America, wake up: It's time to repeal the Second Amendment

218 posts / 0 new
Last post
Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

NorthReport wrote:
The second amendment does not give an absolute right to carry concealed weapons

No but state law (which varies from state to state) does...

NorthReport

On a per capita basis I heard recently that most firearms are held in the Southern States although just saw a map online that does not completely confirm that

NorthReport

------

NorthReport

The stats are mind boggling bad for the USA and if they continue to run away from their gun problem the harder it will be for Americans to dig themselves out of this massive societal ill they have been harbouring already for way too long

Rev Pesky

Here's a possibility that I haven't seen or heard elsewhere. That is, make firesarms owners buy liability insurance, just like we (and the USA) do for car owners.

That means before you could purchase a firearm you would have to convince an insurer that you were a reasonable risk. That would probably slow down the sales a bit. It would also mean all firearms, just like cars, would be registered, at the cost of the owners.

Orange Crushed

Paladin1 wrote:

I can post a bunch of examples of stabbings, mass stabbings and stats that indicate other means of assault (blunt objects) are responsible for more deaths than firearms.

 

I don't think it's politically or legally possible to ban firearms in the States, and I don't even know if it would be desirable, but according to the numbers I've seen fire-arms have been responsible for 60-70% of homocides in the States:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

And it stands to reason as you can kill far more effectively with a rifle than a knife or club, even more so with the military style semi-automatics being freely sold today. 

What's interesting is that killings have declined significantly since the mid nineties to levels not seen since the early seventies.  What's even more interesting is that gun ownership per capita has also declined everywhere in the US, even in the rural South and MidWest.  Yet the number of guns sold continues to increase, as have the number of mass shootings.  Mostly in areas where the gun lobby's influence is strongest.  But then the steepest declines seems to be killings committed with knifes, fists, blunt objects or arson.  Shows that you have to be careful about the nuances when looking at statistics.

 

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36527250/there-have-been-93-us-gun... have been 93 US gun-related deaths in 72 hours, not including Orlando[/url]

And 205 were injured. Not including Orlando.

Quote:
Five people died in a mass shooting in Roswell, New Mexico. Four of those were girls aged between three and 14.

Quote:

In one mass shooting in Panorama City, California, two teenage girls and a man aged 20 died. Another woman was injured.

72 hours.

 

 

Honest question here.

I can post a bunch of examples of stabbings, mass stabbings and stats that indicate other means of assault (blunt objects) are responsible for more deaths than firearms.

 

Do you think it's a better economy of effort to ban certain firearms (or all firearms) over trying to change the US or North America's society as a whole when it comes to wanting to lash out and hurt each other?  Honestly it's easy to pieve together chemical weapons and explosive devices. All you need to do is youtube how to make pipebombs and some dummy is on there showing you how.

Suppose we take guns away, will that stop people from harming each other or will they just find alternative means? Wouldn't it be better to combat why people are doing this?

Paladin1

takeitslowly wrote:

and whos going to do door to door to take away the guns?

 

You raise an excellent point. Firearms are ingrained in the US psyche.  Without a doubt a large number of doctors judges soldiers teachers bus drivers farmers and especially police officers will refuse to give up their guns.

Would the US hire a company like BlackWater (now Academi) to bust down citizens doors to take their guns?

 

 

Orange Crushed wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

I can post a bunch of examples of stabbings, mass stabbings and stats that indicate other means of assault (blunt objects) are responsible for more deaths than firearms.

 

I don't think it's politically or legally possible to ban firearms in the States, and I don't even know if it would be desirable, but according to the numbers I've seen fire-arms have been responsible for 60-70% of homocides in the States:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

And it stands to reason as you can kill far more effectively with a rifle than a knife or club, even more so with the military style semi-automatics being freely sold today. 

What's interesting is that killings have declined significantly since the mid nineties to levels not seen since the early seventies.  What's even more interesting is that gun ownership per capita has also declined everywhere in the US, even in the rural South and MidWest.  Yet the number of guns sold continues to increase, as have the number of mass shootings.  Mostly in areas where the gun lobby's influence is strongest.  But then the steepest declines seems to be killings committed with knifes, fists, blunt objects or arson.  Shows that you have to be careful about the nuances when looking at statistics.

