What law()s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

That's insane, unnecessary over reaction AND UN-Constitutional.

 

The "theory" that banning guns would work. Duh. Thought you were smart enough to understand simple back and forth context. Do I need to spell everything out for you from now on? Down to the last period and crossed t? Have I really given you too much credit all this time?

And your "hypothetical" is being pushed. By you. And everyone else that agrees with you. Like Cybred for instance. Or Diane Feinstein for another instance.

 

In the right hands; equating a pistol to a rifle, without qualifications, is either hasty or uniformed.

[/QUOTE]

 

So, you have no meaningful solution - or answers to my questions.
Thank you .

 

[/QUOTE]

Handguns are used in 2/3rds of all mass shootings.

LINK: The type of gun used in most US homicides is not an AR-15 - ABC News (go.com)

Btw... if they can 3D print a handgun...then a AR would be no trouble since the parts are essentially the same, just different sizes.

 

The police did not deem him a threat to himself or others.
Neither did the mental health professions that evaluated him.

 

While I agree that certain crimes warrant swift public executions, moving to this will not prevent anyone from committing a crime
Except the executed, of course.

 

You can, currently, 3D print a metal AR lower.

 

Yeah because you don't need a gun to shoot people, right? Sorry you fell in the rabbit hole the hypothetical the poster I responded to dug. Maybe next time you might want to read the context. BTW, you STILL need to show any post I took out of context... or retract your accusation. Of course, a third alternative would be to report the post to the mod and hoping that they delete it and get you off the hook. I have a distinct feeling that's exactly what you'll do.

 

While I'm sure you can do so for other parts (I haven't fully looked into printing a full AR) it wouldn't take much to be able to do so. All you need is an AR and a 3D scanner and you'd be set to print a full AR.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/alternatives-to-arming-teachers.530975/

You're welcome!

 

I already proved it. You ignored it.

And you're right, you don't need a gun to shoot people. There are other means. However those are not a part of the discussion. And this thread is full of examples of why your "theory" would not work. Might as well give up, because guns are not going anywhere.

 

After further thought, All things being equal equating the damage potential of a rifle to a pistol is just not correct. That's ALL I was saying. My argument had nothing to do with the rest of what you replied.

 

That's gonna take a lot of guns to enforce.

 

Fair enough. On that I'd agree. I had figured you were talking about mass shootings though since that was the topic so responded with that in mind. Just a simple bit of miscommunication.

 

And not worth the bloodshed. IF gun laws are to be written to stop violence and bloodshed, confiscating ALL guns would be like Phucking for virginity.

 

Thank you for further demonstrating you have no meaningful solution - or answers to my questions.

 

And get millions of people killed.

 

Well, even if they confiscated "all" guns, they wouldn't be confiscating "all" guns.

They'd just be creating a monopoly of force for the government.

 

None. The punishment however needs to reflect the hate crime.
All appropriate laws are on the books IMO.

 

They'd have to come past my house 3-4 times a week.

 

Can you imagine the number of divers they're gonna need?

 

I've seen the stats on murder weapons used.. was very surprised at what a low percentage were carried out by firearms.

 

No kidding!

 

No. You didn't. But you'll keep falsely claiming that you did.

There are not enough people on the right who are here for a serious debate...

So you claim you can shoot people without a gun.... Nothing more needs be said.