Ok. You pay a tax on Gas by the way and the vehicle. I dont hear you guys calling that a ban. Or out to get gas owners.
But they aren't used for that very often. And by very often I mean they are used in 2.7% of homicide cases. So we're going to target the weapon that CAN be used to kill a lot of people quickly, but is almost never used to do that, and ignore the other weapons that ARE used to actually do that? As I said before if this is about compensation for the victims then it makes zero sense to only care about 364 people who just lost their primary breadwinner while literally telling the other 13,500+ "too bad, shoulda been shot by the military looking guns". Show me one example of a proposal ever designed to help a mere 2.7% of people while ignoring the other 97.3%. Imagine if we used this logic for other forms of victim advocacy like rape for example. Yeah we know the majority of all rapes are done by someone the victim knows as an acquaintance or a current or former partner, 72% and only 2.5% are committed by a non spouse relative but we are only worried about the non spouse relatives even though they are the least likely to actually do it based on raw data. Shoulda been raped by a non spouse relative if you wanted compensation or help for your troubles. That makes zero sense whatsoever. So are we trying to help the victims of violence through compensation or only help the victims of AR-15 violence through compensation, the 2.7% of homicide victims? Are their lives somehow more valuable than everybody else killed by weapons in the US? What makes the family of someone killed by a 5.56 round worthy of special treatment over somebody stabbed to death with a knife? So I was killed by a weapon that CAN be used to kill a lot of people quickly but is almost never used that way, you were killed by a weapon that can be used to kill but not as many people as quickly as the one I was killed with but is actually used to kill 7x more people per year than the one I was killed with. My family gets compensation, yours does not....That's irrational. Actually you know what this does actually make sense. This is the most "government" sort of thing there is. Propose legislation that looks like it's designed to help people that actually helps nobody to make it look like they cared about trying to help people. If they actually cared about advocating for the victims of gun violence then they'd be going after the type of guns that are used to kill 6,300+ Americans per year, not the ones used to kill 360...
You need to defend your statement. Please tell me how many people are murdered annually from an AR-15?
I think it makes alot of sense and dont disagree with it. I think the other issues have other ways of being addressed and are for another topic.
Because it's an absolute straw man argument. You do not have a constitutional right to own or drive a car.
More then none. Their existence as consumer item, mandates some form of liability for compensating victims, and a compensation fund to be set up.
it is. Your statement, in fact is an outright lie, as you are fully aware of the fact you cannot demonstrate any of the claims made in it are are true. Disagree? Demonstrate the "stated purpose" of an AR15 is to cause massive harm to massive amounts of people. Cite the source, and copy/paste the text to that effect.
" Eugene Stoner invented the AR-15 in 1959. The assault rifle was created as a military weapon — not meant for sport or defense. In an anonymous interview with MSNBC, Stoner's family spoke out: Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47."
Didn't we already talk about this? What exactly is your personal definition of "arms" since you seem to believe "guns" isn't covered under it?
How can you be ignorant of the fact this is not the weapon under discussion? Feel free to try again. Demonstrate the "stated purpose" on an AR15 is to cause massive harm to massive amounts of people. Cite the source, and copy/paste the text to that effect.
There was 235 people murdered with a long rifle in 2018. Long rifle which includes AR-15's and hunting rifles (even black powder rifles). Why not a major tax on cheese burgers and pizzas or all unhealthy food since they account for well over a half a million deaths per year rather than focus are such an insignificant number?
ROFL.... AR's are merely variations of the Armalite rifle and term assault rifle was a made up boogieman of the left. Bushmaster makes a variation called an XM-15.
But not good enough for thinking, reasoned, honest, knowledgeable people. Demonstrate the "stated purpose" on an AR15 is to cause massive harm to massive amounts of people. Cite the source, and copy/paste the text to that effect.
Which dictionary are you looking at that defines "arms" and doesn't include "weapons". Unless we are now arguing that guns are not weapons?
We are of the agreement that the constitution obviously does not protect all forms of weapons even though arms means weapon.
Actually its not. I am gun ignorant, and not ashamed to say that. You asked, and I actually looked and found an answer you dont like. Im fine with the answer though so tough nuts. So you prove its intended purpose if not to kill or maim.