Some gun related questions for liberals:

The argument is a straw man based on not listening to what people who want more gun control are saying. I've never heard anyone suggest that gun laws will stop all gun violence any more than murder laws will stop all murder.

We have murder laws not to eliminate murder, but to reduce it. Gun laws are intended to serve the same purpose.

In fact, the whole thing is a straw man based on not listening to what gun control advocates say. I've never heard anyone in favor of gun control support 2, 3 or 4 either and 5 is just a general question about why we have laws forbidding anything.

 

problem is, the government would then be murdering many innocents, I am fine with lwop

 

I'll make it simple -- We have laws against people owning illegal drugs. Drugs are every where and killing people by the hundreds. So there's your model if we pass a law banning guns.

 

And yet drugs are still illegal, WHY?

 

It is just as likely that our homicide rate will rise if or when guns become unavailable.

Do you really think that a determined killer is going abort his "mission" simply because he can't find a firearm?

No, he will simply resort to using some sort of crude WMD that will kill more people like the killer responsible for the "Happy Land Fire"(1)

The killer in this case just wanted to kill one person, his ex girlfriend, but couldn't get a gun. Because he couldn't get a gun, 87 people were killed instead of just his one target.
We can expect the same sort of collateral carnage if / when guns become less available in the US.

Additionally, there are over 50 countries around the world that prohibit private gun ownership and have higher homicide rates than the US.
Since the killers and mass killers in those countries have simply resorted to other weapons and crude WMDs to achieve higher homicide rates than the US, nothing is stopping American killers and mass killers from doing the same.

The only sensible solution is not more feel-good-do-nothing gun laws but more accessible and affordable Mental Health Care that treats the actual problem, the killer, not more distracting, cheap-and-easy gun laws.




(1) "Happy Land fire"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED

 

Laws don't prevent anything. They are a framework for punishing people who do things society would rather not have done. Criminals do not care about laws. Virtually every school shooter is a young sociopath. Every young sociopath should be removed from society and provided with psychiatric help. There can be no exceptions.

 

No logical reason. We banned the alcohol drug during the 1920's and gained nothing from it. A lesson not learned I suppose.

 

Good questions, but they miss the fundamental point. Dems and libs do not want to take away our guns to make children safer. They want to take our guns for the same reason the founders and framers wanted us to have uninfringable rights to have guns -- it gives the government more control over the people.

 

Nope, sorry. That's just you projecting.

 

Apparently you don't either know what a bullet is. Most people don't either. By the way the were referring to it as a bullet mold from the moment they first cast them out of lead.

 

we don't see many killings with machine guns

 

The flawed arguement of some gun supporters is tha most suggested gun laws don't ban guns they regulate them. Example: background checks.

 

Would the fact that some of these drugs are coming in over the open border.
Would the fact that some of these guns are coming in over the open border.

So would a start to gun and drug control be to close the border instead of opening the border for any and all to come in?

 

I sometimes trip and fall on the left side for a bit. I generally do not support guns laws that I think really won't make that much of a difference. I would, however, support banning the AR-15. Sure there are plenty of alternatives, but the fetish with that particular weapon among these mass shooter psycho incel types is enough that I would be okay with banning it.

 

Exactly!

And every time I ask what legitimate reason there is for owning an assault weapon, all I get are stupid comparisons and "it's my right" bullshit.

 

The ammo and fire power of a AR-15 is not significantly different from a regular 22 caliber. So would you also be in favor of banning semi-automatic 22 rifles, or is your criteria the same as Sen. Feinstein: sure looks like a mean weapon to me. Let's ban the sucker?

 

So I don't have a legitimate right to own a shovel, knife, or baseball bat, all assault weapons?

 

If a madman attacked a school room where your children or grandchildren were would you rather have him use a shovel, a knife, a bat or a semiautomatic rifle?

 

I couldn't care less. My point was that the ban proponents are not proposing something like "weapons that are often used in mass school shootings," as elusive as that is, but are just banning "assault weapons" without any understanding, clarity or specificity in the least what that means.

 

I am sorry you don't care, perhaps that is part of the problem. The thing that some people need to understand is there is a difference between regulating guns and banning them. For instance a majority of school shootings are done by students. Most of those students have gotten their semi automatic weapons legally. Asking to move the age to buy buy one of these weapons from 18 to 21 would not be banning anything, but could make it more difficult for someone who attends school to get such a weapon.

My point was that a knife or a bat cannot do nearly as much damage to a group of human beings as a weapon that can fire 150 rounds in 15 seconds.

 

And this is the UN-breachable hurdle fanatics employ to support an unsupportable position.

It's untrue murder laws do not stop murders from happening. Facing the death penalty for your actions certainly STOPS at least some people from committing murder. Murders do occur but if it was just open season, how many more would occur? So, false.

SO, addressing the part in red. Why and how, can you be so certain that a well thought out and implemented law will NOT stop a murder, perhaps a mass murder. If a new law stops ONE murder and saves a life, IMHO, it's done it's job.

 

Kinda like conservatives hating "lefty's", when they can't even define "lefty".

 

You're suggesting that a person trying to kill my child or grandchild with a semi-automatic rifle should bother me greatly but if he's trying to kill with a knife, not so much. From my perspective that ain't gonna happen.

I'm mixed with this. On one hand a 20-year old cannot buy cigarettes so there seems to be no big deal with restricting his gun ownership either. On the other hand when the 18-year old joins the military will he be allowed to have a gun??? Secondly, gun ownership is protected by the Constitution, cigarettes are not. Some gun regulations have been deemed constitutional, but outright bans for 18-year olds?? I dunno.

 

Huh??? Or like lefties hating conservatives when they can't even define "conservative."

 

Can't speak for "lefties", because no matter how many times I've asked it remains undefined. But "I" don't hate anyone, s my signature implies.

Since Donald Judas tRump, you are correct; I cannot define conservative anymore. Which, in and of itself makes a point, since I used to be one, and knew very well what it meant to be one. I'm puzzled by people that claim to be conservative and still support a man, Donald Judas tRump, that possess NO traits conservatives traditionally admired and EVERY trait we (past tense) shunned.