America's Gun Violence

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This argument is stupid.

Are boys and men in the US different than boys and men in... oh... say Canada? No.

The only difference in the two countries are the type of weapons each country affords their boys and men... and the amount of weapons each country's boys and men possess.

Time to get serious here.

This is most likely why I have a disconnect to the issue.

I have been around firearms since I was 10.  Have shot "assault" style weapons, have owned them and handguns and never once have I thought to go out and shoot up a school, place of work or a bar.

To think that people who are of the right mind who own firearms and go out and shoot people is foreign to me.  I would like to think that all of you on here participating wouldn't go and commit mass murder either, even if you don't own a gun.

There is a disconnect.

I'm not in favor of banning anything.  I'm in favor of making it a little more difficult to obtain a firearm though.  If all 50 states would agree to the same law I'd be ok with extreme scrutiny too as long as it was the same across the board.

unsung said:

josevolution said:

tempo_n_groove said:

josevolution said:

tempo_n_groove said:

my2hands said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Classy:

https://twitter.com/nra/status/973944596563746816

Still waiting for someone in here to tell me why they need a weapon like that?

Has anyone said "because the constitution says I can?"

Has anyone responded as to why these massacres only happen here ? when was the last time 17 highschool student got murdered in JAPAN or ENGLAND or CHILE or ARGENTINA ? 

True.  In a bunch of countries it is mandatory to own a gun and mass shootings don't happen there either.

I don't have an answer as to why these things happen here but I wish someone would start studying it.

Really you think maybe that 5 to 10 million AR15's in circulation has anything to do with it ?

Not at all.  Tell me an NRA member that has shot up a school.

The evil AR15 is used in less than 2% of murders where a firearm is used.

Let’s keep it to masacres ok how many massacres have been co

That's the point.

First you'll want the AR.

Then it will be the handguns.

No more compromise.  Actually there never has been compromise, gun owners has always given.

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

This argument is stupid.

Are boys and men in the US different than boys and men in... oh... say Canada? No.

The only difference in the two countries are the type of weapons each country affords their boys and men... and the amount of weapons each country's boys and men possess.

Time to get serious here.

Do you realize that the ar-15 is legal in canada?

Yes. But it's not hanging on the shelves at the local sporting goods store for a quick purchase. And to obtain it requires your left nut (restrictions and registered with the RCMP).

I guarantee if there was 'one' shooting like you guys experience on a weekly basis... it would be gone.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

That's the point.

First you'll want the AR.

Then it will be the handguns.

No more compromise.  Actually there never has been compromise, gun owners has always given.

The handgun should be in your country's sights. It is the major driver for the unbelievable statistics your country boasts regarding deaths by guns (you know... the one where per capita you guys kick everybody else's asses in deaths by guns?).

'No more compromise' would indicate some form of compromise at some point in time. Just from your cold dead hands, eh? Comical.

Gimme a break 30.

Go back and do a little research.

1930ish gun control
1968 gun control
1986 gun control 
Brady Bill
AWB

On and on and on...

That isn't compromise, there never has been compromise. 

josevolution said:

How many masacres have been committed with a hand gun ? 

Quite a few. Columbine and Virginia Tech come to mind without having to look anything up. I'm sure you can easily find more.
Also depends on your definition of "massacre."  Some stats define a mass shooting as 2 or more people injured, some define it as 3 or more killed. In either case, the overwhelming majority did not use an assault rifle. 
Yes, Sandy Hook, Vegas, Florida night club and the recent Florida school shootings did use assault rifles. But many do not. 

I am for for restricting assault rifles though. I was just answering your question. 

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

That's the point.

First you'll want the AR.

Then it will be the handguns.

No more compromise.  Actually there never has been compromise, gun owners has always given.

The handgun should be in your country's sights. It is the major driver for the unbelievable statistics your country boasts regarding deaths by guns (you know... the one where per capita you guys kick everybody else's asses in deaths by guns?).

'No more compromise' would indicate some form of compromise at some point in time. Just from your cold dead hands, eh? Comical.

Gimme a break 30.

Go back and do a little research.

1930ish gun control
1968 gun control
1986 gun control 
Brady Bill
AWB

On and on and on...

That isn't compromise, there never has been compromise. 

I don't know your country's gun law history and I couldn't care.

You have a problem and it is a big one... so any of those items you listed there hardly sound as if they demanded any level of compromise that would result in positive change for your country.

The Brady Bill? Making someone wait a couple days before receiving their handgun and having a background check to see if you're not a felon? You think that's a bad thing? You see that as a compromise?

And... what of this real slippery slope thing? I know you said 'on and on and on' so there probably is a whole bunch of other things that are really significant... but looking at the timeline you produced there... it doesn't seem like the 'slippery slope' argument really has much traction.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

That's the point.

First you'll want the AR.

Then it will be the handguns.

No more compromise.  Actually there never has been compromise, gun owners has always given.

The handgun should be in your country's sights. It is the major driver for the unbelievable statistics your country boasts regarding deaths by guns (you know... the one where per capita you guys kick everybody else's asses in deaths by guns?).

'No more compromise' would indicate some form of compromise at some point in time. Just from your cold dead hands, eh? Comical.

Gimme a break 30.

Go back and do a little research.

1930ish gun control
1968 gun control
1986 gun control 
Brady Bill
AWB

On and on and on...

That isn't compromise, there never has been compromise. 

I don't know your country's gun law history and I couldn't care.

You have a problem and it is a big one... so any of those items you listed there hardly sound as if they demanded any level of compromise that would result in positive change for your country.

The Brady Bill? Making someone wait a couple days before receiving their handgun and having a background check to see if you're not a felon? You think that's a bad thing? You see that as a compromise?

And... what of this real slippery slope thing? I know you said 'on and on and on' so there probably is a whole bunch of other things that are really significant... but looking at the timeline you produced there... it doesn't seem like the 'slippery slope' argument really has much traction.

Then read up on the laws from somewhere other than CNN.

I took two minutes to come up with a short list, surely you can do a little research on your own.

There never has been any compromise, gun owners give and give and get nothing back.  

Maybe you are lazy if you can't spare ten minutes.