Reply to What does it take to get a little gun control

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What does it take to get a little gun control "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]After new town I was sure we were going to have at least a little sanity.  After Parkland I totally gave up on the possibility of gun control.  But since than we have had mass shooting at churches and schools and even the Amish have been victims.  What does it take to do even the smallest reforms enacted?

Jesus this is ridiculous.  [/quote]
I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly.  After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds.  If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements.  But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control.  You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things.  I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.  [/quote]

Actually, we did have those things.  Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period.  After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased.  It’s not rocket science.  We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.[/quote]

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.[/quote]

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and [b]built for combat.[/b] When long guns are involved, they’re almost always [b]military-style [/b]semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.[/quote]

“Built for combat” — what does that even mean?  No military on earth uses AR15 or any other semiautomatic rifle as a “combat” weapon.

“Military-style.”  Again, what does that even mean?  Cosmetic features somehow make a firearm more deadly?

There have been rifles that were the functional equivalent of the AR15 (including magazine capacity) since at least the 1930’s if not before. Millions of rifles functionally equivalent to the AR15 (including magazine capacity) were built during WWII and surplussed off for pocket money thereafter.  The AR15 itself has been around since the 1960’s. With all those rifles around (many of which actually were expressly “built for combat” and military issue during WWII and after), there were none of these shootings until fairly recently, and even with the ones that have occurred the number of firearms misused is minuscule in terms of the number that exist.

It’s not the AR15 and “similar” weapons. It is something else that has convinced a diseased and despicable subset of deluded people that it is somehow OK for them to gravely harm other people with whatever means are at their disposal. That subset can choose and has chosen other means when it suited them.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics