Second Amendment advocates would this change your mind?

He says:

There is one functional feature of many “assault weapons” that, if regulated, could substantially reduce injuries and fatalities during mass-shootings — high-capacity magazines. A ban on such magazines would be a meaningful step to reduce the potential damage a firearm can cause in a mass shooting scenario.

I stopped reading there. No, it wouldn't. This guy needs to stick to psychology, because he sucks at being knowledgeable about firearms.
 
The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?

I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.

The professed good guy who wants to kill animals, kill songbirds, or shoot at targets wouldn't be unduly affected by his ability to own an assault weapon. Even though the change would be demoralizing for those who shoot at human silouette targets and dream of an opportunity to shoot at the real thing.

How do I know? I've been there and found immature pleasure in the shooting sports. I know what motivates all sorts of people who crave guns.
Ask a Canadian expert.

No compromise will ever be possible. An approach of taking away the incentive to own black assault weapons is the key. That will almost certainly have to start with demilitarizing America, and reducing the number of wars. In fact, that is in process now, due to the ineffectiveness of personal firearms in a war, as compared to bombs from a distance.

Comments?
 
He wants us to compromise and step down to their level. My compromise ran out a long time ago.
Every single compromise has been from Second Amendment supporters. Gun grabbers want Americans disarmed. They'll do it all at once if they think they can; otherwise, they'll settle for chipping away at it a bit at a time.
 
The important question is, would denying those who want a black assault weapon to kill people, lower the rate of murder with gun in America?

I think it would because there would be less gratification for the killer if he was limited to using a gun that didn't look the part for a murder, and obviously be less efficient in killing large numbers of people.

The professed good guy who wants to kill animals, kill songbirds, or shoot at targets wouldn't be unduly affected by his ability to own an assault weapon. Even though the change would be demoralizing for those who shoot at human silouette targets and dream of an opportunity to shoot at the real thing.

How do I know? I've been there and found immature pleasure in the shooting sports. I know what motivates all sorts of people who crave guns.
Ask a Canadian expert.

No compromise will ever be possible. An approach of taking away the incentive to own black assault weapons is the key. That will almost certainly have to start with demilitarizing America, and reducing the number of wars. In fact, that is in process now, due to the ineffectiveness of personal firearms in a war, as compared to bombs from a distance.

Comments?
There will never be any compromise no way in hell.
 
There will never be any compromise no way in hell.
No there won't, unless if comes from the pro-gunners through maturity. Or as I suggest, through the lack of incentive to extend their masculinity with a gun. When the black guns are no longer cool, the incentive to own one will fade away.
 
No, you don't. You have a stereotypical gun owner in your head you use as a reference. It bears little resemblance to the real thing.
No, I have a well rounded understanding on guns and plenty of experience in using them. I know very well what motivates young men to own black guns especially, and other guns less.

Those who prefer the black guns brag about it continuously and troll the forum with announcments of them buying another and another.
 
No there won't, unless if comes from the pro-gunners through maturity. Or as I suggest, through the lack of incentive to extend their masculinity with a gun. When the black guns are no longer cool, the incentive to own one will fade away.
There is no unless there will not be any compromise.
 
The only thing that could convince me to support an amendment overturning the 2nd is if those who say they support the 2nd continue to support cops who shoot people for having a gun in their hand with absolutely no understanding of why that person has a gun.
 
"There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine."

Spoken by someone who has clearly never been in a firefight. All of that paper target practice accuracy tends to go out the window when the situation gets real and you have live rounds coming back at you. Unless of course you're a cold-blooded assassin, in which case you're probably not following the laws anyways.
 
Or as I suggest, through the lack of incentive to extend their masculinity with a gun.
shaun-king-follow-ashaunking-guns-are-the-ultimate-phallic-symbol-19645707.png
 
The only thing that could convince me to support an amendment overturning the 2nd is if those who say they support the 2nd continue to support cops who shoot people for having a gun in their hand with absolutely no understanding of why that person has a gun.
Well sport you don't speak for me or the majority
 

Forum List

Back
Top