"Assault weapon" ban 2.0

See, now I'm starting to convince myself that you're trolling.

All or none, did you not express that sentiment a few minutes ago? Hell, open up the Abrhams factory to the general public. TANKS FOR ALL!

Why not make this an even larger gap?

Decent legislation and enforcement will be a good thing for the US; if they can't get there, well, oh well. There are other countries that don't slaughter themselves waiting in the wings to step into a more powerful role. By all means, keep blowing the shit out of yourselves - the rest of the world will cope with the eventual self destruction.

im seriosuly starting to think, you have reading comprehension problem.

Either way, you're still over simplifying the issue as a whole. Your argument is essentially "Why waste time solving 1% of the problem while ignoring 99%, especially while resources are so limited" right? The reality is that there is NO simple solution to 99% of the gun violence 'problem', the reality of the situation is that it's more likely that there are 99 solutions, each accounting for 1% of the problem, but when enacted together can make a difference.

it's fine to target the 1% of the problem, i understand, there are niche(like certain disease fundraisers), but have some effective, and reasonable(financially) solutions.

Reductio ad absurdum.

gonna have to apologize for the name calling, did not see the next thoughtful and constructive post before i could reply,

as for the army, army is like olympics, it's a country competing against another, and any slight edge is crucial.

but homicide, the performance enhancement doesn't necessarily matter, but the result does. it's not hard to kill someone with a knife, or a blunt object, if you are strong enough, and the person doesn't know your intent. In fact, if i were to kill someone i'd kill someone with a knife, no gun powder to track me to, no bullet to match me to, much more quiet.

have to realize, tax money is limited, what he was saying is,

if you had to choose between two issue(only one), affecting 99% vs 1% which would you choose?

gonna have to apologize for the name calling, did not see the next thoughtful and constructive post before i could reply,

as for the army, army is like olympics, it's a country competing against another, and any slight edge is crucial.

but homicide, the performance enhancement doesn't necessarily matter, but the result does. it's not hard to kill someone with a knife, or a blunt object, if you are strong enough, and the person doesn't know your intent. In fact, if i were to kill someone i'd kill someone with a knife, no gun powder to track me to, no bullet to match me to, much more quiet.

in before, someone twists my word saying i want to kill people.

have to realize, tax money is limited, what he was saying is,

if you had to choose between two issue(only one), affecting 99% vs 1% which would you choose?

It's a false premise. There is no 99% solution.

That is argument he is making. I am struggling with it because it doesn't make any sense. Of course bad guys don't follow the rules, but all the guns the bad guys use start out in a gun shop.

Like it or not the sea of guns the US is floating on pretty much all started as guns sold to a law abiding citizen practicing their 2nd amendment rights. If you don't want cheap high powered weapons in the hands of thugs it has to start with the original buyers, AND IMO, an aggressive buy back program where the government pays more than street value (use greed for good). Unless of course you can suggest a form of regulation that is recognized by the criminal world and you are holding out on us.

$20 trillion here we come.

Current market value on an AR-15 is between $1800 and $2500, often higher for certain guns (ie, a gun that was made in MT, TN, or WY and never left state lines, therefor not subject to such unconstitutional laws can go for well over $3000). Are you saying the gov't should offer $4000? $5000? :fruit:

You realize that your own 99 v 1% argument can be used against you in the case of "gun-free zones' right? Out of the 11000ish gun deaths per year, only an minuscule portion of those take place in gun free zones. Most shooting deaths take place in the streets and in private homes. So you're criticizing people for supporting regulation that will only target '1% of the problem', while hypocritically pushing the abolition of gun-free zones that only has the potential of 'solving' (most people believe that this would actually make children less safe and increase the risk of putting firearms in the hand of children) '1% of the problem'.

You're right. But we aren't having gun bans forced on us because of the shooting that happen where guns are allowed. Sandy Hook was a gun free zone. The movie theater in Aurora was a gun free zone (there were 10 theaters closer to his house, but they allowed guns inside). The Sikh temple just after the Aurora shooting was a gun free zone. Clackamas town center was a gun free zone, but fortunately a second man chose to disobey that sign last december and was able to draw his concealed handgun on the shooter, who retreated and killed himself.

Hell, even the thousands of deaths that we don't hear about on national (or international) media - gang shooting in places like Chicago and New York - are gun free zones because of their laws banning open and concealed carry.

guns are good

guns are good

Guns don't kill people - GPS devices with maps from Apple kill people.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check?utm_source=feedburner[HTML_REMOVED]utm_medium=feed[HTML_REMOVED]utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motherjones%2Fmain+%28MotherJones.com+Main+Article+Feed%29[HTML_REMOVED]utm_content=FaceBook

You're right. But we aren't having gun bans forced on us because of the shooting that happen where guns are allowed. Sandy Hook was a gun free zone. The movie theater in Aurora was a gun free zone (there were 10 theaters closer to his house, but they allowed guns inside). The Sikh temple just after the Aurora shooting was a gun free zone. Clackamas town center was a gun free zone, but fortunately a second man chose to disobey that sign last december and was able to draw his concealed handgun on the shooter, who retreated and killed himself.

Hell, even the thousands of deaths that we don't hear about on national (or international) media - gang shooting in places like Chicago and New York - are gun free zones because of their laws banning open and concealed carry.

You're not having gun bans 'forced' on you because of a single shooting. You're having gun bans forced on you because of the 11000 murders using guns, 31000 total gun deaths and 66000 gun injuries per year. There are nearly 3000 gun deaths just under the age of 19. Sandy Hook was just the catalyst.

Of the 62 mass shootings in the last 31 years, a grand total of zero of those have been stopped by armed citizens with guns, even though less than 1/3 of them have taken place in 'gun-free' zones. Abolishing 'gun-free' zones isn't going to stop any shootings.

And stop being so dramatic. You know as well as I do that the next Republican elected to the Whitehouse will end the sales ban.

guns are good

Latino shows up at wrong house to pick up friend for ice skating…
owner of house a Vietnam vet starts poppin caps…

sounds like the movie Grand Torino

sounds like the movie Grand Torino

Saw that one on some movie channel or something. Even though I didn't have to pay to watch it, I still came away feeling like I want my money back. Clint should be embarrassed to be involved with that turd of a movie.

Kn.