Maybe it is the scary looking gun

[Rustic]

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.

You are delusional, an ar15 is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less. Only fool like yourself thinks the firearm has anything to with criminal behavior, firearms have zero control over people. We have no criminal control in this country... and an open southern border

Do you place any blame for gun violence on media? Are violent video games and movies culpable?

If so, is it easy to excuse a gun that looks like the ones used in video games and violent movies?

No, Firearms have no control over people

Do movies and video games?

No, they are not healthy for kids. Because of the violence. That is visual. Firearms have no control over people, you’re a fool that you think so...

 

[Rustic]

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.

One, gun violence has decreased and two, please define military assault weapon. I understand many are confused by appearances.

A gun that a third grader could point to and say "that's an army gun" and see the difference between Daddy's hunting rifle and a cool looking gun like the movie guy.

It's not that complicated.

You think like a child, totally immature and unstable

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

of course it did

it was a may issue state

 

[Rustic]

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.

One, gun violence has decreased and two, please define military assault weapon. I understand many are confused by appearances.

if by now if anyone is calling an ar a military assault weapon they are either willfully ignorant or simply incapable of learning

You'll note I have never said military assault weapon in this thread.

I've called them military style weapons.

The premise is the style and its effect on lunatic assailants in this discussion.

 

[jon_berzerk]

One, gun violence has decreased and two, please define military assault weapon. I understand many are confused by appearances.

if by now if anyone is calling an ar a military assault weapon they are either willfully ignorant or simply incapable of learning

You'll note I have never said military assault weapon in this thread.

I've called them military style weapons.

The premise is the style and its effect on lunatic assailants in this discussion.

I've called them military style weapons.


and you are still willfully ignorant

the military style of the rifle has a select fire

the ones on the store do not

but hey remain ignorant that is your fault and that of no one else

I'd wager BB guns produced in a military style outsell BB guns made to look like a hunting rifle or skeet gun.

Go for it

already been disproved

 

[Rustic]

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.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

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

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

He used ten round magazines.

The functional problem with magazines has been explained. Are they too impractical, yet seductive to the frazzled mind to be on the market?

Na, Only in your delusional mind

 

[Rustic]

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.

One, gun violence has decreased and two, please define military assault weapon. I understand many are confused by appearances.

if by now if anyone is calling an ar a military assault weapon they are either willfully ignorant or simply incapable of learning

You'll note I have never said military assault weapon in this thread.

I've called them military style weapons.

The premise is the style and its effect on lunatic assailants in this discussion.

I've called them military style weapons.


and you are still willfully ignorant

the military style of the rifle has a select fire

the ones on the store do not

but hey remain ignorant that is your fault and that of no one else

I'd wager BB guns produced in a military style outsell BB guns made to look like a hunting rifle or skeet gun.

Lol
A hunting rifle has no specific look you asswipe, and what the fuck does a skeet gun look like? A shotgun? You fucking retard.

 

[Rustic]

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?

Because they’re easy to use and fun to shoot.

I was at the range today with my AR 15, I also brought my AK 47 and PTR 91 – the AR was used the most.

Your thread premise and posts are both logical and reasonable – snag is the desire to own an AR is devoid of logic and reason, being purely subjective and personal.

I have no problem conceding that, unlike most of these rightwing nitwits trying to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15, and looking foolish in the process – spouting nonsense such as ‘needing’ an AR to ‘defend’ oneself from a government gone ‘tyrannical,’ and other like idiocy.

In my state AR 15s are legal to own, and I’ll oppose any effort in my state to ban ARs, or to ban them pursuant to Federal law.

And I oppose such bans not on Constitutional grounds – because they aren’t any – but because such bans are bad law and bad public policy.

Now that the truth is out, that people own AR 15s for personal, subjective reasons, that there are better firearms more suited to accomplish a certain task than an AR, your point has been made, and your thread can come to an end.

Or do you have a further point to make?

They are as constitutional as any other firearm there is...
ARs are an do all sporting rifle, they great for hunting, self defense, target practice, plinking, etc...

 

[Rustic]

Oh boy . Here come the gun nerds with their spam .

Let’s cut to the chase . They are weapons of war specifically designed to kill lots of people quickly .

Lol
Na,They are just sporting rifles you watch far too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types... so quit falling down the fucking well you little weasel

 

[Rustic]

You'll note I have never said military assault weapon in this thread.

I've called them military style weapons.

The premise is the style and its effect on lunatic assailants in this discussion.

I've called them military style weapons.


and you are still willfully ignorant

the military style of the rifle has a select fire

the ones on the store do not

but hey remain ignorant that is your fault and that of no one else

I'd wager BB guns produced in a military style outsell BB guns made to look like a hunting rifle or skeet gun.

and i'd wager if they made it LOOK mean you'd want it banned also.

we have proof.

