And do you think that modern day Norway, UK, Sweden, Japan are all vicious dictator states?
The UK and Japan are certainly without freedom. I do not know about Sweden and Norway.
They don't have this level of mass shootings so OBVIOUSLY they must be.
I feel sorry for them not having dead kids all the time to help then understand what TRUE FREEDOM looks like.
Freedom has nothing to do with the number of massacres in a country.
I understand that essentially the AR-15 isn't much more than less intimidating looking semi-automatics on the market including some hunting rifles. It's just tricked out to look more "cool" and "military" but not functionally different.
As such I kind of see the point that banning "assault rifles" isn't necessarily going to move the needle since similar firepower can be purchased in less exciting "packaging".
But that means the REAL answer might be a lot less pleasant to consider.
If I were in the NRA I'd DEFINITELY push for an "assault weapons ban" if only so it would distract from the larger problem and not really impact the ability of gun loving Americans from getting a good armory set up.
There are a number of problems with that strategy.
The first is, it is completely unacceptable for any gun to be outlawed for no reason, and that includes the AR-15.
Second, if we did allow it to be outlawed, progressives would just move on to demanding their next ban. So long as we hold the line on the AR-15, progressives never move on to demanding the next ban.
Third, many pushes for stronger background checks have been defeated expressly because progressives undermine them by demanding that their attempts to outlaw the AR-15 take precedence over background checks. So long as we keep fighting for the AR-15, progressives will keep using the issue to undermine their own position.
Fourth, as long as the gun control fight is all about the AR-15, it is an easy win for the NRA. Since there is actually no reason to outlaw them, the NRA finds it easy to convince congressmen to oppose such a ban.
Kind of like how they treat "mental illness". Talk about it so people won't pay attention to the larger issue. Only problem with the "mental healthcare gambit" is that it might mean they would have to pay something extra for their guns to support actual mental healthcare improvement.
But you get the point.
How is mental illness not the larger issue?
Where do black market guns come from? Do they just appear out of thin air?
Or are they stolen from the stashes of good, honest law-abiding gun owners?
This is why I think part of the problem IS the number of guns. Increasing gun ownership rates means, statistically, that you are increasing the PROBABILITY of those guns winding up in the wrong hands. Flood the market with more guns than people and you increase the chances of guns being stolen or diverted to "evil purposes".
Life is in no small way a probability game. We rely on probabilities all over the place. You currently can't purchase more than a couple boxes of Sudafed because they want to limit the PROBABILITY of Sudafed being diverted to meth production.
Why can't we use the same logic with guns? You can have sudafed but only so much and you are regulated. You can have guns but only so many and you are regulated.
Why is this such a horrible thing to consider?
Because people use different guns for different purposes, and there are many different guns for many different purposes.
Yeah, that makes sense. The police who are TRAINED FOR SHOOTING SITUATIONS stayed safe, so I'm sure an armed 3rd grade teacher or a janitor would be MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE.
Indeed they would be. The answer is for teachers to keep a rifle in a gun safe in their classrooms.
And every time we see a pile of dead kids we KNOW that the NRA will be the FIRST to tell us that this is completely unrelated to guns and if any legislator so much as even THINKS about backing gun legislation they will pull that money from them.
No.
If they even think about backing gun legislation, they will be voted out of office forever.
The NRA is doing their job right. It's just sad that one side-effect is a bunch of dead kids, but hey, if you wanna make an omelet you have to obliterate an egg to the point that it can no longer be visually identified.
That is incorrect. Massacres are not a side effect of our gun rights.
Not that it matters. We'd be keeping our freedom even if massacres actually were a side effect.
That's ANOTHER thing I hate seeing on the news. All those mass killings in schools by hammer wielding nutjobs. I really think we have TOO MANY HAMMERS. And to think that hammers are made SPECIFICALLY TO HARM OR KILL...it's just irresponsible to sell them in the stores.
What does it matter if a weapon is designed to kill?
If someone is killed with a weapon that is designed to kill, does that make the victim "more dead" than people who are killed with a weapon that isn't designed to kill?
And what about guns that are not designed to kill? Self defense guns are designed to protect. Target shooting guns are not designed to be fired at living targets. No living creature was shot during the biathlon in the last Winter Olympics.
But, it's also why there are so few mass hammer killings in other countries. They have a lot more strictures on hammer purchases.
What does it matter what kind of weapon someone is killed with?
Are people who are killed with guns "more dead" than people who are killed with hammers?
Apparently the congresspeople feel differently. Otherwise it wouldn't matter what their "gun score" is given by the NRA.
No. It's not the donations that they care about. It's the "being voted out of office forever" part that they try to avoid.