 

 

At the risk of ostracizing myself from the NRA on a technical level I agree one can kill more effectively with a rifle than a club (point to note clubs/bludgeoning assaults are responsible for more US deaths than firearms).

Mass shootings count for very little statistic wise when compared to all shootings.  When you look at the numbers of deaths from shooters the count is usually single didgets.  We have a shocking attack like in Orlando where 50 die from one shooter but how many others were killed with firearms that day?

There's definitly a gun problem in the US but it isn't what kind of guns these assholes are using to kill people. A pipe bomb or two that you could make tomorrow could have easily matched or surpassed that kill count in the packed night club. Military style rifles are accountable for very very few deaths in the US.

 

Also I'll look for the stat but as far as I recall seeing gun sales in the US have sky rocketed (doubling and trippling)in the last few years while firearm deaths have declined- the counter argument to that is we have better medical practices.  It's estimated there are 112 guns per 100 US residents (30 per 100 residents in Canada).

 

 

Unionist

Paladin1 wrote:

Mass shootings count for very little statistic wise when compared to all shootings.  When you look at the numbers of deaths from shooters the count is usually single didgets.  We have a shocking attack like in Orlando where 50 die from one shooter but how many others were killed with firearms that day?

Didn't I just post this? 

There have been 93 US gun-related deaths in 72 hours, not including Orlando

I can try to break that down by each day if you like.

Quote:
There's definitly a gun problem in the US but it isn't what kind of guns these assholes are using to kill people.

Totally agree. The "assault weapon" crap is just that: diversionary crap. A handgun is an "assault weapon". All firearms should be banned from all urban areas in Canada. The U.S. can do whatever they want, but clearly the same measure is required there and far more urgent.

 

Unionist

takeitslowly wrote:

and whos going to do door to door to take away the guns?

Ban guns in all urban areas.

No need to go door to door. All you need is appropriate and extremely severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of a gun in an urban area.

You'll still have shootings, stabbings, etc. - because the U.S. is a brutal, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-human society, which murders people around the world and in its own borders. Taking away individuals' guns won't change that. But my modest proposal will help.

josh

I can post a bunch of examples of stabbings, mass stabbings and stats that indicate other means of assault (blunt objects) are responsible for more deaths than firearms. 

 

Go ahead.

josh

To show you how much in the pocket of the NRA Congress is, federal money cannot even be appropriated for research on gun violence

The White House and public health experts say gun research should be no different from the work that led to seat belt laws. "With approximately 30,000 men, women and children dying each year at the barrel of a gun ... the United States faces a public health crisis of gun violence."But Congress has blocked federal health agencies from the researching — or even paying for the research of — gun violence since the 1990s. President Barack Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to pay for and undertake gun safety research, but Congress sent a clear message by appropriating no money for the CDC to do so. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/american-med...

Paladin1

josh wrote:

I can post a bunch of examples of stabbings, mass stabbings and stats that indicate other means of assault (blunt objects) are responsible for more deaths than firearms. 

 

Go ahead.

 

Shit. I'm wrong, at least in so far as the US goes. There handguns are responsible for 5500ish murders a year. Knives 1500. Blunt objects and fists/feet 1000, shotguns 250 and rifles 250.

When you take into consideration rifles includes all types and compare that to 5500 from handguns the US medias crusade against "assault rifles" is still out of touch.

jjuares

Paladin1 wrote:

josh wrote:

I can post a bunch of examples of stabbings, mass stabbings and stats that indicate other means of assault (blunt objects) are responsible for more deaths than firearms. 

 

Go ahead.

 

Shit. I'm wrong, at least in so far as the US goes. There handguns are responsible for 5500ish murders a year. Knives 1500. Blunt objects and fists/feet 1000, shotguns 250 and rifles 250.

When you take into consideration rifles includes all types and compare that to 5500 from handguns the US medias crusade against "assault rifles" is still out of touch.


The reason people are pursuing the assault rifle ban is because politically it represents the low hanging fruit and they believe it represents the first baby steps towards sensible gun laws.

jjuares

Paladin1 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Gun lovers remind me more and more of smokers who think they are going to have a long and healthy life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Burns

 

Quote:
Paladin I don't want you to die young so get rid of your guns! Science refutes all your arguments about any health advantages of owning a gun

But I like guns. I like shooting them recrationally, I like shooting them with my kids, I like cleaning them, I like modifing them, I like finding good deals on them, and I also use them to suppliment training for my job and career. I've used guns for 32 years and haven't had an issue yet.


