Originally posted by SurturHeavily regulate/ban every single gun that fires rapidly to any degree. Pistols, rifles and such are fine. Crack down on automatics, semi-automatics etc...
Indeed, which gun legislation could have prevented this?
There's literally evidence that this works, buddy. Check out this clip about Australia
Originally posted by Firefly218
Heavily regulate/ban every single gun that fires rapidly to any degree. Pistols, rifles and such are fine. Crack down on automatics, semi-automatics etc...There's literally evidence that this works, buddy. Check out this clip about Australia
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Semi-automatic weapons....most pistols you will find are semi-automatic, so what do you mean by "crack down" on semi-automatics?
Originally posted by Surtur
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Semi-automatic weapons....most pistols you will find are semi-automatic, so what do you mean by "crack down" on semi-automatics?
Full on The Derp Face for them.
Originally posted by FlyattractorHere's a non-biased source
[b]But it is the Daily Show. That means the facts will be all skewed to show a preffered view of what they want them to say....aka its all a Big Lie. [/B]
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres
Originally posted by SurturI mean any semi-automatics that can be shot rapidly enough that the line between it and an automatic is blurred.
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Semi-automatic weapons....most pistols you will find are semi-automatic, so what do you mean by "crack down" on semi-automatics?
Originally posted by FlyattractorOh sht I didn't see this stupid post. You think more guns make everyone safer, meanwhile a shooter can down a whole church before anyone has the reaction time to shoot back.
[b]Already stated my view. Somebody in that Church shoud have shot back.And You really don't watn Gun Control FireFly. You really want Totalitarian Control.
[/B]
Gun regulation before YOUR child gets hit in the crossfire
Originally posted by Firefly218
Anyone interested in gun control yet?
Yes, gun control laws need to be relaxed in some states.
And we need universal healthcare that covers mental health.
Edit - "more gun control" is not a liberal position. It is a right-wing position. It's just that...Americans are so backwards that our have confused "more rights" with conservatives and "less rights" with liberals...at least on guns.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Any gun that is capable of shooting rapidly needs to be banned. I don't care what type of gun it is.
Didn't the Vegas shooter use guns that could not shoot rapidly but were modified to become automatic? See why your idea is misinformed?
Originally posted by Firefly218
Oh sht I didn't see this stupid post. You think more guns make everyone safer, meanwhile a shooter can down a whole church before anyone has the reaction time to shoot back.Gun regulation before YOUR child gets hit in the crossfire
But if it came across from ANOTHER COUNTRY how would Gun Control in The U.S have stopped this?
If you can't answer the question, then I will forgive you for being ignorant.
Okay so I guess some "good" news, if you can call it that. The number of dead isn't 28, it is now being reported at 26.
I read that the shooter was in the military and was dishonorably discharged.
Also here is the story I mentioned earlier:
This man may have prevented the Texas mass shooting from getting any deadlier
"Were it not for a local resident who confronted the gunman, the deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives.
At a news conference Sunday night, investigators offered a preliminary timeline of the attack at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and laid out the role the resident played.
The gunman entered the small church in the rural town east of San Antonio, firing with an assault weapon at the congregation attending the morning service.
A local resident grabbed his own rifle and engaged the gunman, said Freeman Martin, the regional director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.
"The suspect dropped his rifle, which was a Ruger AR assault-type rifle and fled from the church," Martin said. "
Originally posted by Firefly218
Let me guess. Guns don't kill people, people kill people?
That's irrelevant to my point. It is a red herring and a dodge from my point.
Go back to my post, I edited in more. And then reply directly to the content if you would like to provide a rebuttal. If you do not have one, then don't reply. It's simple. We don't have to get into stupid arguments that abound in the GDF.
Or lets go with this angle. The Left says that the only "People"
that should have Guns are the Government and the Police?
But if that is so...
Don't the Left say our Current President is a Fascist, thus making the Current Government a Fascist Regime?
And don't the Left also say that the U.S Police are Extremely Racist?
You want only THOSE PEOPLE to have GUNS FiFLy?
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so I guess some "good" news, if you can call it that. The number of dead isn't 28, it is now being reported at 26.I read that the shooter was in the military and was dishonorably discharged.
Also here is the story I mentioned earlier:
This man may have prevented the Texas mass shooting from getting any deadlier
[b]"Were it not for a local resident who confronted the gunman, the deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives.
At a news conference Sunday night, investigators offered a preliminary timeline of the attack at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and laid out the role the resident played.
The gunman entered the small church in the rural town east of San Antonio, firing with an assault weapon at the congregation attending the morning service.
A local resident grabbed his own rifle and engaged the gunman, said Freeman Martin, the regional director of the Texas Department of Public Safety."The suspect dropped his rifle, which was a Ruger AR assault-type rifle and fled from the church," Martin said. "
[/B]
How very interesting. So the shooting could have been much deadlier if the attendee to the church service was not armed?
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Or lets go with this angle. The Left says that the only "People"
that should have Guns are the Government and the Police?But if that is so...
Don't the Left say our Current President is a Fascist, thus making the Current Government a Fascist Regime?
And don't the Left also say that the U.S Police are Extremely Racist?You want only THOSE PEOPLE to have GUNS FiFLy?
[/B]
Couple of things:
1. Only "some" in each group of people you mentioned above have the attributes and labels you've applied to them.
2. That's why we have those pesky amendments: so we can violently overthrow our tyrannical government.
Some Americans like to forget that we founded this country on violence, bloodshed, and guns.