Trump ended the rule blocking mentally ill people from getting guns.

Incorrect you fail to understand by definition a semi-auto firearm cannot be an assault weapon.

 

Racism, while deplorable, is not a mental aberration, but is something that is taught to children in a home environment.

 

Your attempt to divert to murder stats in your inability to confront firearm fatalities is noted.

Here is a graph about air conditioning:

​

 

It is a relevant as any of the trash charts you post.

 

It would be relevant if murder were the issue. It isn't. It's firearm fatalities.

That includes homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths. A child finding daddy's man-enhancer and accidentally killing himself or a sibling or friend with it is not "murder," nor if he were to use it to deliberately kill himself.

The US, by far, leads all advanced nations in private firearm ownership and in firearm fatalities.

Those other nations all have alienated, disgruntled young men with mental problems who play violent video games.

What they do not have is firearms up the yin yang.

 

Incorrect, it is quite relevant when it comes to firearms.

Then why are suicides included in your charts?

And the U.S. is not comparable to any other country in the world.

And what does that have to do with anything?

When the U.S. murder rate is compared to the number of firearms owned by law abiding citizens that statement becomes irrelevant.

 

Such applies only in very limited circumstances, however, rather than as a general rule. Regulations on semi-automatic firearms are not constitutional when the regulation amounts to a complete and total prohibition, or when the regulations are entirely arbitrary and capricious, such as focusing on cosmetic features rather than the functionality of the firearm itself.

Politicians do not have a right to freedom of speech. This is especially the case when the subject of their message is to threaten and promise to violate the constitutional rights and freedoms of the public if given the opportunity. And as deadly force will likely be utilized against the individuals who refuse to cooperate with the forced confiscation efforts, it could be argued Beto O'rourke was making the death threats first.

 

To the extent that it is one category of firearm fatality, of course.

Obviously, because a high percentage of firearm fatalities in the US are suicides.

Why not? Do you believe that the US is an aberration in all respects, or just in its rate of firearm fatalities?

Other nations all having alienated, disgruntled young men with mental problems who play violent video games refutes the fake argument that those are the factors that result in the US having such a high rate of firearm fatalities.

If you wish to discuss the murder rate, and not the extraordinarily high rate of firearm fatalities in the US, you should initiate a thread regarding it.

Meanwhile, the American people are overwhelmingly supportive of their elected representatives finally address the firearm permissiveness that results in the extraordinarily high rate of firearm fatalities in the US.

 

A claim that cannot be proved, only polled which is not proof.

 

It's important the the vast majority of Americans who recognize that the firearm permissiveness that results in the extraordinary rate of firearm fatalities in the US must be confronted understand that not all gun enthusiasts are extremist crackpots. Sensible folks are among them:

 

And universal background checks are useless without firearm registration and people who believe they will work without registration are not sensible people at all.

 

And when firearms are restricted such as in NY they will just use knives.

Peers Stand Around Recording As Teen Is Stabbed To Death

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesma...n-is-stabbed-to-death--Hnzcqo7EUaCvK5wlrG2Cw/

 

Rather than attempting to contrive excuses for maintaining the tragic level of firearm fatalities in the US, you would do well to prepare for progress. It will be achieved slowly, but, given the sensible attitude of younger Americans especially, it will be achieved.

 

I have posted that many times, strong enforcement of existing firearm laws and equally strong prosecution of the offenders.

That method has been proved to dramatically reduce the criminal misuse of firearms, without infringing on the rights of the law abiding.

Going after firearms is not solving the problem, it is only treating the symptom, it's akin to prescribing pain killers to cure cancer.

 

In 2017, in Las Vegas, a lone gunman stockpiled an arsenal of weapons, associated equipment and ammunition that included fourteen AR-15 rifles (all of which were equipped with bump stocks and twelve of which had 100-round magazines), eight AR-10 rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. In ten minutes, he killed 58 people and wounded 422.

"Oh, yeah! Well, he could have used a really, really sharp knife!"

No, Americans won't fall for such nonsense.

 

And recently in the UK a Mosque was raided where authorities found military grade firearms and explosives.

Treating the symptom will never solve the problem, but carry on with your nonsense if you wish to ignore the actual problem and continue to blame the symptom.

 

He had a pilot’s license; could have killed as many or more just flying into the crowd and given his money could have easily found several other means to take company with his suicide.
There are more than 125m firearms owners in the US, there are but a tiny, tiny number of those that use the rights and liberty to cause harm. Because of the few, does that mean we should remove the rights and the liberty of all? The majority of rapes anywhere are perpetrated by a few predatory men; does that mean we should remove the appendages used and remove their liberties?
Individual rights and liberties should always be protected against the temptation to restrict the rights and liberties of all from the threat of the abuse of the few at the urging of the elite that exempt themselves as did the aristocracies of the past.

 

That is a personal attack, not an argument.

That's like, just you opinion. Who cares. The fast majority of Americans want it. And last time I checked,... the US supposed to be a place where the majority rules.

 

I sourced that I am correct.

 

Alleging that a particular individual does not actually comprehend what they are attempting to speak on, is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact.

And proper grammar is not possessed on the part of yourself.

 

Your source is incorrect, in order for a firearm to be considered useful for an assault it must be select fire, not semi-automatic.

 

However in the U.S. we don't rule by poll, we rule by legislation and voting.

Polls are known to be B.S. and cannot be trusted.

BTW you should try proofing before posting.

 

It's not being backed up by anything, besides me not complying with a interrogation.

 

that just your opinion.