after sandy hook 62% of americans favored gun control,and it hasnt changed, just because someone says so. some people dont want to face the truth.
nope. Every poll taken since 2012 says otherwise. You into making up statistics, now. If so, show them .
Nope. http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx You can make as much (*)(*)(*)(*) as you like, it doesn't make you right though.
You don't read much, do you? You were right for a year or so after Sandy Hook, but since then, not only has it gone back to the way it was before Sandy Hook, support for gun rights has increased. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-toward-guns-returning-to-pre-shooting-levels http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/gun-control/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx It is your move. Come back with something of substance to actually counter the findings of the gallup poll, and prove them to be incorrect, or do not bother with coming back at all.
So yourself a favor... check your statistics and provide a link to prove your claims. Otherwise you lose all credibility and will be deemed a loon with an agenda. You have made this mistake several times.
I support gun control. I don't think a five year old kid should be able to buy a machine gun without parental approval but I don't support any of the schemes those who want to ban guns advocate as incremental steps towards gun bans
When the states came together to establish their union, they did not give their union any authority to restrict the possession/ownership of firearms by the people of the several states.
Used in approx less than 1% of all firearm homicides. Anyone genuinely interested in bringing down homicide stats would focus elsewhere. Of the 12765 Homicide victims, 322 were killed by rifles of all types in 2012. It doesn't beak rifles down by type so less than 322 were "assault rifles" http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
Not all firearm homicides are mass shootings http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/weapons-and-mass-shootings/
Of course all homicides aren't mass shootings. I'm saying if people are genuine about saving lives, they will focus on handguns. If anti gunners were successful at getting rid of these horrible rifles, it wouldn't even move the needle on homicide stats.
well since you are well educated in this subject you know that the clown Sugarmann decided to start a jihad against "assault weapons" because by 1985 he realized that the movement to ban handguns had failed and he figured that if you couldn't ban guns that were 1) easily concealable 2) not very popular for hunting 3) were sometimes cheap and the least accurate of the three major firearms style 4) were not the standard military firearm 5) and were often used by criminals he might as well try to ban weapons that were a) hard to conceal b) mainly expensive c) often used for hunting d) very accurate e) and have clear militia use he could work his way back and ban all the other stuff based on the hoped precedent he would create with a ban on stuff like the AR 15 or the M-I carbine
No if people genuine about saving lives then a combination of regulations are required with gun safety and locks being paramount
I agree that people should be careful with their guns, but you are talking about accidents. What percentage of "gun deaths" are accidents? How will gun safety and locks stop criminals from killing people? There are almost 20 times the amount of murders as accidents. Why ignore the murderers and concentrate on the accidents first?
No - the research I have done has convinced me that access to guns increases homicide and suicide. It was the old thing that tablets in easy to open bottles were more dangerous as far as attempted suicide than tablets in individual foil wraps or the sort of child proof bottle where you first have to find a five year old to open it. It is all about second thoughts. Slowing someone down from just grabbing a gun from the drawer and shooting in the heat of the moment. It is a fine balance - easy enough access for the gun to be useful (although personally I do not think I COULD fire at another person to kill) and stopping it from being used on the spur of the moment
Now you have changed the argument from assault weapons to firearm storage. Which can't be enforced without door to door checks. It is illegal for minors to have unsupervised access to firearms. Many irresponsible adults have had their children get a hold of firearms in the house and shoot themselves or others. Care to guess how many parents have been prosecuted? It doesn't happen. This is just not something that can be or will be enforced. You want to pass more useless legislation?
I have ALWAYS been anti gun ban for the USA seeing it as useless since there is simply too many weapons already. I have only and ever advocated that the core of reduction in firearm mortality and morbidity is RESPONSIBILITY - that means firearm storage and making people responsible for ownership and that, yes does mean registration But again you are focussing on accidental deaths instead of domestic violence deaths which are far more numerous
this is offered in the most sincere sense. Anything less that undocumented education through educating the young into safe gun handling would be acceptable for almost everyone in this thread. I am all for safety, but at what expense? Do we surrender our 4th and 5th Amendments just to "make sure" that things are done according to a standard that can change in a second? The truth be know, most of us do not trust our government with our Rights. Left up to them, they would remove not just that one, they would remove all Rights and turn on us in a minute. Governments have never demonstrated a "kind hand" to it's citizens. Yes, we are proud and defiant in the face of the government. Our Rights give us that ability. If you want a good example, look what Obama has done to reporters and news sources. And if that isn't enough, look at what Hillary is doing. Commanding the press on how to handle her process. IF she gets in, she'll totally control the media and has indicated the willingness to use her power to control the press. So much for the 1st Amendment for her. No. we need to keep the Bill of Rights under the people's control, not the government. Here, we enjoy the Liberty of having public birthday parties without any input from the government. Why would we be willing to sacrifice the little things in life? Our Rights protect the little things as well as the bigger things. This is not snarky, or demeaning, [MENTION=17234]Bowerbird[/MENTION] but simply offered....... I would rather train individuals who seek training voluntarily and educate youngsters rather than they get the education from Halo or Call of Duty, or the thug on the corner. You ban guns, kids get curious. Without education through the school systems, they will satisfy their curiosity outside of the view of parents. That's when it becomes dangerous. So encourage proper education, but not by edict from the central government. That would be an infringement. States should handle this one, not the fed gov
I understand your objective. What you are proposing can't be enforced. Isn't having immediate access to your self defense firearm kind of important should you need it?
their are more assualt style weapons used in a crime than u think. im afraid of more scary looking idiots, that have S.F.B.
