yeah, there is a difference. when a person loses his mental health & decides to kill, he never reaches for the keys of his supercar as the weapon of choice. maybe gun lovers can live with a little less firepower at the gun range, or wherever, & still get their rocks off, while making military guns not-easily-available to freshly cracked insanity.

i think NRA stands for assault weapons due to the slippery slope. next up for ban is handguns if liberals get the ARs...

:2 cents:

you may want to get updated on the fact the left, up to and including BO, hasn't done jack shit about the gun problems.

So when you vote for Sanders, you can rely on him to do something.

I agree with you. And so long as the Arms Industry pays for politicians on both sides nothing will get done. This is the freedom Woj talks about, they have bought your freedom to buy guns you don't need to make them richer and like Woj don't care if they're used to kill kids.

He uses stupid analogies like cars. What's the most people one man has killed with a car?

Or GS. So after a person has committed a crime, police can react. Prevention is not an issue.

There's one thing that's guaranteed to come from the Right. Dipshit logic.

it's way past time to drop the r v l issues re: gun problems. just like with climate change, the argument will overshadow action. and just like what is happening, nothing will happen. this is a people problem, not a political problem. the more both sides point their finger at the other side, the other side will defend their views, when you need to form a consensus, telling the people, whom you need to agree with you, that they are idiots, the problem, dipshit logic, etc, is not the way to reach a consensus.

does anyone really want to ban guns in general? I mean I'm sure there are some

seriously though there is no need for a civilian to have an assault rifle...yes people will still be shot but guns but it will be harder to carry out mass attacks. To say "it won't stop gun violence" is ignorant.

that is like saying get rid of seat belts because people still die in car crashes so it doesn't help

Awesome, thanx for that

By dipshit logic I mean replies like people drown so ban water, etc. Or the NRA is about people's freedoms. Those people are not going to change.

It is a political problem, all it needs is a countrywide referendum. More limits on the power of weapons the general public can own, or leave it. The arms one can bear is already limited, so can be done.

:thumbsup

It's simple logic. 1 bullet can only kill 1 person, or 2 if it goes through. A semi-automatic and loads of bullets can kill 50 or more.

If it's illegal top own a fully automatic machine gun that can spit out 100s a minute. Why not assault weapons and large magazines?

Please see my previous post for why your position is immoral.

USA had an assault weapons ban for 10 years once. mass shootings went down as did the # of murdered during mass shooting attacks.

:eyecrazy:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

So what kind of limit would you suggest for the arms individuals can own?

Most civilised countries have far more control on the arms people can buy and far lower deaths and wounding from shootings. So why is that?