Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Until that bullet creases your butt or the buttocks of someone near and dear to you.

 

No it wasn't there was not a single rifle on any assault weapons ban list.

 

How was that enforced? pat downs? Metal detectors? Was every CCW person leaving their weapon at home? And if not, how the hell could cops tell the difference between the good and bad guys in a shoot out among a panicked stampede of shoppers?

Bottom line: Bring back the 1994 AWB and that weapon of choice would not have been there.

 

Fine, then what's the problem with proper registration and the legal passing of that registration and ownership...just like a car?

 

A fantastic display of revisionist, myopic editing of the facts. Would have, might/can be seem to be this clowns forte.

Bottom line: the weapons of choice in the Dayton and El Paso shootings were done with weapons that were on the old 1994 AWB list. The GOP blocks it's reinstatement. Deal with it.

 

And amendment PLUS reinstating the 1994 AWB law.

And how the hell is gun control to prevent mass shootings "anti-American ranting"?

 

Can we be certain that everyone there left there's at home? How do they enforce a "zone" in that type of area anyway....pat downs? Metal detectors? And if this lady took the shot, how do the cops instantly determine who is the good guy or bad guy in that people stampede?

Just bring back the damned 1994 AWB and cut the nonsense.

 

Please provide the link to the ATF that proves what you say....given that the "gun show loophole" exists. To date there is NO unifying license and registration for all fifty states for guns like there is for cars.

Ahh, but unfortunately those done with assault rifles have a definite higher body count.

 

Translation: it's a divine comedy that this guy just can't logically or factually fault what I put forth, so he stalls.

 

So the gunners essentially CHEAT and that's "proof" to you that the law is ineffective? So tweak the law to keep the "cosmetic" bs from happening.

 

Yeah, the one the NRA and gun lobby fought to prohibit what you state. Here's the thing: follow the OP and bring back the 1994 AWB without the cosmetic clause that allowed the manufacturers to essentially cheat the law. With a federal database of ownership and transfer, people are less likely to willy nilly sell their guns, and criminals less likely to use straw men. And once banned, the Dayton and El Paso shooters would have not their weapons of choice.

 

Are you too lazy to click the link and READ, or too scared and stubborn to admit you're proven wrong?

 

Every mass shooting in the last 20 years that used an assault weapon would not have that particular weapon of choice to use. License and registration determines those with mental or legal problems should/would have those assault weapons.

As for your advice.....you and your like minded compadres love to be condescending and snide....I just give back what I get. Don't start none, won't be none.

 

Someone teach this guy to READ! I didn't say it would have stopped all the mass shootings, but the guy in the movie theatre, the Ohio and Texas shootings, the Florida night club, etc., they would NOT have their weapons of choice, or maybe not willing to make those purchases with a license and registration requirement.

 

Wishful thinking on your part .. assuming that stray bullets didn't hit MORE folk stampeding out of that kill zone fire fight. Life seldom comes off like a TV show.

 

Your "logic" is just the same idiocy of comparing a gun to a car as a "weapon". No comparison, one is designed for transport, the other to KILL or PRACTICE HITTING A TARGET (kill shot). Let me break it down.....treating a car as more important regarding ownership than a gun does not make sense.

 

Here is a quote from the link that makes your initial statement FALSE:

The above-displayed maps have been mislabeled and do not show an accurate comparison between the 2016 electoral map and a government released crime map of 2013. The map pictured on the bottom actually shows a 2012 electoral map that was created by Mark Newman from the Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan, and not a government-produced crime rate map. The top map appears to be real but also incomplete.

If the above-displayed maps were properly labeled, they would state that an incomplete electoral map from 2016 was similar to a completed electoral map from 2012. Neither of those maps is related to the crime rate.


Do your homework as to how many mass shootings occurred in the last twenty years or so using assault rifles, and the number of people killed by them. Are you to allow such because more killers use handguns (but kill less folk on average)?

 

Are you serious? Belief in the 2nd Amendment means that you allow mass murders that could be prevented or severely lessened? JeeZ!

 

So there has been no law of confiscation. Thanks. Your conversations have to be examined as to whether and why confiscation was mentioned by Bowerbird

 

translation: he can't logically or factually disprove what I put forth or support his position. the chronology of the posts proves this, and thus makes him a liar. He's done.

 

As the news has detailed....criminals used strawmen with no record to buy numerous weapons in states with lax gun laws....these guns are sold/used in other states with stricter laws for criminal purposes. A better paper trail means more (not all) arrests.

 

What a great idea. Maybe if you gun grabbers learned a bit about guns you could actually tell whether the bills your lawmakers are waving about are snake oil or not.

Any law not made to prevent loopholes aka 'cheating' is a bad law. Thats like 90% of what lawyers do- look for loopholes.

Looking to people who hate guns to draw up effective regulations for them is like trying to get a carpenter to build you a spaceship.

 

They had their guns on them but were too scared to let on, thus avoiding being the next target

 

They didn't have their guns on them they weren't allowed to Walmart put up a 30.06 making it a felony to have a firearm there.

 

A felony? You mean the shooter wasn't legally allowed to have that weapon there? A law already existed? Then how could he possibly have had the banned item? I'm confused.