Oh I get it and being against semi-automatic firearms clearly defines you as an anti-gunner. All firearms are potentially lethal in the wrong hands be they bolt action or semi-automatic.
Yet not irrelevant enough for politicians around the world to ignore his actions. And yet it worked in the nation of New Zealand, with various politicians in the united states saying they must do the exact same thing. Mass shootings, especially in schools, are also nothing but cherry picking. Statistically they are among the least likely of incidents to occur in the united states, with the resulting death tolls being statistically minute, bordering on insignificant overall. Indeed it is not. Mass shooters are not held accountable for their actions, as their actions are always blamed on the availability of firearms. Thus suggesting the mentality of it being believed that they were given no choice but to kill as many people as they did, because they simply could not help themselves. Then kill them. It is not that difficult of a concept. They do not wish to be productive members of society, so take them out of the equation entirely. How exactly is it being proposed the united states actually go about physically removing several hundred million unregistered, untraceable firearms that it cannot even locate? Explain such.
Ive fired SLR rifles in our military. Ive also owned a Winchester rifle (think it was a 40-30 or similar number, its was 1981 so long time ago) plus pump action shotty. If I wanted to slaughter as many people as I can I'd use the SLR. Tell me otherwise. But whatever is your interpretation then who am I to try to reason?
Exactly what is the cause of yourself? Nothing more than a fallacious appeal to emotion devoid of anything relating to substance. Unless the slaughter is allowed to proceed in order to further a particular political narrative, thus meaning the individual who committed the killings was acting as an agent of government. Then let the public kill them. The more criminal individuals killed in acts of self defense by their intended victims, the better the situation overall is. Politicians get paid whether they work or not. The united states politicians received pay when they did nothing but sat around during the latest government shutdown. They are not fulfilling their obligations to the public, but rather are looking to fulfilling their own self interests.
Then the answer to that is simple- run for office yourself to change the culture. Then once elected reality will set in, that all of your efforts will be in vain because the systems are locked up, vant be changed, progress impossible. Democracy has its shortcomings but as they say, its better than the alternative
Exactly what is the cause of yourself? Ive made that vlear. I think many of you guys just dont get the concept of saving innocent livrs and I dont mean that in any derogatory way. Lives in USA are collateral damage, a certain number annually lost to crazed gunmen with rapid firing guns is acceptable. Until you put value on saving one human life, by removing semi auto guns then I'm wasting my time. Thats my cause-to plant a new world of saving lives. But you wont get that.
Problem is none of your ideas will do such, the only result your ideas will do is disarm the law abiding and cause even more deaths by criminals, which is typical for an anti-gunner who blames the tool not the fool.
Then stop appealing to it. Why did the FBI choose not to investigate Nikolas Cruz when he admitted he wanted to commit a school shooting on a public site? Self defense has nothing to do with entertainment or fantasy. Donald Trump did such. Look at how well that turned out. The united states is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, where the minority that will be affected is given just as much consideration as the majority that would ignore it. Such is why homosexual marriage is legal despite the homosexual community being in the extreme minority in the united states. There is no evidence that restricting the legal access and use of firearms does anything to save lives. Certainly not in the united states where there are tens of millions more firearms than individuals who can legally own them. The majority of firearm-related deaths in the united states do not arise from mass shootings, nor are facilitated by firearms capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The vast majority of firearm-related homicides in the united states are the result of single-party incidents, where there is only one perpetrator, and only one victim. Putting a hypothetical end to mass shootings would not lower the annual homicide rate in the united states by even one percent. Not even one tenth of one percent. Therefore it is not something that is worth addressing so obsessively, nor investing billions of dollars of effort.
Why was the massacre of black African Christians ignored over Christchurch? Pretty easy to figure that one out isn't it.
You mean in the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals, by their very nature, do not care for the law. If you think banning any gun will make them magically disappear you are only fooling yourself. Take prohibition for example.
Well, I've come to the end of my debating. My opimion matters little bit many read these threads and people do learn. Cheers
From your cold dead hand....unless you are one of them law abiding sissies. ".....it is not comparable to any other nation in the world."...is an definition of American Exceptionalism. So less guns would mean less firearm related death? Is that bad? So many questions unrelated to the gun problem. Whoever said that about me just opened a can of whoop ass.
I'll rephrase. Are revolvers less lethal or more lethal? Should we be allowed to own or carry revolvers?
Exactly how many citizens of the united states are you willing to see murdered by their government before it is considered too high a number? Is silicon superior to carbon simply because the two molecules are not comparable to one another, and cannot be used interchangeably with one another? Less than what precisely? What is the established baseline for purposes of consideration and discussion? The problem is not with firearms. Rather the problem is with the people that use them for illegal purposes, such as harming others for their own benefit. So claims the one willing to see firearm owners murdered by their government.
And in fairness I'll reply. In USA yes (and a handful of other countries) because the country has developed its societies with that need. Violence levels, so many guns as common as egg flips and so on. The need to defend is obvious. Then the question is " what should be allowed"? If semi auto handguns with magazines of multiple rounds is allowed it defeats the purpose I'm promoting. In the prison service of which I worked we carried smith and wesson 6 shooters (1977). Then days police carried handguns (cant recall make or model) that had more rounds but smaller bullets..a 6 shooter should be adequate for a deterrent against an attacker The objective would/should be that when a crazy gets his/her hand on a firearm to cause maximum human loss of life, that his victim count is lessened, by restricting access of some firearms through various means. I dont have all the answers only the logic that seems to escape the minds of those programmed in USA due to many factors. But, gun reform will begin one day in USA, not in our lifetime, when the victims annually rise 10 fold to what it is now. Or post your next civil war....or when congress is targeted or the presidents family or family are mowed down... Those marching children from Florida? That was the first step. So what should pro gun individuals do?. My belief is they are better off relenting the fact that as it stands the gun culture is not sustainable and has led to too much loss of innocent lives. Work together to a sensible reform to not exploit the "right to bare arms" law of the land to include arms of such lethality. To limit the possibility of the Vegas, Columbine (and so many more) events. That would be a major shift but the pro gunners would be working towards saving lives. That wouldnt just be honourable it would be a legacy. But pro gunners dont "get it". Whats worse they accuse anyone that thinks like me as playing the emotional card, of being on the left, a snowflake blah blah...no, I just value lives. You should also, instead of putting up your walls and demanding your right to all guns, any gun...work towards a safer society.
In the united states, the criteria for an incident to be classified as a mass killing/mass shooting is at least four or more dead, not counting the perpetrator. Even if semi-automatic firearms could be removed from the equation, which simply is not physically possible, would such really prove sufficient to prevent mass shootings from occurring? Or would mass shootings simply be closer to the bare minimum, while still qualifying as mass shootings regardless? Then what is being advocated by yourself is the murdering of the families of elected officials, simply to provoke the call for change in united states law? How very terroristic of yourself. Is murder a basic aspect of legal firearms ownership? Such is physically impossible. Those who own firearms also value lives. They simply recognize that they are not the ones who are physically committing various murders, and thus do not wish to be blamed as an accessory to such. Does being male make yourself culpable and guilty by association for every rape and sexual assault committed by males that are not yourself?
