This is the problem with the right on issues like this. You don't like the argument I made so you try to pick it apart using semantics instead of basic common sense. Everything doesn't boil down to the simplest flaw in the opposing argument. Things are much more complicated that that. GUNS that fire lots of bullets without reloading. Does that work for you? 15 second soundbites are killing this country bit by bit and they're not going to stop until we're all staring down at the corpse and wondering what the hell happened.
It's not just semantics it's an important technical distinction that is commonly misstated and misunderstood. It's hard to take people serious when they don't understand important details like that. So you want to ban automatic ar-15s. Have at it. It's kind of important that you know what it is you're stating you want to ban It takes seconds to change it magazines in most guns too, so limit it to 10 or whatever you want. Psychos still gon psycho.
GUNS that fire lots of bullets without reloading. That's a great place to start because it means no maniac can walk into a crowded area and kill a whole bunch of people without having to do anything else but shoot them without interruption. Actually I think the Australian bans are the right ones. Those are long rifles with large magazines, pump-action shotguns, handguns that are designed specifically to be both concealable and capable of carrying high caliber ammunition, etc. Any gun that is designed to kill a lot of people or defeat body armor is generally on the list. We're having a mass shooting every 3 months now. Somebody somewhere goes off and kills a bunch of people and we're not going to get a handle on it until we do what the Australians did and take the guns commonly used in those shootings off the street completely. That means a buy back and it means long prison terms for people dealing in those weapons and some prison time for anybody found with one of them after the buy back and ban are in effect. See? No 15 second soundbite and you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Very funny, but being an island probably helps with keeping illegal guns out once you eliminate them from the existing population. We kind of have a different border issue here. We can't keep people and drugs out; getting rid of the existing guns isn't going to help if new guns just make their way across the border. Compromise -- ban guns but build the wall?
Good point about the island factor, did not consider that. Still unsure where I stand on this issue to be honest.
My compromise suggestion comes with a problem, though. Do we really want to build a wall that keeps people out but keeps us IN, unarmed, and at the mercy of a completely armed government. I wonder if we've ever seen such a scenario before...
He is right on about everything he says. He got into it a little deeper on the Gavin McInnes show too before making this speech. When a gay Brit is saying things that liberals are afraid to say , then maybe there might be a problem in this country with political correctness.
Except the vast majority of guns here were not smuggled into the country but were produced and distributed legally...at first. Too many then were brought to states where they were illegal, stolen (and often not reported) or transferred illegally. When the guns go underground how can they be kept out of the hands of criminals without traceable registration?
You basically want to get rid of all guns. I disagree wholeheartedly but at least the idea has some merit in terms of actually solving something. Thankfully it will never happen because the result would be worse than what's happening in Europe IMO.
Why are we not enforcing stricter penalties for illegal guns now? Why wait until we make the legal and responsible gun owners of today criminals before we get tough?
And the problem with the majority of the left on the gun control issue is what you just did. You either intentionally lied and said automatic weapons in order to mislead people or you don't know what you are talking about. You don't get to say something like that and just brush it off as a typo. We all know you are too smart for that You went from automatic which means hold down the trigger and bullets come out until you stop to "pull the trigger for each bullet but i was talking about the number of bullets in the gun" Think about it
You know what I don't understand? There are some very simple laws and restrictions that we could pass which could greatly increase safety regarding guns, yet would not restrict law-abiding gun owners in any way. Let me know what if any issues you would have with any of the following proposals: 1) If you are a convicted felon, or you have a history of mental illness, you can not own a gun 2) Implementation on a national, NON-PUBLIC database to perform background checks prior to the purchasing of a gun to see if you are anyone identified in #1. 3) If you live in a home with someone with a mental illness, you are required to keep your weapon locked up at all times when not in use 4) If you commit a crime, and I mean any crime, while in possession of a gun, you receive federally-enforced 10 year prison sentence in addition to whatever sentencing for your crimes. Why would anyone on either side object to these becoming law tomorrow?
