Gun control debate (merged)

I think they would be used about 1/20th as much as rifles, which are used about 1/20th as much as handguns. And I think you have the same reasoning behind the reductions. Handguns are easier to use than any rifle. easier to conceal and carry as well. Cheaper, both in the upfront cost and the cost to shoot. automatics have a similar jump in complexity and price over rifles as rifles do over pistols.

so yes we would see them, but I don't think the deaths would necessarily go up as much as you think. Its not like the movies, most people aren't holding a fully auto weapon on target very long at all.

its comes down to the simplistic of economy, automatic weapons are EXPENSIVE. both to buy and to run. rifle ammo isn't far off $1 a round. I think it was a Chris Rock joke about putting bullets on layaway.
I don't think I saw an answer to the first question.
 
If assault weapons had not been banned, do you think things would be better, worse, or pretty much the same?

Do you think there is a higher likelihood that an assault weapon would have been used in a school shooting had they not been banned?

The 1994 "assault weapon ban" only changed the cosmetics, not one functional item of the action or feed was changed on any weapon with that ban.
 
If assault weapons had not been banned, do you think things would be better, worse, or pretty much the same?

Do you think there is a higher likelihood that an assault weapon would have been used in a school shooting had they not been banned?

School shootings were higher during the assault weapons ban than after
 
I don't think I saw an answer to the first question.
mostly covered in the second paragraph. I think it would largely stay the same. some years it would be worse, some years it would be better. And it would mostly be tied to the economy of the nation as the rest of violent crime is more than the availability of automatic weapons.
 
Hey, anyone ever heard of a mass shooting at a dove shoot? I mean, since the prevalence of guns means mass shootings according to the gun control nuts, I would expect the country to be deluged in blood and carnage during dove season.

Although the doves are coming in gun free. Works out about as well for the doves as it does other gun free zones.
 
Hey, anyone ever heard of a mass shooting at a dove shoot? I mean, since the prevalence of guns means mass shootings according to the gun control nuts, I would expect the country to be deluged in blood and carnage during dove season.

Although the doves are coming in gun free. Works out about as well for the doves as it does other gun free zones.
I think you're missing the point. It's the easy and instant access that is the issue, not the proliferation. But the two are obviously intertwined.
 
I think you're missing the point. It's the easy and instant access that is the issue, not the proliferation. But the two are obviously intertwined.
There is no easy and instant access for bird hunters? Or are you implying that bird hunters can buy shotguns almost as easily as AR-15s? Are background checks easier or more difficult for shotguns? I have been to a lot of dove shoots and trust me, there was plenty of gun proliferation.
 
I think you're missing the point. It's the easy and instant access that is the issue, not the proliferation. But the two are obviously intertwined.

It’s not easy or instant. Ironically though you seemed to be just for doing that when exercising other fundamental rights. I’m sure you would be ok with ordering guns through the mail or purchasing one without an ID. Maybe have certain people go throughout certain communities and pass out guns to anyone who can legally own one. You would think looney libs wouldn’t be for suppressing someone’s fundamental rights.
 
There is no easy and instant access for bird hunters? Or are you implying that bird hunters can buy shotguns almost as easily as AR-15s? Are background checks easier or more difficult for shotguns? I have been to a lot of dove shoots and trust me, there was plenty of gun proliferation.
You're still missing the point.
Easy and instant access does not cause a person to consider murder. Easy and instant access makes it easier for a person considering murder to successfully carry out their desire.
 
You're still missing the point.
Easy and instant access does not cause a person to consider murder. Easy and instant access makes it easier for a person considering murder to successfully carry out their desire.
No, you are missing the point.

1. You understand nothing about firearms
2. You understand nothing about firearm laws
3. You understand nothing about criminals

It's a senseless debate. Take some time off VN, learn about the subjects, then get back to us.
 
You're still missing the point.
Easy and instant access does not cause a person to consider murder. Easy and instant access makes it easier for a person considering murder to successfully carry out their desire.
Explain this, because isn't it true that the vast majority of people committing homicide have had their weapon of choice well in advance of the act? In the cases involving mass shooters, even moreso? The Nashville shooter, in fact, planned the event out in advance including the target location because it was a softer target over another.
 
Easy and instant access to ballots during an election does not cause a person to consider voter fraud. Easy and instant access makes it easier for a person considering voter fraud to successfully carry out their desire.
Now I have to say, this is a pretty good argument against easy and instant access.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
No, you are missing the point.

1. You understand nothing about firearms
2. You understand nothing about firearm laws
3. You understand nothing about criminals

It's a senseless debate. Take some time off VN, learn about the subjects, then get back to us.
It would make more sense for you to simply not respond. But then again, sense was never a strong point of yours.

And I see you actually had absolutely nothing to say that refutes the obvious logic of my point....typical.

Do us all a favor and resist the urge to respond.
 
Explain this, because isn't it true that the vast majority of people committing homicide have had their weapon of choice well in advance of the act? In the cases involving mass shooters, even moreso? The Nashville shooter, in fact, planned the event out in advance including the target location because it was a softer target over another.
I'm sure that the majority do. I'm also sure that there are many who do not. Didn't the KY guy purchase his AR15 less than a week prior to his rampage?
 
I'm sure that the majority do. I'm also sure that there are many who do not. Didn't the KY guy purchase his AR15 less than a week prior to his rampage?
Is a week now considered "instant?" If you are defining a week as now being "instant" and have a single example, sounds like an exception that proves the rule: the problem is with people and/or society as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
Advertisement





Back
Top