I find this interesting because it seems to represent a change in our culture. My father was a hunter as was almost everyone of his friends and relatives of that generation. He had several guns and I went hunting with him at times. However, he and the other hunters of his generation never seem to obsess over guns. It was simply another tool for hunting along with other tools he used to hunt including packs, and it nstruments to make animal calls. If he was working with his guns he was doing so because he was going hunting. I don't think he liked cleaning his guns. It was a chore to him. He only bought guns if he needed to and indeed the guns he used were old. Way different approach to guns.

Paladin1

jjuares wrote:

 The reason people are pursuing the assault rifle ban is because politically it represents the low hanging fruit and they believe it represents the first baby steps towards sensible gun laws.

That makes sense. Well not makes sense to me but I understand what you're saying. Good point.

Stastically over 15 Americans are killed every day by handguns and 0.6 a day by rifles, even less so by rifles that look like assault rifles and next to none by actual assault rifles.

Depending on the state the gun laws are even stranger and more obtuse than our own. They consintrate on stocks and grips and coloursand magazine capacity. Gun control should be about allowing responsible citizens access to firearms while preventing their ownership by criminals, gang members, mentally unsound people (in so far as to those who want to hurt themselves or others).

 

 

Unionist

jjuares wrote:

The reason people are pursuing the assault rifle ban is because politically it represents the low hanging fruit and they believe it represents the first baby steps towards sensible gun laws.

The reason "people" (which people are those??) are pursuing the assault rifle ban is because they are clueless (about negotiating tactics) and cowards (scared shitless of the gun lobby).

They should pursue a ban on handguns. And on all firearms in urban areas. Get a serious discussion going. Then, if they want to "settle" initially for a ban on "assault rifles" (whatever those are), they will have achieved a first step.

But as we know, there is no serious movement in the U.S. to this end. People die, shock is expressed, then it's all forgotten till the next morning, when more people die, and prayers are said.

And no one (not even in "progressive" circles) even wants to address the disconnect between thoughts and prayers for victims on U.S. soil, while there is no movement to stop U.S.-sponsored mass murders abroad.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:

The reason people are pursuing the assault rifle ban is because politically it represents the low hanging fruit and they believe it represents the first baby steps towards sensible gun laws.

The reason "people" (which people are those??) are pursuing the assault rifle ban is because they are clueless (about negotiating tactics) and cowards (scared shitless of the gun lobby).

They should pursue a ban on handguns. And on all firearms in urban areas. Get a serious discussion going. Then, if they want to "settle" initially for a ban on "assault rifles" (whatever those are), they will have achieved a first step.

But as we know, there is no serious movement in the U.S. to this end. People die, shock is expressed, then it's all forgotten till the next morning, when more people die, and prayers are said.

And no one (not even in "progressive" circles) even wants to address the disconnect between thoughts and prayers for victims on U.S. soil, while there is no movement to stop U.S.-sponsored mass murders abroad.


The " people" would be the those conducting the filibuster and others who want gun control. I am usually optimistic about change. However, an assault rifle ban would save very few lives ( although it would have saved a few in Orlando) but it is probably the best that canbe done at this point. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA right now.

6079_Smith_W

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

The basic concepts had been thought of long ago, the only thing holding the idea back were the materials technology of the day, a lack of advanced chemistry, cost of production, or some technical issue of some sort or another.

There is a reason why the 2nd refers to "arms" and not "single shot flintlock muskets".

And this:

You know, the reason why we should be careful about judging people 250 years ago by our modern standards? It goes both ways.

 

Paladin1

jjuares wrote:

The " people" would be the those conducting the filibuster and others who want gun control. I am usually optimistic about change. However, an assault rifle ban would save very few lives ( although it would have saved a few in Orlando) but it is probably the best that canbe done at this point. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA right now.

 

I'm not trying to be saradonic but an assault-rifle ban would not have saved any lives. The firearm used wasn't an assault rifle.  Many more people die from choking on hot dogs in the US than deaths from an actual assault rifle.

