A little perspective on the chance that you will be a victim

For the simple fact that it is not obvious in the real world. The Virginia Tech massacre was carried out with two handguns, with magazines that had a maximum capacity of ten rounds of ammunition, and yielded a higher body count than the Sandy Hook massacre. Limiting the type of firearms available does nothing. Limiting the number of firearms does nothing. Neither proposal has demonstrated actual success.

 

I’ll bet you don’t Even know that he only actually used a couple of the 17 rifles that were in the room. All commonly owned guns.

Enhancements? You mean the bump stock that can be duplicated with a simple piece of wooden dowling?
It is prohibited by law for our government to keep a central database of gun owners. Therefore they can’t know who owns the over 300 million firearms in America. That puts a kink in your plan to limit the number of guns that legal gun owners can possess.

As I said, no law that has been put forth by our lawmakers would have prevented this shooting.

 

Every law can be changed

 

Because we cannot stop everyone. Have you ever thought how many attacks there would have been if Paris had the open gun laws America has?

 

I disagree

SOMETHING stopped the rise of mass shootings in Australia and the UK. If not restriction on high powered rapid fire weapons then what?

 

you never had much in the way of mass shootings anyway.

 

Simple, most Australians are not mindless savages given to killing people willy nilly as you would have people believe.

That is why, it is not due gun control and gun bans.

 

But before the gun reform we had roughly one mass shooting per year for nearly 13 years

Since then (20 years) we have had ONE

 

ending the war on drugs that funds gangs would be the best solution

free mental care and assisted suicide (IE prescription) would be the alternative to the other

 

so you know want gun bans? that is your clear implication since none of the laws you are CURRENTLY calling for could have stopped the Vegas massacre. the man bought everyone of those rifles after a background check. obviously they were still "registered" to him since the form that he filled out with each rifle showed he still owned them. a waiting period wouldn't have done anything since he didn't buy any of those rifles within 3 days of the massacre. So obviously you want other changes in the law to pretend you could have stopped the shooting, Flogger wanted the rifles he owned banned, You apparently want it now too

 

that's called statistically insignificant. what were the weapons used in those 13 mass shootings? were every one of them perpetrated with guns you banned? some of the worst massacres in US history-Luby's texas, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, the Gabby Giffords attack which killed several, all involved handguns that are still legal in Australia

 

we need the right to bear arms, it protects us having criminals not know if a household is armed or not

we need guns if our government ever turns against us and tries to become a dictatorship, enslaving people, ect...

the fact that we all have the right to choose to own a gun, means I feel safe choosing not to own a gun... ironic I know, but true

 

that's why almost every fan of gun bans is also a fan of big government

 

most liberals support a government that helps people that ask for help, a government that forces help cause they think they know best is what both parties should be against

the war on marijuana is a good example as was prohibition of alcohol, or those that want to force religion on other peoples children via our schools, having the government decide for women to have a baby or not, over taxing cigarettes, the list goes on.. sure you do not support any of those big government things

 

You are correct that the odds of being killed by a gun are insignificant.

The problem is not the guns themselves but the gun culture promoted by the NRA.

This NRA gun culture has undermined law enforcement to the point where it is no longer perceived as "protecting and serving" but instead "shooting first and asking questions afterwards".

Yes, it is understandable that cops are paranoid, to all intents and purposes, that the next car they pull over will have someone in it who could shoot them. They are justifiable concerned responding to domestic violence calls that there could be someone with a gun in the house. They know that all responses to armed robberies are going to involve guns.

This places cops in a situation where they are in constant danger and as such it means that they treat anyone and everyone with suspicion. This further deepens the distrust of the police by the general population. It doesn't help that when anything does happen it is all over the media which only exacerbates the situation.

So the actual risk of being shot as a member of the public is mathematically negligible does not matter.

What actually matters is the PERCEPTION that you might be shot and the NRA gun culture promotes and feeds off that perception in order to encourage the sale of guns.

Therein lies the root of the problem.

 

I’ve been pulled over for speeding a dozen times while carrying. Those cops would tell you that I’m not the problem. They haven’t shot me yet either.

 

Unless the majority of mass shootings in the nation of Australia were perpetrated with rifles, rather than handguns and shotguns, the aforementioned restrictions did not do anything to achieve the demonstrated outcome. A prohibition on rifles does not come into play if common handguns were utilized.

Numerous mass shootings in the united states, for instance, and carried out with handguns, while semi-automatic rifles are statistically rare, despite being sensationalized by the news media.

 

Pray tell how so? How are legal firearm owners responsible for such?

Demonstrate how such was the result of actions on the part of the NRA, rather than that of law enforcement itself moving away from protecting and serving.

Is there an argument to be found somewhere in the above statement?

Again, demonstrate that such is somehow the fault of the NRA.

 

Inane strawman duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Answer the question. How is the NRA responsible for any of the above that was mentioned by yourself?

 

What happened to being able to admit when you'e wrong? Remember when you were wrong about Roderiguez v Us? That was a few weeks ago, don't tell me you've backslid on all that progress now?

 

Maybe we could hire some Democrat experts? Who did FDR use?

 

Then all you need to do is get an amendment.
You're into math, what kind of numbers would you need for that?
Start a constitutional convention if you think you've got the minerals man

 

But what if he had a magic wand?

 

They are free to protect themselves as the rest of us do. Call me when you refuse to drink alcohol and demand prohibition of it because of all the deaths and damage it causes.