Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[Nosmo King]

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

While a medical procedure is certainly time sensitive, I can't see the equivalence with buying a gun, or a car, or a house or a pair of shoes.

 

[martybegan]

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

While a medical procedure is certainly time sensitive, I can't see the equivalence with buying a gun, or a car, or a house or a pair of shoes.

I am using it as a comparison because it's something, from your posting history, you see as a right, just as 2nd amendment people see owning and being able to get a firearm when they choose as a right.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

While a medical procedure is certainly time sensitive, I can't see the equivalence with buying a gun, or a car, or a house or a pair of shoes.

I am using it as a comparison because it's something, from your posting history, you see as a right, just as 2nd amendment people see owning and being able to get a firearm when they choose as a right.

So it's a false equivalence. Time sensitive medical procedures have no bearing on the immediacy of gun ownership.

 

[iceberg]

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

please explain why it makes a difference?

i go shopping, i see a gun i'd like, i buy it. why would i need to wait 3 days or more cause .01% of the population will abuse this?

Your minor inconvenience trumps public safety?

again, you're making 99.9% of the people wait for the .01 that will have a problem. your rhetoric will not fly and will get "shot down" in the process, making you mad no one is listening to common sense, heightening the irony off all this cause you're not listening to it now.

you want what you want and can't explain the difference it would in fact make, you just attack the side telling you no.

 

[martybegan]

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

While a medical procedure is certainly time sensitive, I can't see the equivalence with buying a gun, or a car, or a house or a pair of shoes.

I am using it as a comparison because it's something, from your posting history, you see as a right, just as 2nd amendment people see owning and being able to get a firearm when they choose as a right.

So it's a false equivalence. Time sensitive medical procedures have no bearing on the immediacy of gun ownership.

Elective abortions aren't time sensitive enough for a week to matter. Hell let's cut it down to 3-4 days like you want guns to be treated.

The only reason you think one waiting period is OK and the other is not, is because you don't like one, and don't care about the 2nd amendment, and think the other is a right.


It is not a false equivalence, I am trying to get you out of your progressive box to see how the other side see's the issue of gun rights, by replacing it with abortion rights, something you vehemently support.

 

[xyz]

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

I think they're kind of popular, although not as popular as pistols.

I just don't see the appeal of this to veterans or firearm aficionados:

 

[Skull Pilot]

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

How will a so called cooling off period stop any gun crimes?

people who plan their crime will just wait or they already own firearms

How many shootings do you think there are where the killer willy nilly on his way driving past a gun shop decides to kill a few dozen people?

 

[Skull Pilot]

As an Engineer I am constantly aware that failures do not occur because of a single cause, there is usually a cascade of "failures" that end up causing something to break, or a catastrophe to happen.

We cannot restrict the media from broadcasting the name and the background of these killers. In fact to me ignoring them lets people concentrate on the tools used, not the executor of the massacre.

People look for easy answers to things that are very complicated, it's why "any gun control now!" is very appealing to most people, as it gives the illusion of "doing something" even if nothing actually gets done.

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

It suggests none of the above.

People kill
People have always killed
People will always kill

And it is an extremely small percentage of people who will kill. And those people will kill regardless of any laws. So all your background checks and mandated mental health screenings will do absolutely nothing but make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves

Therefore those of us that would be the victims have the right to defend ourselves with the best tool possible.

Then help us solve the problem of man, if the gun is not the problem and man is the problem, you are suggesting our uniquely American problem with gun violence is a problem created by God. Why is God so vengeful against Americans?

You are never going to stop people from killing each other. This is a fact as irrefutable as gravity. I accept it as a natural law of the universe. I can't defy gravity or travel faster than the speed of light and I certainly cannot stop people from killing each other. All I can do is protect myself from what is the most violent and deadly animal this planet has ever seen, man.

 

[Skull Pilot]

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

please explain why it makes a difference?

i go shopping, i see a gun i'd like, i buy it. why would i need to wait 3 days or more cause .01% of the population will abuse this?

Your minor inconvenience trumps public safety?

I worry about my safety more than public safety.

What about the woman who's crazed stalker ex boyfriend says he's going to kill her?

Are you going to tell her, "Yes, Madam you absolutely pass all the background checks but you have to wait 4 or 5 days to take possession of your gun. I certainly hope your psycho ex boyfriend doesn't kill you in the next 4 or 5 days. Thank you and have a nice day."

 

[iceberg]

And yet, something must be done. No problem created by man is unsolvable by man.

And here is the rub

You think it's the gun that is the problem but in reality it is man who is the problem

That suggests a solution including universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods to confirm the information. It further suggests gun registration so confiscation can occur should any mental illness or violent criminal activity be adjudicated after a gun purchase.

Develop mental illness or be convicted of domestic violence or assault and lose your weapon. Man is the problem. Let us then make sure the problem does not effect the public.

Once a person is no longer a law abiding citizen, the rights of the law abiding are no longer threatened.

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

How will a so called cooling off period stop any gun crimes?

people who plan their crime will just wait or they already own firearms

How many shootings do you think there are where the killer willy nilly on his way driving past a gun shop decides to kill a few dozen people?

this is what he won't answer, just say "PUBLIC SAFETY" and call it enough.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon and never has been. It functions the same way any other semi-automatic weapon does the "scary" parts of the firearm are nothing more than plastic and composite materials.

 

[2aguy]

AR15's were a niche weapon owned by veterans and a limited number of firearm aficionados before the ban.

