Cars are created for faster travel. As a weapon, it's more difficult to kill someone with a car than with a weapon that you can load, aim, squeeze the trigger until you need to reload again. Guns are cheapen too. Cigarettes take decades. They simply do not compare to the mind-numbingly simple task of putting a couple of pounds of pressure on a trigger after aiming the barrel of the weapon at someone. There are better analogies to guns than cars and cigarettes, but few compare to a gun's remarkable simplicity in dealing death quickly and efficiently. You want better ones, something that is easy enough for a toddler to use, something people would have in their homes. Make sure it's something that a toddler can pick up and kill someone at random with. If you can think of one, of course. I can't. And that's the point. There is no comparison to guns that makes any sense. Guns are efficient killing machines. They are light, making them portable, and concealable. They use multiple projectiles, which are themselves light-weight, with all the benefits that brings with it. They can be re-loaded quickly, allowing for faster kills of multiple targets. That's what they are designed to do, after-all, and they are very very good at what they do. What they do is make it simple to kill, that's what they are designed to do. It's so easy, even a toddler can use it, albeit pretty inefficiently. Maybe they'll make a model just for him/her....one that does some of the targeting for 'em. I know they have done just that with some weapons, but junior or juniorette isn't interested in sniping someone from a half-mile away, they just think it's something that looks interesting and they're just being curious.
No one can answer a question based on an invalid premise. Ask a serious question and I'll be happy to consider it.
You're right...the only thing that keeps a person from using a gun on another is the level of logic and compassion that exists between their ears. That's why it's so important to build a society based on opportunity, personal responsibility, and compassion for others.
What "premise"???? There is no "premise" here. Let me put it in more simple terms for. Is there a threshold of violence or even a heinous mass shooting that would force you to say, "Hey, we really need to get assault weapons out of the hands of civilians?" Anything? Obviously there is a point to the question that goes along with the complete reluctance of your ilk to answer it. Asking if you have any threshold of violence that would make you reconsider your "right" to own assault weapons when I am 100% sure that none of you have ever been in a shoot out in your entire lives points out that your only rationale for wanting this "right" is purely fear-based. If you were forced to defend your home, family, property of any type from bad guys with assault weapons daily, weekly, or even annually, I'd say hey, you should definitely not give up your right but we all know that the only thing that would ever make that situation real is the continued proliferation of more and more deadlier guns in the hands of civilians. So I think this thread has proven my point beyond a shadow of a doubt that scared people do not think rationally. I've been on a campus when there was a shooting and I bet none of you have. The police showed up within 2 minute and the shooter committed suicide. Am I naive to not immediately want to arm myself? I am sure fear-based people think so but I prefer to live my life not in fear. The "what ifs" crowd can reside there.
You claim to have proven a point but I just don't see the point you are trying to make. I had an interesting weekend, talking to a diverse group of people at a variety of functions & several topics came up including guns. It's amazing how uninformed people are, including yourself, and how the far left's biased reporting influences their opinions. To hear the lefties, you'd think we had mass shootings, involving kids & assault weapons, perpetrated by far right gun owners on a daily basis. Granted, one is too many but you'll never prevent shootings by attacking the rights of innocent people. Would limiting my rights have had any impact in regard to the shotgun used in the DC shooting or the spate of shootings in Chicago recently? Would limiting my rights to own whatever firearm I please have had any impact on the violence we see? Limiting murders, shootings, stabbings, etc is a goal we can all work towards but the approach you advocate serves your own political ideology much more than it serves society.
I don't care about your little question because it serves absolutely no purpose - You & your ilk are trying to use tragedies to advance your political ideology. Twisiting facts and lying to people doesn't help reach a solution. Limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens (which is your only suggestion) wouldn't have prevented any of the shootings you lump into the "kids being killed by assault weapons" category & it won't prevent them from happening in the future.
However, nearly everyone of the had mental problems. I doubt anyone could say any practical mental system could eliminate every shooting, but I will bet it could go a lot further than any gun control measure(s). And specifically this last one SHOULD have been taken care of long before it occurred.
"Exploiting a tragedy" as opposed to doing absolutely NOTHING about ALL the tragedies? Your party excels at doing nothing. If doing nothing solved anything, you guys would be in the perfect position to argue for doing nothing. I haven't noticed this problem being solved so blocking everything clearly isn't the solution and puts the blame squarely where it deserves to be. YOUR ILK!
Brainwashed much? The NRA has proposed solutions involving tougher mental health guidelines but the ACLU & libs don't want privacy compromised. This grand solution of yours does nothing- nothing to prevent shootings from occuring in the future. You can't fix the criminals by attacking the rights of the law-abiding folks. Remember, the DC shooter used a shotgun..his background was checked but the mental health aspect couldn't be disclosed...and the shooting occured in a military installation where personnel, military or not, were forbidden to carry weapons. Think that might have entered into his decision to target that particular facility?
Probably. But, that's your decision and I respect that. However, don't infringe on the rights of others.
You mean like the right to not be murdered by the assault weapons your side makes sure everyone has access to until they actually murder someone. It seems like these murder victims should have rights too.
You know, that's another one of those left wing false narratives...they want you to believe that every gun owner is walking around with a gun or has a cache of assault weapons in their house. Personally, I don't know anyone who does.
Ahh nice.....Mr Toilet Paper Constitution Nation is now putting our RIGHTS guaranteed in the Bill of RIGHTS in quotations? Awesome. Also, I noticed in one of your statements that " the police showed up in minutes"....so in reality, when there was a bad guy with a gun, someone called a good guy.....WITH A GUN !!!!!! Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Mr Nation, I see you are also lying when you imply that the Sandyhook kids or the navy yard folks were killed by an assualt weapon. LIAR
Has anyone here had a gun that was taken away from them by an act of law? We already know the FEAR of that happening is real among a few of us, but has it ever actually happened? Sounds like a phobia, but the closest match I can find is anthropophobia...the fear of people or society. They may need to add a new one.
You idiot! Elimination of all guns & the abolishment of the 2nd amendment is what fog-of-war & his ilk are working towards. These clowns actually celebrate when a shooting happens! The rest of us are fighting to keep this from happening. Keep up!
