You are going back 95 years for a one-off mass casualty attack, ffs.car bombs, how do they work.
Andrew Kehoe knows.
How about we go back six hours?
Or one week?
??
You are going back 95 years for a one-off mass casualty attack, ffs.car bombs, how do they work.
Andrew Kehoe knows.
Little different scenario, but stillthe Taliban would like to show you something...
there are consequences for actions, not requisites to exercise.In the same way that free speech has some limitations, So does the second amendment currently.
I'm suggesting absolutely nothing different other than I focus on factual risk evaluation of each weapon and safe user skillset rather than arbitrary lines being 18 or 21.
The second amendment is particularly unique because it involves the right to a physical item. But clearly it isn't any item of that physical title as this is already limited. It's currently okay to limit concealed carry to only trained individuals.
It's okay to limit automatic weapons only to extensive background checks.
It's okay to ban outright entire classes of weapons from civilian ownership.
It's okay to limit the transfer of certain weapons only between those who have met the criteria above.
It has been both attempted and done many times. Here is an example of a guy that attempted to bomb a Christmas tree lighting that was attended by a bunch of families with young children. Little did he know, he was purchasing the parts from the FBI.Why bother constructing a car bomb when you can walk into into any gun store and buy an AR-15.
are we talking about the largest mass school homicide in US history, at a time when you could order a BAR out of a Sears-Roebuck catalog.You are going back 95 years for a one-off mass casualty attack, ffs.
How about we go back six hours?
Or one week?
??
It was a century ago.are we talking about the largest mass school homicide in US history, at a time when you could order a BAR out of a Sears-Roebuck catalog.
try harder and I think you can see how silly the "ban guns to stop violence" line of thought becomes.
Plenty do not. They shouldn't own guns.Do you think that someone who has not had a training class does not know how to safely operate a firearm?
Why would she only do it twice?Sure she does. A shotgun is an excellent home defense weapon. It's difficult to kill the neighbor across the street shooting through the wall and it's easy for police to disarm a public gunman.
It's a pretty good compromise considering that she has no training whatsoever and is purchasing a deadly weapon. For all I know she lives in an apartment and she still might blast a hole through the wall injuring her immediate neighbor. But at least she'll only do it twice.
But this whole post is just politicians speak to appeal to sympathies rather than realize that there's more than one person involved when you own a gun. The guns affects don't end at the barrel, but go far beyond it. Both physically and figuratively.
I don't know what you referring to, look at the news now, he bought those guns.an AR wasn't used, AFAIK. it was a handgun. So let's stop throwing around the Boogeyman Gun like it's superkilling machine that possesses people with evil
look at Hong Kong, see if you can put the pieces of "why" together.
I'd like to be clear on what you are saying. Can you explain what you mean when you say "training"?Plenty do not. They shouldn't own guns.
Those that can figure it out, I don't mind stating that I don't trust them by default. Why should I? They've done nothing other than buy a weapon with no training. I don't think somebody who buys a car is a good driver because they read about it on the internet.
I think that somebody that does not have training has no business using a firearm outside of their own home where others are now impacted by their potentially shitty behavior.
I think that escalating training and responsibility weeds out looney tunes and malcontents.
I think yooou'd be surprisedBut guns no longer pose a threat to a tyrannical government that has a military like America's
how hard do you think it is to manufacture explosives?It was a century ago.
And what makes you so confident that if it was today, that he wouldn't have strolled in there feeling all badass with his AR-15?
Also, he used dynamite. You want dynamite sold over the counter at Wal-Mart now?
??
handguns are the most effective force-equalizer for the old or weak.I don't know what you referring to, look at the news now, he bought those guns.
Even handguns, like I said, what reason you need them? It's like some psychological disassociation, as soon as something like this happens American gun nuts stick their heads in the sand.
Safe use in a multitude of legal situations. Regular maintenance of certification.I'd like to be clear on what you are saying. Can you explain what you mean when you say "training"?
Handguns are most common crime gun and their portable and concealable nature make them a public threat and difficult to police compared to a long gun.handguns are the most effective force-equalizer for the old or weak.
now I'm right wing?
couple days ago I was left wing.
he bought 2 autoloading rifles on his 18th birthday.I don't know what you referring to, look at the news now, he bought those guns.
Even handguns, like I said, what reason you need them? It's like some psychological disassociation, as soon as something like this happens American gun nuts stick their heads in the sand.
no defensive weapon is used to successfully deter an attack as frequently as a handgun.Handguns are most common crime gun and their portable and concealable nature make them a public threat and difficult to police compared to a long gun.
I've said nothing about anybody having a birthright to anything other than basic protection. Class one baby. Don Jr. Needs to go to class and if he's too lazy to do so he doesn't get to get access to the evil black rifle.OK - but she hasn't earned the right to be safe walking back and forth to work.
only Don Jr has earned such a right by virtue of his birth.
First off, I think you're kind of losing it here. Why on earth would cops carrying a deadly gun be an argument about how the gun is not deadly or whatever your point is? Why would I want cops to not carry a deadly gun when they are using deadly force? A completely bizarre question by you.no defensive weapon is used to successfully deter an attack as frequently as a handgun.
if handguns are so deadly, why do cops carry them?
I'm already laughing at you getting ready to talk about their "training".
He doesn’t need to go to classes , just pay others too.I've said nothing about anybody having a birthright to anything other than basic protection. Class one baby. Don Jr. Needs to go to class and if he's too lazy to do so he doesn't get to get access to the evil black rifle.
We NFA automatic weapons. Can just as well use the same model too. Lock up other things under different classes. As they should be.
Okay then. Don Jr can go ahead and be an airline pilot too by whatever mechanism he is gaming the gun training. That doesn't change the fact that we should still have escalating training and permitting for different types of aircraft.He doesn’t need to go to classes , just pay others too.
Uh he can pay for protectionOkay then. Don Jr can go ahead and be an airline pilot too by whatever mechanism he is gaming the gun training. That doesn't change the fact that we should still have escalating training and permitting for different types of aircraft.