Hearts and prayers, hearts and prayers, hearts and prayers,..........move on.

I believe there are tens of millions of AR type weapons owned in the US. So unless we can magically make all of those disappear I don’t see what banning future purchases of these guns is going to do in regards to mass shootings. Especially when those type weapons aren’t used in majority of mass shootings.

 

Ridiculous. I have owned guns for seventy years. I haven't shot anyone. My specific use is self defense. Shooting people in the process of self defense is a last resort. My ultimate goal is that shooting someone will never happen.

I do enjoy target practice.

 

One would think it's pretty obvious that it's more difficult to go on shootings spree with an AR type weapon without an AR type weapon. But, then again, the way of thinking of the right is always somewhat puzzling.

Tell me something. Do you also believe that it's not more difficult to take an SUV out for a drive through the countryside without an SUV?

Just curious....

 

I hate being the one to burst your ego-bubble... but this debate is not about YOU.

 

But again if tens of millions of ARs are already in the hands of US citizens then what impact do you expect the ban of new purchases to really have? Honest question.
Also, the Virginia Tech shooter killed 31 and wounded 17 with a semi-auto handgun.

 

Yet not a word about preventing murder; only attacking the rights of those who aren't harming others. This only gives criminals an advantage. I don't think you have an issue with armored car guards being armed, right?

 

Take away the gun rights of millions because of the actions of a few hundred or thousands? No thanks....

 

So he would not be disarmed under your plan?

 

Is that the best you can do? I hate to bush your bubble, but I am typical of gun owners.

 

I see. So you think that mass shooters can just go out and steal somebody's AR and THEN go on a shooting spree. And you don't think that would make it more difficult?

Your logic doesn't appear to be improving.

 

Implement all the bans you want, but there is absolutely nothing they can do about the hundreds of millions of firearms and billions of rounds of ammo that are already in circulation...

 

Your continuous change of subject is a very significant indicator of your inability to defend even ONE of the topics discussed. This one was about so-called AR-type rifles.

I have a problem with ANYBODY being armed, if you must know. But that's waaaay down the line.

Your strawman arguments keep failing.

 

What do you mean "disarmed"? Nobody would be knocking at his door demanding he turn in his weapons, if that's what you mean.

 

Out of curiosity. Did you actually read what he said? It certainly does not appear like you did.

 

You said "I think human life is the one and probably only concern we need to be addressing in this debate." but when I address it, you say I am changing the subject. That reveals that protecting human life is not the subject you wish to discuss. I realize that the "AR-type" argument comes from a position of ignorance. The same projectile can come from many other firearms that simply look different.

I do admire your transparency and willingness to admit you would disarm all Americans. The same mistake has been made many times throughout history showing that gun control is not from a position of concern for human life.

I meant what I posted.

 

If that is the purpose of firearms, they have the highest failure rate of any tool known to man. With around four hundred million firearms and roughly ten thousand deaths each year by firearms including suicides and accidents, that amounts to a failure rate of around 99.975%. Few industries would tolerate such a high failure rate.

 

I tell you what. The problem is the right (myself) doesn’t believe that the left (you) will stop at whatever “reasonable” gun control measures they propose and if we compromise today they will continue coming back every time there is an atrocity committed with a gun until we have no gun rights left.

Therefore, If you’ll agree for a final reconciliation on gun control with the understanding that any type of gun control moving forward is DOA regardless of if there’s 10 school shootings a day for a year straight... I will agree to sit down and accept some reasonable gun control measures.

Would you accept such a proposal and if so, what would be your demands for agreement?

 

Nothing is preventing you from moving to other countries. The UK, or even Nigeria or South Africa. (The latter two ironically have higher gun violence rates despite strict gun control)

The problem of the US is really around the big city areas. Should the rest of the more rural country areas have to suffer for that?

If I were Supreme dictator, I would allow the handful of big cities like New York City to construct big walls around their perimeters with airport-style screening at all the entrances, and enact whatever laws they wanted.

 

No, of course I don't think that. Which is precisely why I never stated such. Question, have any of the mass shooters who've used ARs used stolen ones? Or did they already own them? See where I going with that? I have to say I expected more from you.

 

I seem to sense a bit of self-centeredness lately. Did you bother to check who I was responding to? Or did you just decide to act as if anything anybody says about anything is about you?

But hey... I understand. If you don't hold yourself in high esteem... who would?

 

What the hell do armored car guards have to do with the concern for human life?

 

Fortunately.

But I guess that's yet another reason to get rid of them

 

I read his point and it appears that you did not.

That is a really ignorant comment. You claimed that guns were only to kill people. I showed you how stupid that idea was. The best use of a gun is when it does not have to be used.

 

Then your statement about there being AR-type firearms doesn't mean anything.

No idea where you're going with that. The average of mass shooting incidents in this country is more than one per day (not sure how many with ARs, but plenty). Looks like you expect an answer to your question that covers ALL of them. But that would be dumb, right? So why would you even ask that? No idea!

 

Where I was going with that is every mass shooter they used an AR, OWNED the AR. No one used a stolen AR, which is why you bring up stolen ARs is beyond asinine.
So, if there are tens of millions of ARs already owned by people throughout the US that means there is potential for more mass shootings with these guns. Therefore what impact is banning future purchases of AR going to have? Not really much at all, given that tens of millions of ARs are already in the hands of millions of citizens. If you can’t follow that then you’re either purposely playing dumb or you’re actually...well you know...