It was most likely due to the venues rules about firearms on the premises. In order to rent the place they must follow all rules put forth by the venue. Good luck finding an arena or convention center that allows you to carry firearms.
that's funny, I was there and people were packing. You must think about the audience seeing trump-I believe the SS didn't allow that - - - Updated - - - Since Trump was there on Friday (which caused an absolute nightmare for those trying to attend) I believe the SS prevented anyone going into the part of the hall where trump was from packing
My guess is standard 30 round magazines. But lets not forget that he reloaded many times. - - - Updated - - - NRA isn't perfect and we would point out flawed gun policies no matter who's enforcing them.
Trying to prevent deaths attributed to firearms is prohibitively expensive, and requires burdensome legislation that cannot be undone simply because it is proven to not work. It requires a complete reshaping of the justice system, all in hopes of possibly achieving a goal, which can easily be undone by changing trends.
Because the NRA, like all other convention organizers, are required to abide by the rules stipulated by the property owners they rent from. They have no say over the matter. - - - Updated - - - And what ideas do you have when islamic extremists, such as Omar Mateen, decide to murder homosexuals because their religion outright demands it? What is your suggestion to stop such acts of terrorism from occurring, when they are taught from an early age that such is the correct approach?
And it probably wouldn't work, and I don't like the idea of allowing the government to mess with ANY of our rights. A few psychos does not mean everyone should have to face the consequences. If that were the case, we should ban Muslims from entering our country.
Got amy actual statistical evidence that increasing the number of guns in any country or state has reduced the number of gun deaths? - - - Updated - - - Nice try! Been to many arenas for gun shows and the amazing thing was people had guns. - - - Updated - - - Nonsense, guess you have never been to a gun show.
Well at least you use " probably" And while it is easy to just concentrate on the few mass murders the real issue is the total rate of gun slaughter of innocents in this country. And this nonsense about more weapons will stop mass shootings ignores the fact that more guns will increase the number of innocent deaths while probably not stopping mass shootings.
Yes... the total slaughter... For every gun used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.. Your response: We need more gun control!
Then why are we setting record gun sales while FBI stats show the trend since 1996 on gun homicides are plummeting? It is a myth that more guns equals more gun homicides.
Well then here you go…. Start here, where you can find violent crime statistics by year in the United States: http://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/Search/Crime/State/OneYearofData.cfm The peak for “murder/non-negligent manslaughters in a single year was 24,703 in 1991. From 1990-1995 the yearly total never went below 20,000 per year. The last year the statistics are available on this website is 2012, and the total number of homicides was 14,827. If you look at the yearly data (It’s very easy to do so on this site), you will see that the total number of homicides has decreased from the middle 90’s highs to what it is today, with a slight uptick and then continued decline in the middle 2000’s. That’s nearly 10,000 fewer in the last reported year than the steady highs of the early 90’s, representing a 40% decline in murders/manslaughters as a steady trend across this 22 year period. And this is not a per capita table, mind you, but a total number of all murder/manslaughters reported across the nation. Now, what happened to our population? See this website: http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table In 1990, the estimate was 249.62 million people in America. In 2012, the population was estimated at 312.86 million people. This represents a steady increase of 63,240,000 people over this time. And yet with all these extra people the total (not just per capita) number of murders/manslaughters has declined. Clearly, you would not say more people equals more murders/manslaughters. But what about the availability of firearms for all these people to commit murders? See this website: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf This table lists the number of firearm background checks by month and year. The table only goes back to November of 1998, and so nearly 8 years of background checks are not even included (the trend for several years that are listed indicated the numbers would be between 8 and 9 million checks per year from 1990-199 So we are missing nearly 40% of the yearly data from 1990-2012. Still, from November of 1998 through the end of 2012 there were 160,356,702 firearm transaction background checks. A word of caution before I go further. This does not necessarily (or even likely) indicate that 160 million new firearms entered circulation. Some checks will result in a denial with no firearm transferred, and some will be for used guns (or pawn redemptions), so the true number of new firearms entering circulation will be lower. Nevertheless, we have millions of new firearms entering circulation, with the number of background checks equaling more than three checks per new person added to the population. So over this two decade period (plus two extra years since the data is available), we add more than 63 million new people to the population, and that population sought 160,356,702 firearm transactions that resulted in background checks (again totally excluding the first 8 years of data—which severely depresses the true number of checks from 1990-2012) which results in untold millions of new firearms entering civilian hands. And yet, with millions of new people able to commit crimes, and millions upon millions of new firearms to commit them with, our total murder/manslaughters per year have steadily decreased by approximately 40%, with nearly 10,000 fewer murders per year from the highs of the early 90s. Now understand me—this is only a correlation. I do not claim cause and effect (i.e. more guns = less murders). But clearly, more guns (and more people to wield them) does NOT equal more murders/homicides in the United States. Finally, over 14,000 murders/manslaughters per year is still too high (and these totals, by the way, are for all weapon types combined—not just guns). These totals are indicative of the real problem we have. We do not have a gun problem, we have a violence problem that is driven not by the availability of a firearm, but by other social and economic factors we refuse to effectively address. Listen, I chair a local FNRA committee, and we contract every year to hold our fundraiser banquet. From experience I can tell you the ability to carry firearms (openly or concealed) at any “NRA Event” is governed by two things: 1. State law that allows/disallows the carrying of a firearm, and 2. The contract you negotiate with the particular facility—for some will agree to let you come armed and some will not. I'm glad to see that you have attended "many" arenas for gun shows where people were armed. With all those guns around, how many people got shot at these events you attended? --- "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."--Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting with approval 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria from his work, On Crimes and Punishment, 1764.
They allowed carrying guns at the NRA convention. The only place that guns weren't allowed were in places that the Secret Service was in control of, and those that had alcohol (per Kentucky State law) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-convention-in-louisville-ky./article/2588255 - - - Updated - - - Gun murders are at historic lows (well, since 1960 when we started recording them systematically).
Examples of slaughter are currently at a historic low in the united states, despite the number of firearms being at an all time high. - - - Updated - - - Which means what precisely? What point are you attempting to make?
You asked and you shall receive... https://www.impactguns.com/beta-c-mag-system-9mm-glock-100-round-clear-cover-9367.aspx That's not true.
