This is how you do a protest

[StoneByStone]

Sure, but the % of gun owners that engage in said shootings is minuscule. 99.99999% of them don't engage in mass shootings.

Yeah, and the percentage of people killed by immigrants is minuscule, but we still screen immigrants before we let them in. We're a country of progress, we should be always trying to improve things.

 

[StoneByStone]

Like what? Bump stocks? What you can do with a bump stock can also be done with a belt loop.

If you're concerned about "large groups of people being killed", however, bombs are more efficient at that. We already heavily regulate explosives, so that should be good enough.

Also, plenty of mass murderers just run over people with cars, vans, or trucks.

I think anything that give a gun that much ammo should be banned.

If it was as easy to commit mass murder with a truck, as it is with a gun, then people would generally be using trucks instead of guns. The problem is that guns make it far too easy. It's why we don't ban hammers, even though one would imagine you could commit mass murder with a hammer.

 

[CFM]

Yeah, and the percentage of people killed by immigrants is minuscule, but we still screen immigrants before we let them in. We're a country of progress, we should be always trying to improve things.

How do we screen illegals before they come in?

 

[CFM]

I think anything that give a gun that much ammo should be banned.

If it was as easy to commit mass murder with a truck, as it is with a gun, then people would generally be using trucks instead of guns. The problem is that guns make it far too easy. It's why we don't ban hammers, even though one would imagine you could commit mass murder with a hammer.

So you're argument is that an equal number of people killed by a nut using a vehicle are less dead than if it had been a gun?

 

[CFM]

I think anything that give a gun that much ammo should be banned.

If it was as easy to commit mass murder with a truck, as it is with a gun, then people would generally be using trucks instead of guns. The problem is that guns make it far too easy. It's why we don't ban hammers, even though one would imagine you could commit mass murder with a hammer.

So your argument is to ban belt loops?

 

[StoneByStone]

So your argument is to ban belt loops?

Of course.

Seriously though, the time it takes a shooter to reload could save lives. So yes, you could carry more ammo, but you'd still have to put it in the gun, giving people time to escape.

 

[CFM]

Of course.

Seriously though, the time it takes a shooter to reload could save lives. So yes, you could carry more ammo, but you'd still have to put it in the gun, giving people time to escape.

You didn't one important factor when it comes to the shooter that is far more relevant than quantity of ammo.

 

[Saudade]

Then we should work on improving red flag laws, not just eliminate them altogether.

Red flag laws are unnecessary, because every legal system has proper ways to handle accusations that don't involve drastic measures. Red flag laws only serve the purpose of giving more power to the state. The state already can seize weapons without red flag laws, but it just requires proper investigation first.

 

[Saudade]

Yeah, and the percentage of people killed by immigrants is minuscule, but we still screen immigrants before we let them in. We're a country of progress, we should be always trying to improve things.

We screen gun purchases already via criminal background checks. Psychological background checks also often apply.

 

[Saudade]

I think anything that give a gun that much ammo should be banned.

If it was as easy to commit mass murder with a truck, as it is with a gun, then people would generally be using trucks instead of guns. The problem is that guns make it far too easy. It's why we don't ban hammers, even though one would imagine you could commit mass murder with a hammer.

Define "much ammo." What's the difference between a 5 bullet magazine, 10 bullet magazine, or a magazine beyond that amount? Is there some magic number of bullets that causes people to go on killing sprees?

One of the problems with magazine limits is that the limit is arbitrary. There is no logical argument for suggesting one number is preferable to another. It's just a number that legislators pull out of the air.

A lot of things can be easily used to kill people, but as I pointed out earlier, most mass shootings involve handguns. Yet, rifles are the guns most targeted by bans.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Of course.

Seriously though, the time it takes a shooter to reload could save lives. So yes, you could carry more ammo, but you'd still have to put it in the gun, giving people time to escape.

And we're back to that just being your dumbass opinion, that you have been and still are unable to post a single FACT that supports your stupidity.

 

[StoneByStone]

Red flag laws are unnecessary, because every legal system has proper ways to handle accusations that don't involve drastic measures. Red flag laws only serve the purpose of giving more power to the state. The state already can seize weapons without red flag laws, but it just requires proper investigation first.

The public owning more or less guns doesn't give the state more or less power. And considering how many crazy people have guns now, I'm guessing the system we have now isn't good. Yeah, the state can seize weapons, but how are they supposed to know if a crazy person has a gun? People in government aren't regularly interacting with everyone throughout the country.

 

[StoneByStone]

We screen gun purchases already via criminal background checks. Psychological background checks also often apply.