The term assault weapon is another one of those misnomers. Essentially the way they consider different firearms "assault weapons" is like you painting flames on your ford station wagon and it being considered a race car.

What would help the US gun control advocates is to do away with the fear tactics and stupidity of this assault weapon stuff and move towards banning semi-automatic rifles as a whole.   This would effect stereotypical hunting rifles right along side the scary army looking ones (which function the same way) but at least there's some form of argument backing it.

jjuares

Paladin1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

The " people" would be the those conducting the filibuster and others who want gun control. I am usually optimistic about change. However, an assault rifle ban would save very few lives ( although it would have saved a few in Orlando) but it is probably the best that canbe done at this point. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA right now.

 

I'm not trying to be saradonic but an assault-rifle ban would not have saved any lives. The firearm used wasn't an assault rifle.  Many more people die from choking on hot dogs in the US than deaths from an actual assault rifle.

The term assault weapon is another one of those misnomers. Essentially the way they consider different firearms "assault weapons" is like you painting flames on your ford station wagon and it being considered a race car.

What would help the US gun control advocates is to do away with the fear tactics and stupidity of this assault weapon stuff and move towards banning semi-automatic rifles as a whole.   This would effect stereotypical hunting rifles right along side the scary army looking ones (which function the same way) but at least there's some form of argument backing it.


Yes, I am talking about semi- automatic weapons. I believe that was the weapon used in Orlando.

6079_Smith_W

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/n-r-a-defends-right-to-ow...

Quote:

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, National Rifle Association C.E.O. Wayne LaPierre warned that the N.R.A. would vigorously oppose any legislation that “limits the sale, purchase, or ownership of politicians.”

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What would help the US gun control advocates is to do away with the fear tactics and stupidity of this assault weapon stuff and move towards banning semi-automatic rifles as a whole.

Agreed. 

Gun critics don't have a problem characterizing the "gun nut" position as emotional, hysterical, uninformed, dogmatic and irrational.

Then they say things like "all guns are made solely for murdering the innocent!" or "we NEED to ban any gun that's all black or has a pistol grip!"

Hurtin Albertan

My favourite is the current fixation on "military style semiautomatic rifles".

Apparantly "civilian style semiautomatic rifles" either don't exist, or can only be used for peaceful purposes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

They don't have a grip.  It's all about the grip.

6079_Smith_W

Well it seems to be what the gun nuts are going for. Maybe that means those pushing for the ban aren't that far off the mark.

Kinda like candy-flavoured snuff. Don't understimate the power of stuff like that on simple and impressionable minds.

 

Paladin1

found this.

Quote:
President Obama confirms the Orlando Shooter was persuaded by ISIL propaganda. He calls again for tougher gun legislation to help prevent these types of attacks.

 

Tougher gun laws will prevent extreamist attacks.

Unionist

Paladin1 wrote:

found this.

Quote:
President Obama confirms the Orlando Shooter was persuaded by ISIL propaganda. He calls again for tougher gun legislation to help prevent these types of attacks.

You "found this"??

It's a caption, written by USA Today, on a bunch of short clips of Obama spliced together.

If you actually watch the video, you'll note that Obama never said (excuse me, never "confirmed") that "the Orlando Shooter was persuaded by ISIL propaganda".

Thank you for repeating right-wing U.S. media lies in a feeble effort to make your point.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well it seems to be what the gun nuts are going for. Maybe that means those pushing for the ban aren't that far off the mark.

I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if most cars caught driving faster than 160kph are either red or black.  Speeders seem to prefer those colours to taupe, or brown.

FWIW, I see no problem at all either banning or heavily restricting guns with a rapid fire rate, a large magazine, fast reloadability, or even easy concealability.  At least we might rationally show that those mean increased lethality.

If you ban semi-automatic weapons, killers would need to settle for single-shot or repeaters.

If you ban "scary looking" weapons then killers would need to settle for more familiar weapons that do exactly the same damage.

6079_Smith_W

They'll settle for bottles and knives if they don't have guns. But I have no problem with that as a place to start.

Do I think pit bulls are necessarily more vicious? No, but why do people who train their dogs that way buy them?

That is why I think this quibbling about the cosmetic stuff is nonsense.

