There was an assault weapons ban. Since the ban has been lifted, mass shootings have skyrocketed.
The AR 15 has now become a very common place weapon. I was designed for mass slaughter not hunting. It is not as accurate nor has the stopping power of a standard deer rifle. 5.56mm bullets kill people. Too light to humanely take down deer. A typical 30 cal deer rifle bullet has twice the stopping power of the AR15 bullets.
2 Likes
Did you know that during the last stock market crash some people died of heart attack when they realized they were a day or two from retiring but lost most of their retirement $?
Shall we ban the stock market? 
Now you know how stupid some people sound.
No heart!
We have seen people use large vehicles as weapons in the US. There have been bomb plots foiled.
In reality, you see how many of these events are there a year? There are 2.5M people a year legally using guns to prevent crime. Thatâs a far more common reality than mass shootings. Hereâs one of those 2.5M:
For an otherwise smart, articulate poster why are you the ultimate fanboy of military grade weapons rights in a civilized society? No one, at least me, is remotely suggesting taking handguns away that has a semi decent argument with the self-defense angle but that is about it. You must have a gun cache that John Wick would be jealous ofâŚ
The gun aficionados BSing everybody about âoh, wait!, you are going to grab all the guns from meâ are so perverse, so dumbfounded they become clowns because most of them havenât even been 2 feet from a real soldier, or never heard the sound of a military weapon scaring the hell out of everybody.
They also havenât seen the dead bodies piled up as pieces of chit. They just donât know anything about this problem at all. They donât even own a gun!
What is your goal? The vast majority of gun deaths are handguns. Assault type weapons are a small percent. Do you really think that guy wouldnât have found a way to kill lots of people without an AR 15?
I donât even own any guns. Itâs just I can look at the problem logically and see how taking away this guyâs gun wouldnât have stopped him from mass murder.
The FBI is amazing. They claim they couldnât find him based on the YouTube comment where he used his real name. Thatâs some top notch work.
My goal is to see innocent children not die from a lunatic with a military grade weapon that he really shouldnât have had access to in the first place.
2 Likes
I keep telling you, some people are so stupid.
Itâs the proliferation of guns that is killing innocent people. They are being pushed into the brain dead second amendment people that they should get armed because of the government taking their guns one day or the other, the same government paid for by the gun lobby. Itâs not only funny but pathetic.
I remember, someone here berated me, assuming I didnât have any âreal estate investmentsâ to not make an opinion because I âdidnât have a skin in the gameâ. Well, I am returning him the courtesy and asking him politely to shut up because he doesnât have kids that could be shot at school. Very simple, PC is dead.
Whatâs your plan when the lunatic switches from guns to other weapons?
Are there effective way to identify lunatic and how feasible is it to lock them in jail forever?
2 Likes
The FBI was warned and did nothing.
The is no defense against a firearm. Either everyone carries one or no oneâŚI say ban everything with a magazineâŚPistols and rifles
2 Likes
There is a big logic flaw in pro gun peopleâs argument.
When it comes to gun control they say you shouldnât because itâs not 100% effective. Yeah, nothing is 100% effective. If they believe in that argument they should smoke 10 packs a day. Smoking wonât kill you 100% of the time. They should not use seat belt or condoms. Not 100% effective.
But then they will use this âmental healthâ argument and say donât worry we can treat the crazy people better and thatâs the solution not gun control. They fail to hold themselves to the same â100% effectiveâ standard. Are you sure you wonât even let one out? Is it 100% effective?
2 Likes
This gun control âdebateâ has gone on forever. I have seen all the reasoning I need to see. Time for some action.
Vote the bums out.
1 Like
Funny to read some people trying to deflect the very core of the problem, the existence of those assault rifles.
They are the lunatic people, from one corner to the other one trying to catch the light from the moon.
Is it the cars? No, how about the stock market killing people when it crashes? Yeah! Ban the stock market! 
Itâs not that it wonât be 100% effective. Itâs that we already have data that shows it doesnât make a difference or in other words isnât effective. The biggest place where people point to it being effective in Australia, and the US had a larger decline in gun homicide rate over the same time period. If it was actually effective, then Australia would have had a much larger decrease in homicide rate. Then thereâs also the data that says violent crime rates increased in Australia while they decreased in the US. Not only did banning guns not make a difference in homicide rate vs. not banning them, their people became less safe overall due to an increase in other violent crime. People just ignore that inconvenient reality, since it doesnât fit their opinion.
Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country yet one of the highest homicide rates. Do you think making guns illegal is going to be any more effective than prohibition or making heroin illegal? Heroin is so readily available that itâs killing 3x as many people per year as gun homicides. Gangs already have the trafficking process established. They can just add guns to their drug trafficking operations.
People point to the 10,000 gun homicides a year (most of which are gang on gang) while completely ignoring the 2.5M instances of lawful gun ownership protecting people from crime. Thatâs a 250:1 ratio of good vs. bad. There are 300M guns in the US, so only 0.0033% of them are used in a homicide each year. You mentioned airbags. Would you advocate banning airbags if they save millions of lives but 0.0033% of the time they can cause a death if used incorrectly?
Blah, blah, blah.
If you donât have kids in school, go suck wet sand if you are thirsty. We do.
This is what the dummies from the republican party are afraid to show to the gun hos.
Stop bringing dumb responses. If you donât have a skin in the game, as the shooting survivors do, just be quiet if you are not going to help. Really.
"I personally have rallied for gun rights ⌠but this experience has changed my viewpoint," said the student, a young woman speaking to David Hogg, a student journalist who captured her real-time reaction to the violence on video Wednesday afternoon.
She spoke in a hushed tone, her face hidden by the darkness. "I wanted to be a junior NRA member. I wanted to learn how to hunt. I was always fascinated by guns as a young girl, but this experience was so traumatizing to the point where now I canât even fathom the idea of a gun in my house or on my bodice."
We went over the Australian data once. It may even be this very same thread. Itâs not what you claimed but thatâs fine. We already talked about that.
USA is an outlier in loose fun control. Most countriesâ gun laws are far more stringent. Itâs not the same as drugs and alcohol at all. Drugs and alcohol bring people pleasure. Guns donât. Most countries have no issues controlling access to guns.
The â2.5M guns doing no harmâ argument is flawed. They are doing no harm but they are not doing society any good either. Where were the 2.5M guns that could save these 17 kids?
Look at this as a public health issue. You look at how many lives saved versus how many killed and think logically. Most other countries donât have this weird gun obsession.
1 Like
