Good news.

More difficulty in amassing casualties. Hard to shoot thirty plus people in lass than ten seconds with bolt action rifle or six chamber revolver.

 

Quickly interchangeable thirty round mags is a good start.

 

You reference the nut job of nut jobs? The let's pretend we live in crazy la la land, guru of the right. Full of the anger and fury that riles up the fearful emotions of his audience.

He pretends to be some kind of doctor but the medical profession considers him to be a quack.

Listening to the likes of Michael Savage, is what primed so many conservatives to come down with their sickly Trump Deranged Sycophancy.

 

Why did you leave out semi-auto handguns? Are you in favor of banning those too?

 

Yes.

 

At least you're honest. Do you believe criminals will hand over their semi-auto handguns if those were banned?

 

No, not likely, but discontinuing their legal sale and confiscating those found in the field would be a start.

 

It might put a very small dent in the number of handguns that already exist in the US. Possibly. But at least the criminals will all have theirs.

 

The potential for difficulty in enforcing a law is not a valid argument against the existence of said law.

 

Because people are killed by handguns, mass shootings are not a problem?

????

I don't even have to respond to this. The paragraph displays it's own level of absurdity.

Of course there isn't! You're the one who brought up the comparison. I showed you that it's ridiculous.

 

Dumb and irrelevant question. .

Let's get one thing clear: I am 100% for banning the sale of all types of guns to the public. And I mean ALL. Anything that sends out a projectile short of a Nerf gun but up to and including BB guns. But this thread is specifically about the AR-15 and similar. There is a larger consensus among the population to ban those because there are additional reasons which might or might not apply to other types of guns.

So your strawman makes no difference to me. Any statement you make which is intended to show that an argument that would lead to banning Assault Weapons (I'll leave the PC aside from now on for the sake of brevity) would also lead to banning all other types of guns is fine with me. But that is simply not what is being debated here.

 

If you want to ban knifes, open another thread, show your arguments and... power to you. This thread is about Assault Weapons.

 

I know a lot about Sandy Hook and I agree with you, besides Adam, his mother was extremely irresponsible and must be attributed a huge slice of the blame. He was displaying the kind of behaviour which should have someone locked up, so to have unfettered access to her guns was a huge factor in this horrific crime. She would often take him shooting too.

 

What's wrong? You don't like to hear that if the so called "assault weapons" are not used, they will just choose another weapon such as semi-automatics that don't look like military weapons, pistols, knives, vehicles, fertilizer bombs or whatever else is available that demented minds can come up with?

 

But planes and trucks are not designed to kill people; they are designed to transport people or freight. That's where the difference is.

 

No, to reduce the ability of them to commit acts of crime using a gun.

 

Maybe he’s arguing (I know he’s not), since those things require registration and licensing to own and operate, firearms should be given the same treatment. I agree 100%.

 

Yeah! You suggested that a 9mm handgun (if I remember correctly) could have been used in the Sandy Hook massacre and obtained the same results. I believe that would not be so. Do not generalize my answer.

In any case, you have not established the relevance of your questions. An Assault Rifle (leaving PC terminology aside) was used to kill a large number of people (mostly children) in a short amount of time. The sale of any weapon that can do that should be banned.

And if your final statement is going to be something similar to "Your argument would lead to the ban of all weapons" ... save it! I do happen to favor the ban of sales of all weapons to the public. But that's for another discussion.

 

Only if you are prepared to allow no notice inspections of your home by law enforcement to insure that all your weapons are properly registered, even if you have no weapons.

 

As I said before: I am all for banning all weapons. But I acknowledge that I am in a minority on this (for now). So if we can't do that, at least ban those weapons that make it easy to kill a large number of people in a short span of time. There is a much larger consensus among the people to do that.

 

I was just merely pointing out the obvious

 

Then you must ban semi-automatics that don't look like military weapons, pistols, knives, vehicles, fertilizer bombs or whatever else is available that demented minds can come up with.

 

Except that a 9mm has been used to kill 32 at Virginia Tech. So there's that.

 

It is a very good argument because with such laws, they are obeyed by the law abiding and disobeyed by the lawless and the lawless are the ones who are the problem.

 

Is that an action currently taken in people’s garages? I think it’s not.