I think they're kind of popular, although not as popular as pistols.

I just don't see the appeal of this to veterans or firearm aficionados:

AR-15 civilian rifles are the most popular rifle in the country. That alone protects them under the 2nd Amendment....

 

[kaz]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style.

nope it is because it has been highly over rated by anti gun nutz

the ar is really nothing more then a sooped up 22

sure it can pump out the rounds but then again any semi auto can

most of my rifles are far more deadly then the ar

You're missing the point. If non military style guns are just as, if not more effective, why are the ARs so prevalent?

I'm not clear if you're arguing that shooters like guns like AR15s or if AR15s turn people into shooters.

Also, do you have any stats on mass shooters using guns that look like AR15s? I know a lot of shootings were with just regular guns

 

[jon_berzerk]

universal checks i'm down with. states need to share, military needs to ensure dishonorable discharges are there, and that needs a huge clean up.

mandatory waiting periods - what are you out to get here? will additional checks be done in this timeframe or are we just hoping if they're buying in anger they'll calm down in "x" amount of time? w/o a valid reason supplemented by proof, take it off the table and go for what you can likely change.

the reason we never come to a compromise is because the left never seems to compromise, much less learn about guns to have an intelligent convo to begin with.

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

While a medical procedure is certainly time sensitive, I can't see the equivalence with buying a gun, or a car, or a house or a pair of shoes.

the government denied Martin Luther King a firearms permit

worked well for him didnt it

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I will gladly limit myself to this weapon:

As long as I can modify it any way I see fit, including functionality and attachments.

 

[Nosmo King]

I don't understand how a Three or four day waiting period in order to confirm the background check and serve as a cooling down period constitutes any infringement. Surely the law abiding citizen would not be inconvenienced by that short period of time. If I wanted a gun, I could reasonably see a waiting period. But if I was hell bent on killing someone, I could understand how waiting three days could put a crimp in my plans.

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

While a medical procedure is certainly time sensitive, I can't see the equivalence with buying a gun, or a car, or a house or a pair of shoes.

the government denied Martin Luther King a firearms permit

worked well for him didnt it

Because pistols are so effective against sniper ambushes.

 

[jon_berzerk]

i don't understand how it makes an actual difference.

you're trying to pidgenhole this into everyone buying a gun is going to go on a killing spree and needs 3 days or more to calm down.

you're not willing to listen to views as to why people disagree with you, you'd rather insult and accuse people of not caring vs. understand why they feel the way they do.

if you were hellbent on killing someone and didn't have a gun, you'd find another way. would you disagree with this or is it all NO GUN NO KILL and problem solved?

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

While a medical procedure is certainly time sensitive, I can't see the equivalence with buying a gun, or a car, or a house or a pair of shoes.

the government denied Martin Luther King a firearms permit

worked well for him didnt it

Because pistols are so effective against sniper ambushes.

so obviously you do not mind the government denying King a permit

based on his skin color

 

[Crixus]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Why have the military stylist weapon around? Because I want to. That’s really more explanation then is needed.

 

[Nosmo King]

Please explain the immediate need of a gun. If I was invited to a hunting lodge and I needed a specific gun for that visit, I would have ample time to apply for the background check, have it completed thoroughly and then pick up my new gun. As far as I can understand, the only reason I HAVE TO HAVE THAT GUN TODAY is to shoot someone that day.

Again, it's because it won't stop at 3-4 days, it never does. One side wants to keep guns, the other side wants people to not keep guns.

Would you trust PETA to plan a whole hog BBQ?

Would you accept a 1 week "cooling off period" for an abortion?

While a medical procedure is certainly time sensitive, I can't see the equivalence with buying a gun, or a car, or a house or a pair of shoes.

the government denied Martin Luther King a firearms permit

worked well for him didnt it

Because pistols are so effective against sniper ambushes.

so obviously you do not mind the government denying King a permit

based on his skin color

Don't be ridiculous. Race did not matter.

Remember this when you think a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, or a gun is some kind of magical talisman that unstantly wards off attackers.

March 1981. Four men are shot on the streets of Washington D.C. in broad daylight. Two of the four were armed. One of the four was grievously wounded rendering him paraplegic. The forth was the President of the United States.

All four were surrounded by the best trained, best armed cadre of security personnel in history.

How does that square with the notion of the hero gunslinger? The Dirty Harry wannabe?

 

[Nosmo King]

Maybe we can't see the forest for the trees.

Maybe one of the unfortunate reasons "assault style weapons" are used in many gun violence circumstances is the style. If video games and movies can be blamed for gun violence, why not the 'style' of weaponry? Are violent criminals drawn to the menacing look of these weapons more than the technical aspects of firing systems and round speed and lethality of sporting style weapons? Could similar cultural aspects attract those who watch violent movies and play violent video games to violent looking weapons?

Is it just cooler to carry a gun with a long magazine projecting from it? A gun that's all black and blinded up with military styling?

Gun lovers would agree that other sporting style weapons are just as, or more, deadly? Yet we don't see that many mass shootings committed with those sporting style weapons. If they are just as effective for self defense and a military style weapon, why have the military style weapon around?

As gun violence increased, could a corollary be seen in the increase of popularity of military style weapons, the "scary looking" guns?

I may be wrong, but I never heard this point of view proffered.

Why have the military stylist weapon around? Because I want to. That’s really more explanation then is needed.

If the style of the weapon excites and motivates a killer, what makes your desire to have one a valid position? Does your simple sense of aesthetics trump public safety? How much more selfish could you get?