Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 5:50:00 PM (view original):
I'm not asking about assault weapons. I'm asking about hand guns. The VA Tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 hand guns. Should hand guns be banned? If you don't have a logical argument, that's fine. I won't make fun of you, but Just be honest.

Posted by tangplay on 2/19/2018 6:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 5:50:00 PM (view original):
I'm not asking about assault weapons. I'm asking about hand guns. The VA Tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 hand guns. Should hand guns be banned? If you don't have a logical argument, that's fine. I won't make fun of you, but Just be honest.

Yes, but hand guns are actually supposed to be 'useful' or whatever but assault rifles are only really used to kill or whatever, right? I am not knowledgeable about this.

Posted by tangplay on 2/18/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/18/2018 6:34:00 PM (view original):
Do you guys realize that if you got your wish and people tried to impeach Trump there would be absolute chaos in the streets.

1. People don't trust the media
2. People don't trust the Gov't
3. People are starting not to trust the FBI and the DoJ.

Do you mean Trey Gowdy?

Steele was hired by the Clintons. He was loyal to the mighty $$$ --- I don't blame him.


http://dailysignal.com/2018/02/07/the-plot-thickens-grassley-graham-letter-sheds-new-light-on-steele-dossier-nunes-memo/

Just to clarify, I am against impeaching Trump at this time. We need to wait for Mueller to do his job.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:02:00 PM (view original):
As a disclosure, I am actually not opposed to banning assault weapons, but I feel like it is a bandaid for a much bigger problem in the world: deterioration of morality.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:23:00 PM (view original):
If we take domestic violence out of the equation, IMO this is a totally separate issue, since 2009, 15 of 71 incidents were in gun free zones. Obviously I pulled the 95% out of my butt, but that is still a significant %.

A 2016 study by Harvard and Northeastern University put the total number of privately-owned firearms in the U.S. at 265 million, with more than half of that - 133 million - being concentrated in the hands of just 3% of Americans, called "super owners,"who have an average of 17 guns each.

I couldn't find any #s on the % of area in the country that is gun free, but this is as good a way as estimating as I could find. Basically, if we assume that this means that 3% of the country is not gun free (AND THAT IS A MAJOR ASSUMPTION), then that is saying that 20% of gun deaths happen in 3% of the country. I mean, we can at least assume that less than 20% of the country is in a gun-free zone, correct?

Again, Australia passed gun control in 1996, and did not have a mass shooting for 20 years. That's significant, right? Japan, Norway, and the UK are all like this. FOR INSTANCE:

GunPolicy.org estimates that in 2010 there were 3.78 guns per 100 people in the UK, while the US, meanwhile, is estimated to have 101 guns per 100 people.

The result has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deaths a year in England and Wales, which have a population of 56 million. Compare that to the US, a country about six times as large that has more than 160 times as many gun-related homicides.

That is significant, right? Am I missing something?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-eliminated-america-learn-japan-australia-uk-norway-florida-shooting-latest-news-a8216301.html

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2018 6:08:00 PM (view original):
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

Okay, let's use their data which supports your argument about mass shootings in "gun free" zones. It proves my point. Weapons are not the issue. The decline in morality is the issue.