be able to do mass damage with an assault rifle that holds 20 rounds in each magazine.

The goal is to lower the numbers of fatalities. There is no silver bullet.

If you really want to reduce fatalities then you should start where the murder rates are the highest and that is inner city areas that have been plagued by generational poverty, poor education, high unemployment and underemployment, the breakdown of the family unit, drugs and violence.

It is naively shortsighted to think that the violence in this country that leads to our murder rate is going to be meaningfully reduced by banning a rifle that is used in less than 1% of all murders.