And yet we still lead the first world in gun-related homicides and mass shootings. I do think there are other factors, such as Globalism causing a kind of national Nihilism, but considering how many insane people own guns, I think that's a factor too.

 

[Grokmaster]

Yeah, and the percentage of people killed by immigrants is minuscule, but we still screen immigrants before we let them in. We're a country of progress, we should be always trying to improve things.

NOT BASED ON THE % OF IMMIGRANTS IN THE POPULATION....and the FACT THAT LOCAL POLICE ARE OFTERN BARRED BY THEIR OWN LEFTASSHOLE MIUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT FROM DETERMINING THE CIRIZENSHIP STATUS OF OFFENDERS...

 

[Saudade]

The public owning more or less guns doesn't give the state more or less power. And considering how many crazy people have guns now, I'm guessing the system we have now isn't good. Yeah, the state can seize weapons, but how are they supposed to know if a crazy person has a gun? People in government aren't regularly interacting with everyone throughout the country.

What gives the state more power is removing due process from the equation. That's what red flag laws do.

Psychological background checks would help in keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people. Red flag laws would just enable individuals to engage in score settling and the state to engage in selective seizures of weapons.

 

[Grokmaster]

What gives the state more power is removing due process from the equation. That's what red flag laws do.

Psychological background checks would help in keeping guns out of the hands of unstable people. Red flag laws would just enable individuals to engage in score settling and the state to engage in selective seizures of weapons.

WHICH IS EXACTLY HOW THEY WOULD PLAY OUT...

 

[Saudade]

And yet we still lead the first world in gun-related homicides and mass shootings. I do think there are other factors, such as Globalism causing a kind of national Nihilism, but considering how many insane people own guns, I think that's a factor too.

We might lead the world in mass shootings, but we don't lead the world in gun-related homicides. We're not even in the top 10 for gun homicides. 60% of our gun deaths are suicides, not homicides.

 

[StoneByStone]

Define "much ammo." What's the difference between a 5 bullet magazine, 10 bullet magazine, or a magazine beyond that amount? Is there some magic number of bullets that causes people to go on killing sprees?

One of the problems with magazine limits is that the limit is arbitrary. There is no logical argument for suggesting one number is preferable to another. It's just a number that legislators pull out of the air.

A lot of things can be easily used to kill people, but as I pointed out earlier, most mass shootings involve handguns. Yet, rifles are the guns most targeted by bans.

When a gun can hold less ammo, the shooter is forced to reload more often, thus giving more people time to escape. And if you think those few seconds don't matter, look at the Dayton shooting. Police stopped the shooter in thirty seconds, which is very commendable, but in those thirty seconds, he killed fourteen people. A few seconds to stop and reload really do matter.

You're right, the number is pretty arbitrary, but I'd rather have a low but arbitrary limit than no limit. Should a gun be able to hold six bullets or ten bullets? I don't know, but either number is better than fifty bullets.

Which is why I think we shouldn't stop at rifles. Much of the focus, when it comes to gun control, is on guns when we should also be talking more about gun accessories and the screening process.

 

[Saudade]

When a gun can hold less ammo, the shooter is forced to reload more often, thus giving more people time to escape. And if you think those few seconds don't matter, look at the Dayton shooting. Police stopped the shooter in thirty seconds, which is very commendable, but in those thirty seconds, he killed fourteen people. A few seconds to stop and reload really do matter.

You're right, the number is pretty arbitrary, but I'd rather have a low but arbitrary limit than no limit. Should a gun be able to hold six bullets or ten bullets? I don't know, but either number is better than fifty bullets.

Which is why I think we shouldn't stop at rifles. Much of the focus, when it comes to gun control, is on guns when we should also be talking more about gun accessories and the screening process.

And if that's the rationale, then you're going to have gun control advocates continue to push for smaller and smaller magazines. If 10 becomes the standard, then 5 will be next. If 5 becomes the standard, then maybe they'll push for 1 after that.

Virginia shows us that lobbyists are willing to expand the definition of assault weapons to all semiauto weapons, so magazines can easily be subjected to the same expansion of control.

This is why gun rights advocates don't typically give any ground to magazine limits. We've already seen certain states create a slippery slope situation.

 

[StoneByStone]

We might lead the world in mass shootings, but we don't lead the world in gun-related homicides. We're not even in the top 10 for gun homicides. 60% of our gun deaths are suicides, not homicides.

That's why I said "first world." Yeah, we don't have as many gun-related homicides as many third world countries, but we're part of the first world, we should have much higher standards.