Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08
That I said before seems like a non-starter. Too many good guys make dumb decisions. If there isn’t a desire to try to restrict high capacity guns from bad guys maybe there is no way to agree on something.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08
To be clear, not looking to take away your guns in that you get to keep a ton of them. But just like you’re not allowed to own surface to air missiles and such, maybe you’d agree you don’t need to own automatic assault rifles. Or agree that future purchases of them should be limited.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter08
Ok that’s a good start. There seems to be a gun of choice for these whackos - the AR. Can we get rid of that or restrict purchases? If it already is restricted let me know.
|
Responding to the bold...
1) Then it doesn't seem you're willing to be reasonable with responsible gun owners in a discussion.
2) You cannot own an automatic assault rifle. First of all, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. Second of all, to own an automatic rifle, you essentially have to sign over your rights; not to mention no mass shooting has been committed with an automatic rifle aside from Vegas, which we still don't have answers on (that's an entirely different discussion).
3) False. The #1 firearm used for murder is the handgun, and it's not even close. The mechanics are the exact same between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle (i.e. AR-15). Magazine capacity is a moot point, as the typical handgun used in these murders is around half or even less of a 30 round AR magazine, yet is responsible for far more deaths. If you want to get technical in regards to mass shootings vs handguns, fine, the AR is preferred; I would argue that's due to the copycat nature of these events rather than any mechanical advantage.
Tell me how Chicago is doing with their restrictive gun laws. Same with NY, which has had multiple shootouts in the streets in just the past week. How are there shootings in California?