And, I hope you agree that the police shouldn't profit by re-selling those guns they confiscate (thus putting them back on the street).
Semi auto might also be taken care of through a civil action.
I’ll be honest with you. I obviously know several gun owners (I live in the US) and I don’t really begrudge them for owning them.
Are you sure you really want that Lucy?
Are you trying to see how many stupid posts you can make in a single thread?
That’s not entirely fair. Realistically, there is no solution because nothing will change. And that’s largely due to gun lovers and pussies.
Simply put, gun possession doesn't protect anybody except the guy who pulls his gun first.
A gun won't protect you unless it's already in your hand when the trouble starts.
Wow that sounds like you had a bad experience at the urinal trough at a Cubs game.
Semi auto is much broader from what I can tell. Though at this point I'd consider hunting with a single action if that would help.
The idea that all or even most gun owners live in a constant state of fear is a caricature of your own making. The firearm owners I know are hunters, law enforcement, former military, people who simply just enjoy target shooting and yes some who are using them for home defense. By and large the people who own guns for home defense aren’t the “arsenal” types you’re talking about. They own one, maybe two hand guns.
in case they are attached by 100 people at once
The problem is deranged fanatics. Guns are one instrument but not the only one. Bombs, vehicles, planes, knives, and anthrax has also been used.
most I know are zealots and scream like idiots if anyone proposes any type of gun control
I don’t know if I need a gun for protection or not. I do know I’ve worn a seat belt in my car for more than 60 years and I’ve never needed it.
Your seat belt isn't designed to harm another driver.
I still don’t get the reasons for owning one. Even in those instances you mentioned.
Of course. But that caricature helps them convince themselves.
$100 a shell is a non-starter. I’m pretty sure that is what you posted.Non-starter? It's no different to the tobacco, gas tax or eventually sugar tax. Someone has to pay for the secondary costs.
Its more palatable than god forbid, making guns more difficult to buy.
But its like the opioid epidemic.
Nothing gets done since it's making big money for certain companies. You fix that structural problem and then miraculously everything else falls in place.
Guys like this pick targets based on the ease of access and the likelihood that they won’t face any resistance. It’s why no one ever shoots up a police station or a gun club.
Or, if they had the ability to monitor people who have already been identified as being dangerous.
It’s pretty ****ing naive to claim his argument is boring when you’re trying to solve a multivariate problem with univariate thinking.
This seems divergent. Of course not everyone who owns a gun loves it. They need to take it out a few times and introduce it to their parents first.
They don’t last forever man. This is a weird argument. And if I have land and want to protect against coyotes or wolves I’m gonna need several mags.
Or by some of those threatening children that occupy elementary schools in broad daylight.
