Enough is enough... Everyone here should contact Sen. McConnell...

[wing2000]

Do you think criminals care if the mags they use are illegal? Do you honestly think they won't still be available through the black market? All you are doing is giving law abiding people less firepower.

We should not make it as easy as waking into a store an buy them legally. Will some people find a way around regulations? Absolutely. But that's NO excuse to do nothing.

 

[dogs4thewin]

We should not make it as easy as waking into a store an buy them legally. Will some people find a way around regulations? Absolutely. But that's NO excuse to do nothing.

The problem is the people who find a way will find a way one way or another. VERY few people who need to be stopped would be stopped.

 

[wing2000]

The problem is the people who find a way will find a way one way or another. VERY few people who need to be stopped would be stopped.

How many people today are obtaining fully automatic weapons?

 

[renniks]

We should not make it as easy as waking into a store an buy them legally. Will some people find a way around regulations? Absolutely. But that's NO excuse to do nothing.

If I seriously thought these regulations would save lives, I would be for them. It's just not reality. We had a so called assault weapons ban. Can you show me how it did anything to stop crime or shootings?

 

[JLB777]

Irrelevant. The point being made was that gun laws would restrict “LAW ABIDING CITIZENS”. The people who commit these massacres,

Sorry bro,

Law abiding citizens don’t commit crimes:

Hence the term “law abiding”.


People kill people.

Guns don’t kill people.

Get your facts straight.

Banning law abiding citizens from driving cars would prevent more deaths.



JLB

 

[JLB777]

 

[dogs4thewin]

How many people today are obtaining fully automatic weapons?

not many, but I fail to see your point since most shootings ( mass or otherwise) are not carried out with assault weapons. Thus, between the fact that the people who do that stuff do not care anyway and the fact that most shootings are not carried out with those weapons even if they did care I am not really seeing that it would help that much.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Texas is easily one of the most heavily armed states in the nation and well known for it too. The threat of facing armed, law abiding citizens did not seem to matter much to the shooter in El Paso.

We really do not know how effective that is because there is no way of knowing how many it does stop.

 

[wing2000]

If I seriously thought these regulations would save lives, I would be for them. It's just not reality. We had a so called assault weapons ban. Can you show me how it did anything to stop crime or shootings?

Reducing the lethality of legally available weapons (including high capacity magazines) will save lives.

An Everytown original analysis of mass shootings from 2009 to 2017 revealed that, of the incidents with known magazine capacity data, 58 percent involved firearms with high-capacity magazines.7 These shootings resulted in twice as many fatalities and 14 times as many injuries per incident on average compared to those that did not include the use of high-capacity magazines.*

*The 35 incidents with confirmed use of high-capacity magazines resulted in 10.1 deaths and 19 injuries per incident on average, compared to the 4.6 deaths and 1.3 injuries on average that resulted from the 25 incidents confirmed to have not included the use of high-capacity magazines.

https://everytownresearch.org/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines/#foot_note_8

 

[wing2000]

not many, but I fail to see your point since most shootings ( mass or otherwise) are not carried out with assault weapons. Thus, between the fact that the people who do that stuff do not care anyway and the fact that most shootings are not carried out with those weapons even if they did care I am not really seeing that it would help that much.

My point is, automatic weapons are banned today and not that many people are trying to illegally obtain them. The law works.

 

[renniks]

Reducing the lethality of legally available weapons (including high capacity magazines) will save lives.

An Everytown original analysis of mass shootings from 2009 to 2017 revealed that, of the incidents with known magazine capacity data, 58 percent involved firearms with high-capacity magazines.7 These shootings resulted in twice as many fatalities and 14 times as many injuries per incident on average compared to those that did not include the use of high-capacity magazines.*

*The 35 incidents with confirmed use of high-capacity magazines resulted in 10.1 deaths and 19 injuries per incident on average, compared to the 4.6 deaths and 1.3 injuries on average that resulted from the 25 incidents confirmed to have not included the use of high-capacity magazines.

https://everytownresearch.org/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines/#foot_note_8

and you think murderers care whether the guns they use are legal?

