You've substantiated nothing! What is there to counter? NRA propaganda talking points? Yawn... If you can't figure out why I don't random people with assault weapons cruising Walmart, then I doubt I can explain it to you.
Stand your ground is redundant. We already have a right to self-defense. We don't need a law which legitimizes OK Corral scenarios. Macho BS, seriously. And it is not a distraction to point out that you white-right voters DO want to deprive millions of healthcare. That is what the new GOP plan will do. Reality gives conservatives a headache.
You are unaware of the fact that, absent a law that allows you to stand your ground, you must attempt to flee from a situation before using deadly force to defend yourself. Thus, it is not redundant. The pro-gun rights successes at the national, state and local level cannot be denied. Please stay on topic. Your red-herring response constitutes trolling and violates forum rule #5.
I can provide very sound reasons. But I am not obligated to respond to you on demand. You have failed to make an argument for letting anyone buy any gun at any time, which is apparently what y'all want.
"strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." No one is arguing for "letting anyone buy any gun at any time". Also, this is a debate forum. If you aren't here to debate, why are you here?
The explanation of how and why all of your points are invalid. Each of your position - none of which you have substantiateed, even when asked to do so - have been similarly negated/
Assault weapons can kill many people very quickly. There's reason #1. Same reason owning active anthrax is not legal, lol. Adam Lanza without the automatic weapon would have done far less damage. And we're still waiting for that "good guy with a bushmaster" who is going to save people from crime, lol!!! The only place that is happening is in La Pierre's nightmares.
Conservatives: since you have nothing to say, why bother? Just post that you've won, and then find something productive to do. In here you're only confirming all the reasons I find you to be deplorable!
It is incumbent upon you to make your argument to change the status quo. If you don't then you won't get the change that you seek.
You cannot provide a sound reason for banning 'assault weapons', and you know it. Further, you know that every reason you CAN provide for banning assault weapons derives from a fallacious appeal to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty. Thank you for proving my point, above. Fallacy: straw man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The rifles that you refer to cannot shoot faster than any other semi auto firearm. Adam Lanza did not have an automatic rifle. Successful defensive gun uses happen every day... so yea, good guys with guns stop bad guys regularly.
Every modern firearm can do this. How does this justify banning a class of firearm that over the last 35 years has been used on average 2-3 times per year to commit murder? Fallacy; Appeal to ignorance/dishonesty: Lanza did not have an automatic rifle. Fallacy: appeal to emotion: Your example here attempts to equate an emotional response to a sound argument. Fallacy: appeal to dishonesty: Lanza murdered his mother and stole the weapon; this supports banning 'assault weapons' exactly as much as if he had murdered a police office and stole his weapon. Fallacy: appeal to dishonesty Straw Man. Feel free to try again
So, evidently, can any other firearm, as every type save single shot shotguns and lever action rifles have been used in mass shootings. Then again, hammers, knives, gasoline and rental trucks have all been used to kill many people very quickly. Your logic implies that we should ban those for the same reason. Interesting claim. In a similar situation five years before Sandy Hook, a man armed with just two pistols, one of which was a .22, killed 32 adults in a mass shooting. Lanza also had two pistols, both more powerful than the ones used by the VT shooter. There is no reason to expect that Lanza couldn't have done what he did with his two handguns. Nearly every cop in the US has been issued or has access to an AR-15 or similar patrol rifle. Evidently law enforcement feels that AR-15s are a solution to save people from crime.
Yes, in the hands of law enforcement. Civilians running around with AR-15s is a recipe for disaster. Even cops shoot innocent people accidentally sometimes...
We have ten million AR-15s. How many civilians used one in self defense and shot someone by accident?
Good to see you fully understand you did not, and can not, present a sound argument for banning 'assault weapons'. Feel free to try again
History shows that lawful Americans that legally possess AR-15s are not a recipe for disaster. You just make stuff up.
~10 million 'assault weapons' in the US; on average, 2-3 per year are used to commit a mass shooting. What decision tree takes that fact and ends with "Ban 'assault weapons'!!"
Yet, all rifles (of which AR-15s are a small subset) are among the weapons LEAST often used in murder. Per the FBI data, rifles (all kinds not just assault rifles) were the murder weapons used in 252 out of 13,455 murders (9616 gun murders). I'll do the math, and that's 1.8% of total murders (2.6% of gun murders). To put those numbers in perspective, knives and other cutting instruments were used in 1544 murders, and personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.) in 624 murders. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls
As noted elsewhere, 'assault weapons' are used in a mass shooting, on average, 2-3 times per year to kill ~7.4 people. This represents 0.05% of all murders in the US.
My numbers show that since the end of the AWB that we've had 15 shootings using an AR-15 or similar, over those 12 years. That's only 1.25 times per year on average.
