Assault weapons are the devil!

a reply to: shooterbrody

Americans are desperate to have our guns taken from us, gay reparations, our borders opened to criminals and for men to play in girls sports leagues!

Warren 2020!

I looked at Australia and pointed it out. If the US required 5 dead to be called a mass shooting our numbers would drop significantly too. In the US it is 4 wounded or dead in any combination to be a mass shooting.

As for gun control, eliminate where they happen that are supposed to be gun free such as schools, government buildings, places serving alcohol and the numbers go down even more. Which conversely why gun control laws do not work. Can’t have a school shoot if everyone followed the law of no guns there.

a reply to: InTheLight

I have a counter proposal to the compromise you offer.

Federal, state, and local governments, law enforcement, and military on US soil must abide by the same firearm restrictions as everyone else. If we don't need high capacity weapons, neither do they.

Private citizens shall also be able to decide if particular government officials are mentally stable enough to own weapons. Police departments that have excessive rates of police brutality or civil rights violations should be stripped of their firearms.

Media outlets should be prohibited by law from reporting mass shooting. This will cut down on copycats. Sure, it may be an infringement on the First Amendment, but who cares about that? The MSM does this sort of thing anyway. If they don't want the public aware of an issue, they just don't report it.

Further, we want and end to the TSA, the Patriot Act, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve Bank. We don't necessarily expect all that, but it's a standard negotiating tactic. Ask for things you'd be willing to forego in the name of compromise.

originally posted by: InTheLight

You are fooling yourself.

Reading through thus tripe and your posts here...

The NFA has never shown to decrease homicides by gun, the rate was in decline prior to enacting. A common error made by anti-gun advocates referencing Australia. (poulation near such of my state of Texas).

Your comments about "angry men" or "old men" prove your narrow bias, as a long list of women exist...

The magazine's above 10 junk...Yes I use them, damn good reason to continue use. They are a necessary utility of function, apparently not understood by those in cities for slim references. Walk up upon sals with piglets because no one culls anymore, expending the rifle and have to go to sidearm immediately...

I can easily give more examples and not just Texas land ownership. I live on the coast, exactly what do you imagine happens after a hurricane? Law enforcement is over run...i have a right to protect my family....

There are far more items to be focused upon.

mg

a reply to: rickymouse

buybacks:

DUBNER: Okay, so what are the kinds of things that are typically done with the guns that are out there? I’m thinking gun buybacks? What’s your view on the efficacy or lack thereof of a gun buyback?

LEVITT: Gun buybacks are one of the most ineffectual public policies that have ever been invented in the history of mankind. So the typical gun buyback will offer, you know, $25 or $50 for a gun, or maybe they’ll offer some, you know…There was one where they offered some therapy, you could get therapy.

DUBNER: Right that was California.

LEVITT: California, therapy if you turned in a gun. But the fact is maybe a thousand guns will be turned in in an incredibly successful gun buyback program. And it’s successful in the sense there’s a really big pile of guns, and the mayor or the g
overnor gets to set that pile of guns on fire. And it’s a great media opportunity. But there’s two fundamental problems. The first one is that the only people who bring back these guns in gun buybacks are people who don’t want the guns in the first place. Most of the guns are inoperable, they’re guns people inherited, they’ve just been not sure what to do with them, these are not the guns that are being used to kill people. Anyone who has a gun and wants to put it to a real purpose doesn’t bring their gun back for the buyback. So you get exactly the wrong kinds of guns. But more fundamentally, I think people are confused with respect to how dangerous a particular gun is. If I’ve done my calculations right, any particular handgun in the United States will kill a person about once every 10,000 years. Okay, so in order to prevent one homicide in a year, you would need to get 10,000 guns brought back in a gun buyback. Okay, but the thing is you don’t get 10,000 guns, and they’re not the guns that are used to kill people. So the typical gun buyback program I would guess saves approximately maybe 0.0001 lives. And I think that’s being optimistic about the size of the effect.

originally posted by: missed_gear

originally posted by: InTheLight

You are fooling yourself.

Reading through thus tripe and your posts here...

The NFA has never shown to decrease homicides by gun, the rate was in decline prior to enacting. A common error made by anti-gun advocates referencing Australia. (poulation near such of my state of Texas).

Your comments about "angry men" or "old men" prove your narrow bias, as a long list of women exist...

The magazine's above 10 junk...Yes I use them, damn good reason to continue use. They are a necessary utility of function, apparently not understood by those in cities for slim references. Walk up upon sals with piglets because no one culls anymore, expending the rifle and have to go to sidearm immediately...

I can easily give more examples and not just Texas land ownership. I live on the coast, exactly what do you imagine happens after a hurricane? Law enforcement is over run...i have a right to protect my family....

There are far more items to be focused upon.

mg

The angry young and old men was a response to another poster and they used those words...I was responding to that specific comment. So next time, get your facts straight.

If you had bothered to read the thread from the start you would know I am specifically talking about semiautomatic weapons with high capacity round magazines and not just guns.

Anyway, it looks like the dissatisfied American voters are on the upswing for gun control and stricter restrictions so they will be the voice of America regarding this issue, not me. I was just trying to offer solutions but obviously to the wrong demographic.



www.bbc.com...

a reply to: InTheLight
american opinion from the bbc
mkay
if you say so



go back to the summer light

a reply to: InTheLight
Nothing like an article from the BBC to tell the World how Americans think. LOL
Guess that is Freedom of the Press in Action lol

Show of Hands who took that poll ? :::: sound of Crickets::::

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

So your solution is to remove the freedom of the press.

Have they earned that freedom?

TheRedneck

Shouldn’t the press have to justify their freedom?

Not unless they want a tool to kill people.

a reply to: shooterbrody
WAY different.
C'mon man, your better than that.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
american opinion from the bbc
mkay
if you say so

go back to the summer light

I know the truth is hard to take. Google gallup, analytics and advice in washington, dc.

any weapon is an assault weapon by definition.

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: InTheLight
Nothing like an article from the BBC to tell the World how Americans think. LOL
Guess that is Freedom of the Press in Action lol

Show of Hands who took that poll ? :::: sound of Crickets::::

Gallup analytics...google is your friend here.

a reply to: network dude

Why bother with assault rifles when you can get a nice RPG to do much more damage?
Do you guys seriously think if the government takes these weapons away from the citizens the next move will be to inturn you all in slave camps or something?

a reply to: InTheLight
yep
same truth polls that told us hillary would win right?
mkay

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
yep
same truth polls that told us hillary would win right?
mkay

Not the poll I was following.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: shooterbrody
WAY different.
C'mon man, your better than that.

how is removing one different that removing any other?

a reply to: InTheLight
sure thing bub

coughbscough

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: InTheLight

Gallup analytics...google is your friend here.

LoL

Regulating Google’s algorithms to prevent foreign interference also seems hopeless. Because search programs must be continually changed, no government agency would have the competence to judge whether they are being biased by Chinese pressure.

The GreAT gOOGLE LOL

and a speed reader to boot (see below)

originally posted by: MetalThunder

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: InTheLight

Gallup analytics...google is your friend here.

LoL

Regulating Google’s algorithms to prevent foreign interference also seems hopeless. Because search programs must be continually changed, no government agency would have the competence to judge whether they are being biased by Chinese pressure.

The GreAT gOOGLE LOL

lol x10