How rational countries deal with gun violence.

"They" are just posting facts compiled front solid sources like the DOJ, BATF, CDC, and FBI.
You don't have to believe "them", just read and decide for yourself.

 

Your link said mostly true

 

They may or may not be posting only facts... clearly not all of them. They are obviously posting anything that supports their position, and are obviously leaving out anything that does not.

Someone could do the opposite and call it "gun facts".

 

You exaggerated to the point of making it an issue of "everyone" and THAT is what is ridiculous.

 

What exaggeration? And what the hell are you even talking about? My lord I become more and more convinced that leftists don't even understand standard English First I get some schmuck reads a list I wrote detailing nearly 80 years of leftist calumny against Republicans beginning with Adlai Stevenson and ending with the current incessant verbal assaults on Trump, and from that he gets the idea that I'm in love with the 1950's. and now you object to the notion that gun laws effect everyone. At times it feels like I'm trying to explain color to a man born blind in a language he doesn't understand.

 

I guess you don't know what you wrote.

 

I know exactly what I wrote...

 

Contrary to your claim in the OP, banning modern rifles won’t prevent another shooting, hence is irrational.

 

How rational countries deal with gun violence:

Follow tooth and nail precisely what the murderer tells you to do.

 

What happened when nazis and their weasel collaborators showed up in the past?

Do that.

 

Banning something because its misused .01% of the time is not rational.

99.99% of the firearms in this nation are owned by people who arent violent.

 

Well one of the things that was done was we manufactured millions of guns with which to defend ourselves...

 

Military STYLE, like the blunderbuss.

 

I disagree that any action at this point is rational. This just seems like a knee-jerk reaction to be seen to be doing something, anything, for political optics. A rational response would be to wait until you have all the information about this attack (and other related incidents), such as exactly how he got the weapons, and carefully plan practical policies or procedures could be of actual benefit without unduly impacting other, legitimate gun owners.

 

That's not a qualification for ownership, so I don't care if they do or not

 

We have a lot of unhinged Lefty lunatics with little self control who might go ape $hit if Trump wins next year. I'll keep my AR-15 thank you very much.

 

Military style does not mean to look looks but the mechanics. Besides the barrel length and the stock an AR-15 differs very little from the M-16 except in rate of fire with/out. Your conjecture would be more accurate if he said appearance.

 

No it does not, but the ownership side is the one who cites it constantly. Certain weapons can be banned, that has been approved by conservative courts in the past.

 

The mechanics are pretty much the same from semiautomatic to semiautomatic. For a semiautomatic, you pull the trigger once and it fires once. For a military style weapon, they usually prefer a select fire. You can select whether it will fire once when you pull the trigger, three times when you pull the trigger or keep firing until you release the trigger.

There might be a psychological reason for them to select a rifle that looks like a military weapon, but there are a number of semiautomatics that perform the same as a "military look alike".

 

I look forward to you pointing out all the errors in those BATF, FBI, and CDC findings.

 

Equally insane to only punish perpetrators..... you actually said that. Read that over a few times. You honestly dont see anything wrong with the idea of punishing the innocent for the acts of the guilty?

For the crime of political speech? Can we do it to commies too?

 

Are you comparing living in my own home or going to unrestricted public areas and exercising a right, to going to heavily restricted businesses with national security implications doing things that are entirely a privilege rather than a right?

I should be treated in my home as I am treated there? Is that what you're saying?

 

Go for it

 

Lol. At least you are open and honest with your fascism. I have to give you that.

 

IMHO.. since the 2nd Amendment was written to include the latest in military technology of the time, i.e. rifled gun barrels and Napoleonic cannon, I believe we have the right to the same, the military technology of today (or what we can get on our own) And some people, or groups of private citizens or groups of private citizens do own attack helicopters, and jets,, etc..