So you think they were trained but no one knew who they were? Wouldn’t that make it kind of hard to organize the militia when needed?
I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
Yes, those guns just go out prowling and killing innocent people all by themselves.
That's what it sounds like you're saying.
Self defense is actually codified. It’s not just shooting someone bevause you don’t agree with them.
No one, and I mean NO ONE kills more people than governments.
Well, I am way under the average...guess I need to stock up.
Yep and some of these jackwagons want us to trust the government....
Can you explain any other reason we have 10 to 20 times more gun deaths per capita than any other highly developed country?
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
It's 120.5 guns per 100 persons, not per person. That's basically 1 -2 gun(s) per person.
I gave a link. How is that obtuse? The civilian version of the AR-15 is what people have now. USCwatson21 said that it was designed for war. That is not true for the civilian version of the AR-15. Who cares about earlier versions? Is it too scary looking?
I would think the assumption was everyone owned a firearm. And all could be called upon as needed.
You’re being very obtuse. The fact you have to call it a civilian version should be all the evidence you need to know the design was meant for the the military.
Which design? There was an automatic version of the AR-15. That was meant for the military. Not the semiautomatic version. I’m not sure why this is an issue.
Could have started us off on the right foot by titling it “... an intelligent discussion...”- I am sure I was not the only one to notice the irony there.
Guns are never going to be totally “banned” here.
Assault weapons are what the title indicates- weapons of war made to kill massive numbers of humans, as many as possible. They never should have been legal for citizens to own, should be banned and YES it absolutely would make it harder for people or criminals to get their hands on them to commit these horrible acts if they were.
99.9999% of people would be better served using a shot gun for self defense than an assault weapon anyway, so the self defense argument is just false.
Nobody is saying “get rid of all guns”, what people are saying is assault rifles with extended clips, bump stocks... Should not be owned by citizens. If you ban them and remove them from stores, only the most hardened of black market scouring bad guys would get their hands on them. These are not the guys shooting up schools and super markets. This guy in Colorado bought the gun from a local store like a day before the shooting. He is not some cartel member or black market arms dealer. Would he have still shot some people if all he could get his hands on was a shot gun? Maybe. Would the death toll been as high or the carnage as bad? Certainly not.
I am sure similar sentiments have been stated already, I just do not have the time to read 7 pages! LOL
Then again not saying we should reduce it but that’s the issue - reduce access to guns reduce gun violence it’s not a matter of knowing how to solve the problem
We as a society have to determine if access to guns is more important than x amount of gun deaths per year
Because you can’t have reduction of gun violence without reduction of gun access it’s just not possible
Because you can’t have reduction of gun violence without reduction of gun access it’s just not possible
Already showed studies that have shown it to be true - do I need to post more?
That is not a direct correlation. I can have access to many guns and will never commit a crime. You’re missing the point that legal gun owners are not committing crimes. Therefore, why should law abiding gun owners have their access restricted because a very few misuse a weapon and kill people?
Should you pay higher insurance because some choose to speed and kill people in wrecks? Should your access to alcohol be restricted because some people drive Drunk and kill in car wrecks? Legal owners should not pay a penalty for criminals’ actions.
Okay thats not how it works. Just because you dont do it doesnt mean that it doesnt encourage crime. I smoke a cigarettes but dont get lung cancer so lung cancer is not caused by cigarettes?
Easier access to guns means more gun violence, thats just the way it is. If you think easier access to guns is more important than some deaths by gun then thats your perspective doesnt change the facts
He who would trade Freedom for security deserves neither.
Exactly, it’s like taking away tge keys from sober drivers because an individual decided to drive while intoxicated
Your end game is confiscation of all guns...anyone can see that. We could reduce traffic deaths if we make cars that only go 15 mph or less. That would take care of speeders and drunk drivers and majority of traffic deaths. Or do we accept the risk associated with vehicle ownership knowing that some will speed and kill and some will drive drunk and kill?
I’ll answer it for you, as a free American you take the risk and be responsible for your own actions.
Sure I am pro-gun for sure but I am in complete realization that easier access to guns means more gun deaths.
Its a sociological fact - the more steps and time to do something the less likely people are to do it.
No youre wrong I am not for the confiscation of all guns, I own several guns. Youre making assumptions.
What do you mean "legal gun owners" are not committing crimes? The Atlanta shooter was a legal gun owner. He bought it legally earlier that day. I have read that the Colorado shooter bought his legally a day before (just in one article - I don't know if more info will come out). Every "legal gun owner" is one until they aren't.
Its a catch 22 once they use the gun for violence they are no longer a legal gun owner so therefore the system works
Actually you do pay higher insurance because some people speed and kill people in wrecks and your access to alcohol is restricted because some people drive drunk and kill people in car wrecks.
You’re being obtuse if you think removing the fully automatic feature(which is only used when facing imminent death by soldiers) somehow makes it a drastically different product.
and this is the problem. We can’t have a rational conversation if you don’t understand the bigger picture of your argument.
Law abiding. I own many guns and have never killed anyone. My access to future guns should not be restricted due to some that commit crimes
does waiting for a week to get a gun really harm you that much to not want to save a few lives?
- Status
