rifles use nics, rifles are the majority of firearms
federal law prohibits nics checks being used for registration
rifles use nics, rifles are the majority of firearmsBased on...?
BULLSHIT!What I find particularly funny in this forum is that NRA members and pro-gun people are willing to talk about and make compromises to aid the safety of Americans, but the lefties and the anti-gun clueless in here refuse to make common sense decisions that will save lives. Instead they just spew hatred and lies and insanity. They act like rabid animals.
Its really not quantifiable at this point. To bad we aren't as obsessed with math and science as we are with guns.most firearms are not registered.
Its really not quantifiable at this point. To bad we aren't as obsessed with math and science as we are with guns.
Neither of those back up your claim.
What I find particularly funny in this forum is that NRA members and pro-gun people are willing to talk about and make compromises to aid the safety of Americans, but the lefties and the anti-gun clueless in here refuse to make common sense decisions that will save lives. Instead they just spew hatred and lies and insanity. They act like rabid animals.
Your association of Dems with criminals shows what is left of your brain is useless to this discussion
Why would someone have to be judged as such when it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What part of the constitution do you think the 2A was amending? What do you think it was all about? Hunting? Why can't you just say the wording leaves the door too wide open for guns so we need to amend or abolish the 2A? You are just nibbling at the edges and you are not going to be satisfied with what you get (or don't get in a lot of cases). Get to the root of the matter.Oh I can see it I just think that those who interpret it that way have small, weak, pathetic minds. They are ruled by fear, paranoia and insecurity. Those are definitely not the kind of people who should be heard in a gun debate.
Considering after an initial decline alcohol consumption actually rose under prohibition it seems likely the answer is yes.
Based on...?
So you're saying, despite the cost to society of a particular freedom that many people partake in being legal and widely available, prohibition creates an even greater cost when that right is taken away.
I wonder if you can connect the dots here.
As I already said, we have ample evidence from around the world that this is not a problem with guns.
I wonder if you can connect the dots, lol. This is not complicated.
We are not around the world though, we are America which one of its pillars of freedom that the country is based on, that stands the country up is the right to bear arms. This isn't Australia.
Its really not quantifiable at this point. To bad we aren't as obsessed with math and science as we are with guns.
Its really not quantifiable at this point. To bad we aren't as obsessed with math and science as we are with guns.
Haha, color me entirely shocked that America is magically special and uniquely unable to undertake a policy most of the rest of the developed world has made work. Odd how those policies America is uniquely unable to do are always ones that conservatives oppose. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
As usual, when empirical evidence tells you things you don't want to hear you invent a reason to ignore it. It's doubly funny considering how you claimed you were basing your opinions in facts and evidence earlier, which we both know is a lie.
We tried an Assault Weapon Ban before and it was widely judged to be a failure. That seems directly relevant to discussing the question "on their own merits" and yet you seem to want to ignore that huge data point.
How could it be considered a failure when any metric used didn't show things getting worse?
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-...s-used-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
The study’s findings include:
- Gun-use is the safest of studied “self-protective strategies,”
- Suicide accounts for most firearm deaths,
- Felons who use guns very seldom obtain their guns by stealing them, and
- There is no evidence that gun restrictions reduce gun violence.
Results. We estimated that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place. By contrast, there was no evidence for a reduction in nonfirearm homicides.
Conclusions. Consistent with prior research, this study demonstrated that Connecticut’s handgun permit-to-purchase law was associated with a subsequent reduction in homicide rates. As would be expected if the law drove the reduction, the policy’s effects were only evident for homicides committed with firearms.
Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase in annual firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23 %) but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates.
most gun owners are open to discussion, and even some more restrictions
the problem is no matter what we suggest, all we get it
"its not enough! ban them all!"
once ant's are open to a logical discussion, we can continue
Things on the whole improved after the ban ended. So I don't know that the ban helped at all.
How could it be considered a failure when any metric used didn't show things getting worse?
Firearms are a culture here to a degree. I really don't think it'd be the same. In an effort to save lives (lol worthy) you'd create a lot of bloodshed. At any rate, in America the answer shouldn't be to take away rights our country was founded on because it scares you. You are overly anxious over something that is exceedingly unlikely to kill you.
Doesn't this run counter the talking point about how criminals will get guns no matter what?
- Felons who use guns very seldom obtain their guns by stealing them, and