Shannon Watts Shows Ignorance, Completely Embarrasses Herself with this Tweet - GunsAmerica Digest

a bolt action .22 and she's "up in arms" it exists.

thanks for posting that

i knew the ignorance of is astonishing

but WOW

Typical gun nerd move . Harp on the details in order to nerd bully people with gun minutia.

What is the weapon designed for ? Cause like in this thread, y’all fake spin like an AR is a deer hunting rifle with a scary clip . It is not .

Quit Falling down the well... An ar15 is just a sporting rifle

 

[Rustic]

Bathtubs aren’t designed to kill people.

But yet they kill more people than ARs do... What are you gonna do about it? Fall down the well some more?

 

[Rustic]

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.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

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

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

Customizable firearms makes them more useful and is none of your fucking business you little fucking control freak

 

[Rustic]

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.

I see where you're comming from...but I would argue that the federal ban in 1994 is ...if not the cause...a significant contributing factor.

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

The ban made them the forbidden fruit.

And those lacking knowledge of firearms, ammunition and balistics assume the government wouldn't ban them simply based on cosmetic characteristic (which is exactly what they did). They assume (wrongly) that they are more dangerous/deadly/reliable than other weapons.

You know Cruz stopped shooting, not because he was stopped by an outside force...but because his rifle jammed. For the uninitiated, this means it either failed to eject a spent cartridge, failed to feed a round, double fed, failed to fire (dud), etc.

Happens all the time when dealing with large magazines...the larger the mag, the more likely a malfunction, because the spring is very, very tight on a full magazine...putting much more pressure on round one and two...and very loose at the end of the magazine.

In fact...one of the first things a new soldier is taught is the acronym SPORTS...when the weapon jams, Slap the magazine, Pull the charging handle, Observe the chamber, Release the charging handle, Tap the forward assist, Squeeze the trigger. It is so ingrained, it springs to mind instantly 20 years since I wore a uniform.

Had Cruz had a weapon he was more familiar with...or one that is more resistant to jamming (I have semi-auto pistols that have NEVER jammed through thousands of rounds)...the death toll could have been much higher. Especially in light of the fact the police were ordered not to enter the school.

Perhaps then if the high capacity magazines are both the least reliable way to shoot and the most aesthetically attractive way to misuse these guns, we could kill two birds (pardon the expression) with one stone and ban them.

FYI a 30 round magazine is not "high capacity" in fact that size magazine can be considered standard for many rifles
Just as the 15 round magazine is standard for many handguns

Could a gun, be it pistol or long gun, be just as effective for sport and defense by way of a five round clip as opposed to a,fifteen round magazine?

 

[Rustic]

Again your solution is to punish people who use the weapons properly and responsibly in the vain hope that it will somehow limit a nutjob from going on a spree.

And as usual any proposal by gun control people along these lines will contain a few extra "goodies" to further their desire for a gun free civilian populace.

Could not the same things be said about censoring violent movies and video games? Those are a donvienent whipping boy to blame gun violence. Is it the aesthetic value of military style weapons that makes them so attractive to nutjobs?

I understand and appreciate the argument that guns are fun and customizing guns makes them even more fun. But should they be styled in such a way to make them appear as military weapons or the toys used in games and movies?

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

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.

Yeah criminal control not gun control

 

[Rustic]

i don't deny the "look" of the gun will carry some appeal.

now why is it so appealing?

we must also consider the media going bat shit crazy every time they see one and putting them in a state unable to correctly talk about them.
or that the media puts the killers name in lights forever and look at all that attention...

maybe telling the media they can't put the names of the killer out will help moreso than banning guns.

So the media is to blame for gun violence too?

Is there nothing the media cannot be blamed for?

Would you be content if the names John Wilkes Boothe and Lee Harvey Oswald were never disclosed?

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.

Shit for brains, Any waiting period is unnecessary, background checks are already in place.
Criminal control not gun control

 

[Rustic]

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.

There is no reason for waiting period Only fucking cowardly control freaks like yourself think that there should be, you people should be smacked down...

 

[Rustic]

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.

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.

The reason for purchasing a firearm is none of your fucking business...

 

[Rustic]

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?

We have much bigger fish to fry, take your pick you spineless coward...
2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[Rustic]

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.

Lol
You have no right to buy a car or a house or a pair shoes, firearm ownership is a right...
Mind your own fucking business when it comes to other peoples firearm ownership, you need To grow a spine you little weasel

 

[EGR one]

Bathtubs aren’t designed to kill people.

Of course they are. You don't need 12 inches of water to take a bath, you could get just as clean with 6 inches of water. Bathtubs are designed to drown people. Why do you feel the need to own one, you could just take showers. No one drowns in showers. It would be worth it if it just saved one innocent child.