How to ban guns without firing a single shot...

Nope, the 400 wounded are the ones that were wounded directly by Paddock

A total of 800 were injured. 400 directly by Paddock (who fired approx. 1,000 rounds in 10 minutes) and another 400 in chaos.

 

and tell us how this is relevant to gun banning arguments. Paddock was a former IRS employee with over 10 million in net worth-he had a valid pilot's license TWO Planes and spent at least a year planning this massacre. With his ability to travel across international borders and his wealth, he could have bought far more deadly weaponry or even flown his fully laden plane into the crowd

 

Sorry wrong the average mass shooting kills just less than ten. And a dude in the 1920's killed 120 kids with a 55 gallon drum a diesel fuel 19 *******s with box cutters killed 3600 people with box cutters and two airplanes. And for what it is worth the ******* that killed forty could have easily killed 400 with that cessna 310 he also owned with a little skill and talent and time he could have rigged that cessna in such away that the death toll could have been closer to a thousand. And no I won't tell you or anyone else how there are way too many crazy people in the world and I don't want to risk giving any of them any more ideas than they can come up with on their own.

 

That is not their purpose.

 

You need to look more closely.

How so??? Are people doing carnage because they don't have enough money? Can't find a psychiatrist? Think the social net is inadequate? Want less costly health care? Feel they can't afford schooling? Think they want a better job? Now if they had more compassion for others that might help, but how is the government going to find that person and how is it going to instill compassion??

 

A lot more people would die if we ban gas. A lot less if we ban assault weapons.

 

that's based on the same lack of facts that your other claims are built upon? and it's fairly irrelevant. the fact is, few people are killed with what dishonest gun banners wrongly call "assault weapons". So the move to ban them is not based on the oft repeated lie that it is to save lives.

 

There is nothing but opinion to substantiate that.

 

true and that claim is irrelevant to the point that was being discussed.

 

Approximately 300 a year. And the actual answer is likely zero since there are tons of other semi auto weapons that work just as well. The fact of the matter is that where there is a will there will always be a way. Note suicidal and crazy do not necessarily imply stupid.

 

That didn't sound like opinion to me.

That sounded like a threat.

 

No. It's a post on an opinion board, how much of a threat could it be? But take it as you like.

 

Families of those killed in Las Vegas strip, Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Uvalde... etc... might argue that that's a "few people" who would most likely be alive today if "assault weapons" had been banned. Just like those who WILL be shot in future mass shootings with these weapons.

Your argument that they are not enough to matter is clearly utter nonsense. But it's also clear it's all you got!

 

What about the other weapons with the same capability, but which do not look like weapons of war?

 

they might argue that because they have been emotionally crippled by what happened, but I don't care about incorrect arguments. The fact is, Paddock could have killed far more people in that environment with something other than 12 semi auto sporting firearms. Why don't you tell us how someone with his resources and transportation options was going to be stopped by any of the current democrat schemes?

 

And who could blame them.

But that is a logical fallacy. Banning AR or AK type weapons would not stop anyone, intent on mass murder from choosing a different type of weapon. In fact one of the first mass murderers, Charles Whitman, killed 15 people with two bolt action hunting rifles. A record number of deaths that stood for a long time, EVEN, after magazine fed semi-auto's became popular.

EVERY life matters. But banning a particular TYPE of firearm will not save one life. Mass murder is an anti-social problem that should tell us there is an aspect of our society that is broken. We need to address that problem, make sure we are doing what we can for the mentally ill, the social outcasts and disaffected of our nation. Banning guns will NOT save lives.

 

we don't know how he defines weapons of war so I expect anything from a folding pocket knife to a cruise missile will fall into his definition of a weapon of war

 

Factually incorrect.

That's wrong. The contrary: with a bolt-action battle rifle, he'd likely have done MORE damage. Anyone who doesn't think a bolt-action can be fired quickly and accurately, you need to learn what a "mad minute" is.

He spent enough time planning, he could probably have LEGALLY bought an actual machine gun if he wanted to. He may well have had a psychotic break...the link goes into much detail. The Smallest Minority: "This is Public. Please Share."

Explain, in your own words, what an "assault weapon" is. Be specific.

 

You will never get an honest answer from him to that question. Ever.

 

Banning blunt instruments and knives would save more assuming bans ever did much other than change the weapon of choice.

 

In the past it was whatever weapon looked mean and nasty to the late Sen. Feinstein.