floridays
Well-Known Member
You just admitted it isn't the weapon. It's not a firearm matter it is mental illness, am I correct, did you just say that?
AMMUNATION
- Thread starter rickyb
- Start date
a). Because we can.
b). If you and others will vote with the NRA and Trump to save your black plastic 20 round rifle, maybe your wife deserves to lose her health insurance and your gay sister deserves the wrath of the religious right. We all have choices to make.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Correlation does not imply causation.
The fact that a particular weapon was used in a mass shooting does not automatically infer that the outcome of that shooting would have changed had a different weapon been used. Particularly when the only differences between weapons are cosmetic rather than functional.
Take Sandy Hook for example. Lanza could have killed just as many people with a revolver and a double barrel shotgun from the late 1800's as he did with his AR 15. His victims were unarmed teachers, and children who had nowhere to run to. The only thing that would have changed the outcome was an armed teacher.
Ah. But anything can be a weapon, right? What I'm admitting is that I'd rather take my chances against someone with a baseball bat that an assault rifle. Now tell me you wouldn't know the difference.
floridays
Well-Known Member
I don't believe you would care how many people each could harm if I'm smashing Your head with a baseball bat. Stay on track. Me, baseball bat, Your head, = assault weapon.
The argument seems to be if the government takes away one kind of gun, it won't be long that they'll be after another kind of gun or all guns. I don't own a gun, but family members do and my grandfather had a nice collection. I don't get why guns that can kill a lot of people fast were ever allowed into the population. And bump stocks that turn semi-automatics into nearly full automatics are insane. People can defend themselves with a pistol, a shotgun, whatever. But guns designed to kill a lot of people fast are always being used by those that want to do just that. The genie may be out of the bottle, but we can at least stop the manufacture and sell of such guns and stocks. And put huge penalties on owners of such weapons who's family members use them to hurt others. That won't stop the owners who use them that way, but if properly locked up might stop some killings. I just don't think you're going to see millions of Americans voluntarily handing them over and trying to force that plays right into the hands of those who believe some in the government are trying to enslave us. You would definitely see some mass killing then.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I didnt vote for Trump.
I have been voting against my own best interests as a gun owner for the last 30 years, because health insurance and the well being of my gay and non white relatives are more important to me than the well being of my gun collection.
So you don't just get to dismiss me as some right wing mouth-breather in a MAGA hat.
But you didnt answer my question. Is the prospect of 4 additional years of Trump worth tilting at the windmill of gun control that will, at best, only affect guns that are used in less than 5 percent of all gun murders?
floridays
Well-Known Member
The question, or statement was "Define an assault weapon." I didn't answer but gave other examples. You now change perimeters. How about fertilizer?
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
You're assuming a lot of right wing turnout is based on guns and no left wing turnout if affected by it. I'd love for democrats to get real and push for significant gun reforms, not dance around the edges blaming mental health. A real aggressive plan may increase dem turnout just as much as right wingers. I think a lot of people are tired of the NRA always getting their way and the constant mass shootings that creates.
floridays
Well-Known Member
All BS aside, what firearms do you own?
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Hillary pandered to the gun-grabbers in 2016.
Gun grabbers didn't stay home because of her lack of support for gun control. But she lost 3 pro-gun states that Obama was able to carry in the previous two elections. Obama was certainly no friend to gun owners either, but he never called for outright confiscation.
floridays
Well-Known Member
No, they can't be constitutionally banned, restrictions can only be placed on firearms.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
She lost those states due to low turnout on the dem side. I never heard her talk about guns, Dems hide from the issue. Being cowardly on an issue doesn't drive anyone to the polls.
I don't know. Cite the statistics of mass murders committed with each weapon you listed in the last 20 years and we'll go from there.
Assault weapons can be banned. In fact, at one time they were.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
We ban all sorts of guns, we can ban more.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Nope, fully automatic weapons are legally owned today. What firearms do you own?, and respond to post 101 please.
You ask the question that the converse could be asked of you.
My answer is no. But at the same time, I am confident Trump will lose in 2020.
You are saying that the assault weapons ban never took place?
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
How many rocket launchers are legally owned today? How about Tanks?
Similar threads
