Nope! Most of our population is crammed into cities same as you. We just have more arid areas with stuff all in it Except for a couple of kids evading capture at the moment You can classify it as an urban problem but that does not explain why the American gun death rate is higher than countries like India, Taiwan, Kuwait, Slovenia etc.
Sadly they are saying that neighboring states are why their laws can't protect people here. Its always an excuse, and the solution is to vote for more dems to pass more laws here. No california law would have changed this.
"Assault rifles" are select fire weapons (for you Democrats, this basically means a machine gun with a switch that can also be 'selected' to fire a 3 round burst, or a single round with one trigger pull) as in the semi auto that civilians commonly own. Relevant words made red, to avoid twisting.
It would, if your metric is accepted, and I think you know that, which is why you ignored that part of my question. If semi-auto rifles should be banned because they're used in mass shootings, why not handguns?
I already heard noise about banning guns holding more than 5 rounds, so they set their sights on 90% of revolvers, too.
hand guns will never be banned if someone tried I would be right there with you fighting for the 2nd, but I will not fight for the right of Americans to own and carry around in public machine guns
An AR with a short barrel and no stock is a handgun. Ak as well. Any semi-auto rifle can be manufactured as a handgun. Will you 'fight for the 2A' if AR and AK pistols are targetted for restriction? (fyi- making it a pistol makes it legal to conceal)
To do what? I took that photo on my 'smart' phone, but had no idea how to migrate it here, so I had to put it there, then there, then here. What's your point? That I am not tech savvy? If so, no worries, I'll drink to that!
"Assault rifles" are select fire weapons (for you Democrats, this basically means a machine gun with a switch that can also be 'selected' to fire a 3 round burst, or a single round with one trigger pull) as in the semi auto that civilians commonly own. Relevant words made red, to avoid twisting.
I would agree, in principle. But the law requires objective definitions. According to the current ones, that is a pistol or handgun. It doesn't matter how you define 'handgun', if you ban rifles then handguns will become more lethal to fill the void. How would you propose we ban semi-auto rifles without setting precedent to use the same reasoning to ban handguns? Another example is the FNH 5x7. It uses the 'sub-compact' version round of the AR. Its lethality is very similar at close to medium range, and since the bullets are so small (~.22) it can hold 20 or 30, just like the AR. Except it is what people commonly think of as a handgun. Would you 'fight for the 2A' is they try to ban this?
Yours, for starters Can you own one? If so, how many hoops must you jump thru? Making regulations so onerous that the average man wont bother, is a ban in all but words. So what must you do to own one? How about carry it?
For an ordinary civilian......you'd get nothing more powerful than a .38, and you'd jump through plenty of hoops....it would take at least 12 months. You cannot casually carry and if you are in possession, like in your car, you'd need a bloody good reason like "I am heading to the Range for a Club meet." At home, gun must be in a safe separate from ammunition. Who cares? No-one.
