OK. You win.
It’s just never going to end
I want a reason, give me a damn logical reason that refutes my points with statistics, facts, and evidence. You say many people die, I give you the statistcs that show more people are saved than hurt. You and others say you don’t need a gun, I ask why.
Why is it that everybody on the left argues like a feminist, where it essentially boils down to listen and believe. This refusal to address the reasons, facts, etc, and hide behind death of others to push agendas is why there’s the gridlock. Every time somebody pro gun says we need to ban them because people die, and theres a response all you get is rolled eyes.
You too. You can’t claim things, and then say it’s pointless when you don’t like or think the rebuttal is dumb. This type of reasoning is why the social sciences are flooded with nonsense. There’s a refusal to engage people they think are “to dumb too see what I see, and what I see is the only thing that matters”
The legislation infringes when it says what type of arms you can’t and can’t use, and who can and can’t use them.
It’s true legislation has the authority to pass these things, but they not only have an obligation, they must have clearly defined rules and protocols in place when things freedoms guaramteed by the constitution are restricted.
When the government passed the patriot act, people where upset because it didn’t define well who could be detained undefinetly and be denied the chance to defend themselves in a court of law.
With this, legislation needs to clearly address who will be denied the freedom to bear arms, and what criteria will bar an individual from owning a firearm. Legislation and anti gun folks never elaborate on the latter. They just say mental health and aptitude. Ok, what are the guidelines used to bar people.
Any law that can deny a man any of the freedoms clearly outlined cannot be vague in its phrasing. Not only is it wrong, it’s unconstitutional
Zzz
I hate to say it, but you’ve been getting your ass handed to you in arguments lately, and you’ve been tapping out in curious ways. Pedo brings up a good point. You said:
to which his reply was
Point for pedo, plain and simple. You can toss insults, or have a hissy fit, or try to redirect as much as you want. He fucking got you good.
Alright bro you want it you FUCKING gotta it…Where the fuck did I say we don’t need guns huh?!? All I said was “you don’t need a AR-15 to protect your home” did I fucking say you don’t need a gun to protect your home? NO!
We should be restricted to pistols,hunting rifles,shotgun & revolvers. Who the fuck needs these full-automatic weapons to protect themselves? Answer me that goddamn question. Who needs it? Because I surely don’t…
No body uses full automatic weapons for defense because they aren’t accessible. Fully automatic weapons are only accessible to people who have a licence to sell firearms, behind a 500$ tax and a starting point of 10k min.
Armalite 30, m1a, ar-15 variants are commonly used to hunt. So now we have to ban hunting rifles.
Your definitions are not consitent or true. 2 I lumped you in with ivewire and all the others that say we do t need em.
You still haven’t given me a reason other than I don’t need it, so neither do you. Fact, what applies to you doesn’t apply to anybody else nor is it a reason… The most common weapon for defense is a pistol, that also accounts for the virtually all the firearms used to do criminal al acts.
I can give you a list why a pistol is better, and should suffice, but I’m not the one arguing against it.
Ah what a bankrupt response. Now I know why you are so pendatic with grammer and spelling. It’s the only thing you are capable of doing.
Oh please. How often are these inefficient mass stabbings? I’m not saying these things can’t happen but lets be real here, guns allow even the biggest pussies to be capable of mass killings in under a minute. Knives can’t do this. It’s harder for civilians to gtfo or even fight back to save themselves when the criminal is armed with a gun. You think the killings like Columbine would of had the death toll if those killers had knives?
There’s no point here. Your right to use guns isn’t barred from legislation. In fact, the way it’s worded leaves plenty of room to prevent many types of guns from being used by the public. Because of that, there should be restrictions on what people could use. You can still use guns, but society decides what’s the guns you get.
America failed the war on drugs, and the war on terror. Now they gonna try and tackle guns?
In Asia? Pretty fucking common. Perhaps not every day like the US, but enough to be noticed.
Columbine left 15 dead, so what’s that? 7 dead per shooter? Mass stabbings are around 5-6 people dead per attacker, and considering you’re using an extreme example to compare to, yes, similar levels of death can and are accomplished by mass stabbings.
Hey what does the jail thing on their avatar mean? Are they like warned or something?
I flagged what I thought was a bot thread, gotta pay more attention next time.
So what does it do? Are you are on warned status or something? Do you lose something for a period of time?
I’m earning street cred
I know there have been reports in China -popularly from 2010-2012 and like i said, i have not denied that these things are possible. However, mass-shootings have been a problem with the US even before the 90’s. One of the main reasons why guns should be banned in America is based on this repetitive history and a refusal of change. We kept on putting in our minds the “guns don’t kill people but people do” shit for more than 2 decades, and each year from then we would be getting a number of annual reports of this.
Guns were invented to serve only one purpose, and that is to kill. Why in the hell should an invention made for taking someones life be given as a right to a regular civilian?
And why not? Dont answer, ive already read your reasoning. Its a semi-auto (and super light depending on its config) rifle with a round that is superb for home defense with a huge perk over handguns or a shotgun (00 buck) for home defense: its ballistics vs handgun rounds. There are other perks such as sight radius for accuracy, speed of use, maneuverability, capacity, modularity, etc but thats not the point of this.
The .223/5.56 round in 55gr and under (FMJ no less) dumps its energy very quickly in the first surface it contacts, then keyholes and penetrates significantly less than say, a 9mm round, or 45acp round, etc at the same distances. Any round heavier than 55gr and you risk overpenetration cause its a heaver projectile. I personally use Black Hills 50gr TSX.
So i call bullshit about not needing an AR-15 for home defense since it is ideal. With a handgun, unless its .380 and you live in the middle of nowhere, you better know what youre shooting and whats beyond it. Only other longgun id recommend for HD is a shotgun with a short LoP loaded with #4 buck, but its still isnt as useful as a AR-15 for the aforementioned reasons minus overpenetration since #4 buck will limit that.
Now with that out of the way, good-fucking-god some of yall are painfully ignorant with this shit. Its amazing yall can function on the daily.