Nothing will be 100%. My opinion banning militia style weapons is one of the better options. With a hand gun he kills 2 and injures 11. With an AR-15 the killings go way up.
There is realistic and then there is unrealistic. That will never happen. So we shouldn't do anything to try and prevent mass murders because the Gov has guns?
If(for example) letting people having guns prevents 1000 crimes a month and banning guns prevents 1 crime a month(and allows the 1000 to happen) which would you choose?
Most crimes are done with hand guns. Not talking about general crimes. I am talking about militia style weapons that can take out 50 plus people in seconds.
Plus you're not considering people who live in rural ares where the nearest police are 15+ minutes from your home. A pistol is not an adequate deterrent to keep thieves or worse away.
I don't think you can make a case for banning ARs on the basis of preventing mass killing. If you somehow make it impossible to buy legally and find illegally they'll use bombs/trucks.
It seems extremely callous to just trade the lives of victims of mass shootings to keep the balance of power between cities and the country in tact, BUT, the other option is tyranny.
The electoral college is a similar check on feudalism(power centralized in cities). It forces candidates to make campaign promises to ppl in both cities AND the country to get elected.
Basically, the ability to own a powerful long gun allows people who live in the country to accumulate more wealth. Otherwise you become a target. Those guns are a check on feudalism.
You do know that most mass murderers are actually leftist Democrats. You also know that guns don't kill people, people do. But hey, if only bad guys have guns, everything will be a OK
Your first statement is total bullshit probably put out by Faux news. And Opioids don't kill people, people choose to OD, but that seems to be a problem. It can't be both ways. LOL
Catholics aside when I said "the ones" it was in reference between the right and the left. AFAIC the conservatives are against abortion and liberals are pro abortion? Isn't that right?
Catholics aside? LOL. The one's against abortion are the one's doing it. It's easy to complain about someone else's problem, until it becomes your problem.
Stop shifting the goalpost. I don't care about Catholics. You accuse conservatives from being against human life while in fact they are the ones against abortion. Cognitive dissonance?
You are the one shifting the goal post. We were talking about guns, and you went to abortion. Totally different subject moron. I am against abortion too fucker. Now what?
Bullshit. conservatives just pick certain areas to what they think is important. For instance Death by gun suicide is ok. Death by Opioid suicide is not. Has to do with money, not HL
And how do they make money from being agaisn't abortion? AFAIC there is a big black market for aborded foetus which is the primary reason the left is being pro abortion.
Nobody is making money. It's about the cost for tax payers and the government. Just like Opioid suicide raises the cost of health care because of lawsuits. Gun suicide there is nothing
They are equally realistic. Lets put a bandaid on but ignore the missing amputated arm. Governments kill people and they have enough usefull idiots to pull triggers.
I didn't forget, I actually learnt that in school. The thing is our weaponry tech was really inferior at the time. If they gave a weapon to everyone, we would have lost anyway.
Your country was taken and then given back by those with guns. Gun control has nothing to with saving lives, it has to with who has guns and who doesn’t. It’s about control
I don't mind trained military to have guns. You have to be delusional to think civilians with handguns can control any army armed with tanks, drones, etc. Civilians never have control.
Alright, seems fair. Also most of the time when someone wants to protect themselves from police enforcement, the police shoots first. Govt doesn't even need guns to control anyway
yeah. argument is there but language is a bit strong. true gov controls people by demanding respect (essentially). guns are usually a last resort of force. (after letters, courts...)
So you don’t mind over 400,000 innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since the US invasion? You only care about the deaths sensationalized by mainstream media?
I care about the deaths that could have been easily avoided. But what's your take on this, should we demilitarize the US ? Or train every iraqi, even children ?
They all could have been easily avoided by non-intervension in the first place. If only the American people only had the ability to see through the propaganda and stop fascism.
"American people" don't choose what war to participate in, even if they see through the propaganda, and their guns won't deter the govt from going. Like the Vietnam war...
I'm sorry but this is not true. In France only the military and special forces carry loaded guns and gendarmes doesn't have any. There are just more men since recent events.
Absolutely not, this is the RAID units, the French SWAT. There's a very low chance to see them in real life. They are only 380 too.. They don't enforce anything.
Again totally in denial about the fact that France was lost as a country to Germany before being restored by people with guns. Gun control is more about control than anything.
Our entire army was wiped out by the blitzkrieg in 6 weeks. It has way more to do with our inferior technological progress at the time than giving guns to civilians or not.
Wouldn't stand a chance against tanks and planes. Civilians wouldn't be as coordinated as the military too. They went from Poland to Moscow and everyone had a gun there
North Vietnam had a lots of military. The US did the most damage by killing 2 million civilians and 600k soldiers. They did not lose the battles at all, it was just unnecessary.
The drills are part of the propaganda. Don't let that fool you. Fact is if someone wants to do a mass shooting they can. Gun control isnt stopping them.