Are you really saying that restricting the purchase of firearms to people old enough to go to a bar or buy a bottle of wine would be too much of a restriction on people’s Second Amendment rights?But here you’re painting all “teens” (he was nineteen, but a legal adult) with one broad stroke. The majority of 19 year-olds don’t post pictures of themselves wearing body armor on instagram, then shoot up their old school a few weeks later. You’re taking the one that did do those things and saying he’s the rule- not the exception- when you propose a ban on people his age buying guns.
No, my words were, “You’re painting all “teens” (he was nineteen, but a legal adult) with one broad stroke” and, “You’re taking the one that did do those things and saying he’s the rule- not the exception”.Are you really saying that restricting the purchase of firearms to people old enough to go to a bar or buy a bottle of wine would be too much of a restriction on people’s Second Amendment rights?
To start with - a total ban on bumpstocks and similar devices (please, spare me the rubber band balogna), much tighter restrictions on assault-style weapons (similar to current restrictions on actual-assault weapons), and stricter Federal standards on mental health issues and private sales and such imposed on the individual States.for “sensible gun” legislation are willing to say what is sensible. I gave several suggestions as to what can be done to prevent school shooting. You
No evidence of such. People intent on harm find the tools, like the Sandy Hook shooter.A law barring teenagers from buying guns would have worked nicely in this case.
Because a mini-gun, for example, can do a lot move damage to a larger number of people than a hand gun. So we cannot pretend that there doesn’t need to be a regulation on the kind of weapons allowed to the general public.Instead of blaming the gun how about we blame the evil in the heart of the person committing this act. The gun is an inanimate object.
Someone who doesn’t have evil in their hearts and buys a “mini-gun” isn’t going to use it to kill people. Someone who does have evil in their hearts, will- but who’s talking about mini-guns, anyways?Because a mini-gun, for example, can do a lot move damage to a larger number of people than a hand gun. So we cannot pretend that there doesn’t need to be a regulation on the kind of weapons allowed to the general public.
True, but the fact remains that a mini-gun will do a larger amount of damage to a larger number of people than would a handgun. So there needs to be regulation.Someone who doesn’t have evil in their hearts and buys a “mini-gun” isn’t going to use it to kill people.
They were gun free zones and a direct consequence of gun control.The LV massacre, TX church massacre, FL school massacre.
What do all three have in common?
Assault weapons is a made-up term.The problem is semi automatic assault-style weapons like the AR-15.
Why must the government always be involved when people have an emotional reaction?Continuing to do nothing while once every 2 months an AR-15 wielding madman massacres dozens of people is no longer acceptable.
These are strawmen arguments.You can’t just give people rocket launchers just because a good person wouldn’t use it. That line of reasoning doesn’t make sense.
How about letting everybody have access to the nuclear launch codes so we can play a little game of don’t push the button.