Honestly, I agree we should have our guns. I don't think anyone needs an assault rifle or jacked up shotty to protect themselves. Plus, like you say mock, even assault rifle isn't going to stop the govt so it's ridiculous. Idk about your towns you live in but the schools here in my town have an armed police guards on campus & the high schools have more than one. This never made me feel scared or safe really. It's just normal to us. Theyre like a school district police instead of city cops or sheriffs. Just put these guys in all the schools & Sandy Hook will have less of a chance of happening again and screw it, ban assault rifles. That wouldn't faze me a bit.
If I were to go on a rampage I would prefer a normal style (non-assault) rifle. Should those be banned too then?
...I don't understand this statement. Is it a slippery slope argument? First off, no one is talking about banning guns. The proposed regulations are to ban magazine sizes larger than 10 rounds I believe and assault weapon style attachments for legal guns (the pistol grip thing), to give more power to the ATF to actually investigate gun related crimes, and to enact more security based measures to buying guns universally (so people can't just go to a different state with minimal gun laws to get around the system). Also to "look into" the causes of gun violence which is basically an excuse just to scapegoat somebody other than the gun industry or the people who actually commit the crimes. Second, what you prefer and what a deranged murderer would prefer are not one in the same. Are you saying you have homicidal tendencies and think about the best ways to kill lots of people often?
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/180752.pdf http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf Quite enlightening to read that firearm theft, federal firearm license applications as well as the number of gun dealers have all continued to decrease. Yet gun manufacturers report an increase in sales. Are we seeing a divide where less homes have a firearm but homes that do have more?
I'm saying that besides magazine size the stuff they're banning has only a minimal effect effectiveness, but scare tactics combined with general stupidity make that pretty irrelevant. What does matter is this: It's essentially impossible for the government to say "this is illegal now everyone who has an 'assault weapon' needs to dispose of it somehow" and it's about as hard to stop people from selling their personal property so they're stuck with banning manufacture of certain things. Since they also can't yell "stop the press" and put the ban into effect immediately the gun companies have a few months to crank out as many to-be-banned weapons as they can. Gun sales spike enough each time there's even a proposed ban on something gun related it's arguable that gun companies lobby for gun restrictions.
The point isn't to come up with a sweeping solution to instantly fix the problem. It's to enact changes that will in time change the gun culture that has developed in this country and to make it easier to enact changes in the future. It doesn't matter how "minimal" an effect you think the regulations would cause, we're talking about people's lives here. That's not how making something illegal works. The illegal item just wouldn't be able to be sold in stores. If you already owned it noone would come storming down your door telling you to destroy it. So your basically saying, why bother doing anything at all? Because you know the status-quo fixes problems.
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk It's the most guns in the world and very high homicide rate that doing nothing won't fix Sure we're not as bad as shooty mcRapeRape third world countries but our citizens also don't have alligator or malaria spreading mosquito as most likely death scenarios either.
Moreover there have been more mass killings in the US since Columbine than in all of the rest of the world combined. The figure is about 30. Availability of weapons can not be the only factor here, otherwise you would not see counties like Sweden and France so low on the table (France probably has one mass killing per year which is already way higher than any neighbouring country).
My primary concern about gun regulations is that they will only apply to common people. Some of the proposed bills explicitly say that high profile execs, government individuals, their security and the police can still carry any number of assault rifles with high capacity magazines. That is what I'm against.
Most gun related crimes are already done with illegally obtained weapons. My point was that you can't outlaw a certain type of gun for some people but then let others have them as most proposed legislature is doing. That creates an even wider divide between classes. And albeit a dangerous one.
Because most murders and spree killings are carried out by high profile execs, government individuals, their security and the police, exactly. Yeah, like, why should the police get to pull me over and run red lights? I should get to pull people over and run red lights too.
I'm really curious where that came from and how they define mass killings. There is no way that would be possible if you count terrorism.
31 School Shootings in America Since Columbine, Only 14 in the Rest of the World Combined SCHOOL shootings. You dun goobered Matty.
Mass killings via terrorism don't happen very often either. The places where they do, right now mostly in Israel/Palestine, or in Syria. Also, most acts of terrorism are the results of IEDs and not guns which is what we're talking about. The last big gun mass killing that I remember was the Norway shooting. I don't remember where the stat was but I'm pretty sure that first statement isn't true. Most gun related crimes are from legally purchased guns or guns bought legally and were then stolen (which makes the gun itself legal). This isn't about classes and no gun regulation bill would cause such a rift. Rich people aren't hording guns and lording over poor people.
If that's your sarcastic argument against mine then it's a profusely terrible one. Governments and corporations are responsible for the most mass killings and yes, police should abide by the letter of the law and not consistently tailor it to their liking. I think you missed the "illegally obtained" part.
We're still talking about America, right? You're right man. Police should have to wait at red lights like the rest of us. Same with ambulances and fire trucks. What's the rush, asshole paramedic guy?
Right, because there's no difference between carting a dying person to a hospital and speeding down the highway in a police cruiser (lights off) because no one is going to pull you over.