|Originally posted by koky69 |
Do you "REALLY" think that would solve anything? What happened in Paris? Where they have the strictest gun laws probably in the world. When these pieces of shit want to do these kind of things and they can't obtain guns they just have to talk to other radicals and get them. These people always attack gun free zones in the United States because they know everyone in that area is a sitting duck like the people were in Paris. I am a legal and responsible gun owner. And if I'm carrying at the moment something like this happens and he doesn't take me out first I'll take him out and stop him from killing more innocent people. The easiest thing to say is ban the guns that did this. I say fire the IDIOTS AT THE FBI for letting this piece of shit slide through the cracks like they did. Which btw were told by Obama and his crew of imbecils to back off on the investigation on this guy. Gun control never works and never will. Fully automatic machine guns were banned in the 30's. Didn't stop the couple from lighting up San Bernardino like the 4th of July. Some of you kids need to stop repeating every bullshit lie you hear on the news or that one of your ignorant friends said. Look at Germany, Sweden, England etc. Don't tell me it's a gun problem. It's a piece of shit radical muslim problem.
Yes. As Jack said, take England's example of a fraction of the gun violence and a mandatory sentence for owning any illegal weapon.
Or how about Australia - they had a terrible mass shooting and the Gov when "fack mate, need to kibosh those gans", so they banned all non-bonafide hunting weapons (actually int he UK you can also own a gun like a shotgun if you live on a farm etc) and guess what? Gun deaths dramatically reduced.
The whole gun free thing is a NRA fallcy. Study after study, not to mention cold hard gun death stats, show places with less guns = less gun homicides, and more guns = more gun deaths.
There's no subjectivity here.
As for the "machine gun argument" about them being banned in the 1930's, yes, tommy guns were banned, and fully automatic machines guns are technically banned but there's nothing to stop you from buying an ar15 which can fire 45 rounds in a minute (before any modification). You can then buy a perfectly legal drop in trigger that gets you to within 10% of full auto mode (800 rounds).
Now tell me - A guy wants to kill a bunch of people but has a gun that can only hold 2 (double barrel shotgun) or 6 bullets (revolver). How many people do you think he can take down in one minute vs someone who rolls up with an AR15 or MP5 with extended magazines?
Why does any civilian need to own an "ASSAULT WEAPON". (Hint the clue is in the name).
Guess what San Bernadino was "lit up with" Yep, AR15's. So there goes your Machine guns ban theory.
Next, the foremost professor in the world on Domestic Violence recently showed that states with background tests had 38% lower gun deaths of women. There wasn't a single state that bucked the trend and the lowest register was 22%. That means, more than likely, a large number of previously violent people or people who are violent, like to own guns.
The difference is access. just take the kid that was arrested this weekend in Santa Monica. Several outstanding cases/arrests, not allowed to leave the state, and yet he was able to legally buy 3 assault rifles.
It's fucking bonkers to think guns and their incredibly over accessibility aren't the issues here.