 

Paladin1

Unionist wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

found this.

Quote:
President Obama confirms the Orlando Shooter was persuaded by ISIL propaganda. He calls again for tougher gun legislation to help prevent these types of attacks.

You "found this"??

It's a caption, written by USA Today, on a bunch of short clips of Obama spliced together.

If you actually watch the video, you'll note that Obama never said (excuse me, never "confirmed") that "the Orlando Shooter was persuaded by ISIL propaganda".

Thank you for repeating right-wing U.S. media lies in a feeble effort to make your point.

 

 

You're most certianly welcome Unionist!  I'm still wondering why Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, just for shock factor maybe? A when in rome type thing?

Do you find it weird that "folded stocks" are vilified and some states require folded stocks to be welded into the opened position buuuuuut using a stock drastically increases a guns accuracy and killability? Why would we force a gun to be more accurate?

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Well it seems to be what the gun nuts are going for. Maybe that means those pushing for the ban aren't that far off the mark.

I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if most cars caught driving faster than 160kph are either red or black.  Speeders seem to prefer those colours to taupe, or brown.

FWIW, I see no problem at all either banning or heavily restricting guns with a rapid fire rate, a large magazine, fast reloadability, or even easy concealability.  At least we might rationally show that those mean increased lethality.

If you ban semi-automatic weapons, killers would need to settle for single-shot or repeaters.

If you ban "scary looking" weapons then killers would need to settle for more familiar weapons that do exactly the same damage.

 

I get shit on pretty hard (not in the fun way) when I say that AR15s are way more effective at killing than many other rifles.  Gun nuts scream that all guns are the same. I don't think so. Why else would most western militaries use an AR15 to kill bad guys and not a ww1 bolt action rifle?

Mass shootings are a headline grabber but most shootings as I mentioned are single digits for killed or wounded. AR15 style rifles seem all the rage but stereo-typical "hunting rifles" can be just as deadly, possibly more in my opinion.  They can be magazine fed, their bullets are generally 2-4 times the size of an AR15 bullet, hits a hell of a lot harder with a lot more force, travels a lot farther, has way more penetration.

50 deaths seems abnormally high for a mass shooting, I do recall seeing a few stories about how police responding to the shooting may have shot and killed club goers too.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I get shit on pretty hard (not in the fun way) when I say that AR15s are way more effective at killing than many other rifles.

I think the salient question is "what makes them more effective" and then the reasonable response is "then let's start with banning or restricting guns with those features that make them more effective".

Go science!

quizzical

how about you cough them up then?

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

FWIW, I see no problem at all either banning or heavily restricting guns with a rapid fire rate, a large magazine, fast reloadability, or even easy concealability.  At least we might rationally show that those mean increased lethality.

If you ban semi-automatic weapons, killers would need to settle for single-shot or repeaters.


I agree. This is no great solution but it would save a few lives and that is worthwhile in of itself.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I agree. This is no great solution but it would save a few lives and that is worthwhile in of itself.

I guess my point was that there would at least be a whiff of rationality to it.

As per my example above, if most cars that drive well over the speed limit are red, does it actually make good sense to ban red cars?

Or what about banning any car -- regardless of paint job -- that can reach 160 kph?

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I agree. This is no great solution but it would save a few lives and that is worthwhile in of itself.

I guess my point was that there would at least be a whiff of rationality to it.

As per my example above, if most cars that drive well over the speed limit are red, does it actually make good sense to ban red cars?


Yes, if red paint made the car by itself go too fast then by all means. Banning these automatic weapons would make mass murders more difficult. Small potatoes, unless it is your life that is saved.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yes, if red paint made the car by itself go too fast then by all means.

What if not?  Would you agree that banning all red cars would be silly?

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Yes, if red paint made the car by itself go too fast then by all means.

What if not?  Would you agree that banning all red cars would be silly?


Of course. But the analogy should be about functions not aesthetics.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Of course. But the analogy should be about functions not aesthetics.

That's my point.  Who cares if some gun looks all scary?  Let's worry about whether the all-black paint job makes it any more lethal than if it were painted brown, or just more like something out of Call of Duty.

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Of course. But the analogy should be about functions not aesthetics.