 

[dogs4thewin]

My point is, automatic weapons are banned today and not that many people are trying to illegally obtain them. The law works.

yet, it does not work with drugs. Which for the record have killed more people than EITHER gun violence OR car accidents in recent years. By that bans clearly do not work all that well.

 

[renniks]

We really do not know how effective that is because there is no way of knowing how many it does stop.

It stops everyone that is shot dead by an armed citizen. There have been a bunch of incidents where armed citizens stopped shootings, they just don't get the same news time.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It stops everyone that is shot dead by an armed citizen. There have been a bunch of incidents where armed citizens stopped shootings, they just don't get the same news time.

no, I meant cases where just knowing that someone may be armed has stopped something all together where it did not even happen because someone may or may not have been armed.

 

[wing2000]

and you think murderers care whether the guns they use are legal?

It won't stop the most determined, but it will stop some. Why make it easy?

Do you really think civilian society is well served by having devices like this legally available for sale (used by the Dayton shooter)?

 

[dogs4thewin]

It won't stop the most determined, but it will stop some. Why make it easy?

Do you really think civilian society is well served by having devices like this legally available for sale (used by the Dayton shooter)?

The ones most determined are the main problem though. Think about it a mass shooting is any time four or more people are injured or killed in a single shooting spree, but no where in that definition does it give any other factors such as were they committing another crime at the time? Was it just something with a family where maybe someone killed his or her entire family and no one else. Did the shooter have a motive to kill PARTICULAR people ( not a particular race or religion, but actual particular people. By the time you take firearm deaths and subtract out suicides, negligent discharges (accidents), homicides that are not mass shootings because fewer than four people were shot ( often committed with some other motive) and justified homicides ( those done in self defense or defense of others) You are really left with very few homicides that are in the types of mass shootings like we had this weekend meaning that really it would seem that the only people who commit those shootings are the most determined.

 

[Allandavid]

Sorry bro,

Law abiding citizens don’t commit crimes:

Hence the term “law abiding”.


People kill people.

Guns don’t kill people.

Get your facts straight.

Banning law abiding citizens from driving cars would prevent more deaths.



JLB

Oh good grief.....! Ok, baby steps then.....

1. People like you complain that restrictive gun laws will harm “law abiding citizens” who wish to purchase guns....right?

2. Ok...now, let’s suppose you have 100 people who want to buy a gun and, at this time, none of them have committed any crimes. You would classify them as “law abiding”...right?

3. However, one of those “law abiding citizens”, unknown to you, harbours a desire to kill people. Never acted on it before, never had even a parking ticket. But once he gets his hands on a gun....

4. So, if a law were introduced to restrict availability to guns, it would not ONLY disadvantage “law abiding citizens” (of which he is one at this point)....it would also prevent a potential murderous madman from getting a gun...!

I don’t think I can make it any simpler....

 

[Allandavid]

and you think murderers care whether the guns they use are legal?

No, but one of the effects of reducing the availability of guns (just like any commodity) is that they become very, very expensive to obtain.

Such has been the case in Australia. A person would need to pay tens of thousands on the black market here to obtain a gun illegally.

Now, before you leap in with “criminals would just steal the weapons”, remember that, in the case of gun massacres, we’re not talking about hardened, organised career criminals in the main. They are just otherwise ordinary folk with screws loose who are too easily able to get their hands on a weapon....

 

[Allandavid]

It stops everyone that is shot dead by an armed citizen. There have been a bunch of incidents where armed citizens stopped shootings, they just don't get the same news time.

So, with a total of over 250 gun massacres already in 2019, how many more of those ‘we never hear about’ incidents were foiled by these invisible ‘good guys’ with a gun...?

 

[Kentonio]

There are orders of magnitude of difficulty between driving an hour to Indiana to buy a gun with a fake ID and trying to smuggle an assault rifle across the border from Mexico.

Especially considering the majority of gun smuggling across the Mexican border is in the opposite direction.