Proof, please? There have been repeated attempts to outlaw rifles which have the “dressing” of an M-16. It scares the patooties out of the liberals and the medial in its vacuous lapdog Pavlovian response, constantly calls them “assault weapons”.
But the same barrel and receiver, “dressed up” with a wood stock, doesn’t elicit the same reaction.
Neither are assault weapons - I served my 3 years in the military, and we all knew what an assault weapon was - and it was not a semi automatic.
The M-16 style semi automatic weapon is, according to some studies, the most widely owned rifle today. It has also been the object of gun control laws… And in crime, rarely used.
And according to the FBI statistics, there are more crimes using a knife than there are a gun - pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle.
The problem with this request is that it assumes only opinion. What is “doable” and what would reduce gun crime will be a reflection of one’s opinion on gun control in general. I have been burned by such request that have been asked with little sincerity. This whole thread is a “pearls before swine” trap.
All you offered is a song-and-dance. There is some hard data out there – from both sides of the aisle that show that attempts at “gun control” do not reduce violent crime. That’s why I started the thread – to see if I was missing anything? The closest thing I got to a genuine idea is repealing the Second Amendment. That’s not going to happen. Even if it was, if would be such a hideous political process that it would super-harden more than half of the populous who wouldn’t think of actually complying with any confiscation order.
So I continue to wait for ideas pertaining to “common sense gun control.”
You have not demonstrated a knowledge of any country that has more guns per capita than the US. So I wonder what country you were thinking of when you said “Untrue!” And why would you be in such a big hurry to vehemently deny it at first and then suddenly switch to saying it is a good thing to have more guns per capita. I ask you again, do you ever admit you are wrong?
ALL violent crime (with or without the use of a firearm) needs to be considered. Without such an approach, no progress will be made. The notion that some have that “mass-killings” can be prevented if we just control guns more tightly is laughably ignorant – or a chilling agenda.
I just called it a deflection because you brought it up as an alternative to addressing mass shootings.
Do you mean the only solutions you want to consider are those solutions that address every form of violent crime simultaneously? Or do you mean today we can try to solve mass shootings and the next day we can try to address home invasions?
So you admit to having all these problems and then…add monstrously easy access to weapons. I wonder what the result would be…
But we have a solution. We control how the media reports murder, we treat mental illness, we restrict access to drugs, we ban gangs, we lift everyone out of poverty, we educate everyone to a better standard, we stop people producing violent video games and we teach our children about God.
We also clamp down on domestic violence, teach everyone that suicide is a bad idea, end terrorism, prohibit excess drinking, stop racism…etc etc.
Get back to me when you’ve managed that, can you? It’s going to be difficult because no-one else on the planet has the problem with gun deaths that you do and if you insist that it’s not the number of guns that the problem (although you have more than anyone else), you obviously have a much worse problem with everything we have listed than anyone else in the world.
Gee, I mean, what sort of place are you living in where those problems cause so many more deaths than anywhere else? Why would that be? Is it really that bad in the US compared to anywhere else?
No, no. The argument is that easy access to abortions is not the problem. Restricting access will not solve it. People will still find ways of having abortions. It’s poverty and drugs and growing violence in society and the loss of God and faith. Etcetera.