That's my point.  Who cares if some gun looks all scary?  Let's worry about whether the all-black paint job makes it any more lethal than if it were painted brown, or just more like something out of Call of Duty.


Yes, I never argued anything but functionality. Anyways I think gun control in the US has little chance. Better to expend energy elsewhere.

jjuares

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Of course. But the analogy should be about functions not aesthetics.

That's my point.  Who cares if some gun looks all scary?  Let's worry about whether the all-black paint job makes it any more lethal than if it were painted brown, or just more like something out of Call of Duty.


Yes, I never argued anything but functionality. Anyways I think gun control in the US has little chance. Better to expend energy elsewhere.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

and whos going to do door to door to take away the guns?

Ban guns in all urban areas.

No need to go door to door. All you need is appropriate and extremely severe penalties for anyone caught in possession of a gun in an urban area.

You'll still have shootings, stabbings, etc. - because the U.S. is a brutal, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-human society, which murders people around the world and in its own borders. Taking away individuals' guns won't change that. But my modest proposal will help.

Errr I don't think you've thought this one all the way through Unionist. You do realize those are mostly POC populated areas and they are the ones with the guns there, so this will effect mostly POC people right? Think about it...  

Rev Pesky

Paladin1 wrote:
... Why else would most western militaries use an AR15 to kill bad guys...

I'll just point out that they use them to kill good guys too. In fact, they use them to kill anybody who stands in the way of their policy objectives.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...That's my point.  Who cares if some gun looks all scary?  Let's worry about whether the all-black paint job makes it any more lethal than if it were painted brown, or just more like something out of Call of Duty.

Of course, the analogy was ridiculous to begin with because cars are not designed to kill. They do kill people, but that is a consequence of operating a vehicle improperly, not operating it as designed.

However, I would have no problem having gun owners subject to the same set of rules as car owners. Liability insurance, registration, licence that requries renewing every five years, confiscation when the rules are violated.

By the way, there is one very clear difference between guns and the other weapons mentioned. Guns, rifles specifically, allow for killing at a distance. Which explains why you never hear of a drive by knifing, or a drive by bludgeoning. The further the shooter from the target, the more impersonal the act. A gun allows the user to be indifferent to the target. That's one of the reasons the USA loves drones so much. From the safety of the bunker a computer gamer can kill thousands of miles away. No need to look the victim in the eye. Remember the 'Beltway Sniper'? Difficult to do what he did with a knife.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK,  but what does any of that have to do with the bit you quoted?

I'm just suggesting that maybe it might make sense to worry about the lethality of a weapon instead of the appearance of it.  Does that make sense on its own, irrespective of any analogy?

NorthReport

Politico has an article tonite explaining why Democrats and leading gun control groups in the USA are not backing an assault weapons ban but as a Canuck it's troubling that this is the approach they have to take
Too bad!

NorthReport

Josh raises an important point about the block on funding for gun violence research Can't use science to back up your position if the research has not been done, eh! How convenient that is for the NRA
Maybe Americans then should try applying some common sense instead

josh

Paladin1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

The " people" would be the those conducting the filibuster and others who want gun control. I am usually optimistic about change. However, an assault rifle ban would save very few lives ( although it would have saved a few in Orlando) but it is probably the best that canbe done at this point. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA right now.

 

I'm not trying to be saradonic but an assault-rifle ban would not have saved any lives. The firearm used wasn't an assault rifle.  Many more people die from choking on hot dogs in the US than deaths from an actual assault rifle.

The term assault weapon is another one of those misnomers. Essentially the way they consider different firearms "assault weapons" is like you painting flames on your ford station wagon and it being considered a race car.

What would help the US gun control advocates is to do away with the fear tactics and stupidity of this assault weapon stuff and move towards banning semi-automatic rifles as a whole.   This would effect stereotypical hunting rifles right along side the scary army looking ones (which function the same way) but at least there's some form of argument backing it.


Please support the choking on a hot dog assertion. I'm very interested. And for what purpose would any civilian own an AR 15. Which fires, I've seen 8 or 13 rounds, per second. Not for hunting deer, surely. For hunting people makes a lot more sense.

NorthReport

Research is finally coming to light on this dark side of the USA
Globally, US has 5% of the population but 31% of the mass killings

Pages