Gun Show Loophole exposed <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

Are you really serious. Why not just look up the number of machine guns involved in gun deaths since the regulations.

 

Reference ? Evidence ?

 

All that matters is.....
The states and countries with the strongest gun laws have on average the lowest number of per capita gun deaths. Find proof the it is otherwise instead using nonsensical arguments which I don’t read after your first miss use of a reflexive pronoun. This last one was better, I got through the first paragraph.

 

How about none in the US since 9/11 and 130 over one four year period before. So, it seems to be working; checking kids.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...are-after-911-security-improvements/82375474/

 

Use evidence....like this.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-laws-linked-to-less-gun-violence-study-finds

 

Which regulations?

 

National Firearms Act
“The National Firearms Act, 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 is Title I.”

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

 

Show the actual effect that the NFA had on homicides prior to and subsequent to NFA 1934. If the number of homicides with legally purchased and owned machine guns had no material change after NFA 1934, it's not honest to claim that it is responsible for the subsequent machine gun homicide rate.

Both shotguns used by the shooters at Columbine were illegal NFA items. Why weren't those kids protected by NFA 1934?

 

The TSA has been proven to fail ninety five percent of the time at catching potential threats. Therefore they have not prevented so much as a single hijacking from occurring.

 

A question was asked. An answer was provided. Whether or not it is the answer is another discussion for another time.

 

If the number of fully-automatic firearms was five hundred times greater than what is currently is, it is doubtful such would be the case. The only reason any claim of success can be made is due to just how small the actual sample size is.

 

It is yourself who is presenting the notion that such was due to these firearm-related restrictions exclusively. Therefore the burden of proof is on yourself to demonstrate that such is the case, and that no other factors played any part in such.

 

Which means absolutely nothing. Unless you are supporting the position of either preventing the new purchase of firearms by those who do not yet have them, or forcing current firearm owners to surrender their legally owned property, the claim on the part of yourself is meaningless. There is no way of reducing the number of privately owned firearms in circulation to any meaningful degree, therefore new firearm-related restrictions can do nothing of substance or meaning.

 

Already did. The stronger the gun laws in states , the fewer gun deaths on average. Look above.

 

The stats speak for themselves. Do you speak for the gun makers and felons ?

 

With no evidence, its just an opinion.

 

Wrong.

 

Just how would you go about reducing the number of privately owned firearms in the US?

 

The idea is not to reduce privately own guns by law abiding citizens, it’s to reduce the chances they get into the hands of the young, felons, and lunatics.

 

I did. You can’t read ? See reference.

 

Would you have to restrict the rights of the law abiding to do so?

 

Much like traffic control

 

How so ? Is it restricting the first amendment rights of law abiding citizens to require a permit for large groups to assemble to listen to a music concert ?

 

So, the regs work then. I’ve fired full autos in the service. There is no reason for them to be available for the general public without being heavily regulated. If you say otherwise, you don’t know what you are talking about.