Since you want to play this game:

 

STUDY: More Concealed & Constitutional Carry, Less Crime

 

My favorite stat from this study:

 

Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%

 

God bless smart, practical thinking women like these!

 

So....because I choose to not own a gun, I am, by default, NOT a practical thinking woman?

You guys ok with that: money, a permit , and more qualifications for the ability to obtain a weapon?

 

Easier target. Assault weapons with large magazines can cause more damage to a large group. There is no practical use for them other than killing humans.

 

Assault weapons is a made up term by the left. But your statement on them not having a use is false. But even if it were true it's irrelevant to the point it is a right.

 

A right doesn't need to have a practical use. Hate speech is legal not because its practical it's legal because in a free society we allow all speech.

@B-Ball-fan. As I said, when I was a kid, guns were very much around. Heck, kids had guns on racks in their pickup trucks at school and I lived in Newport. Guns haven't changed a lot since then, but people did. Why then are some people railing against the guns instead of railing against the way kids are raised today and the parent's little helper, psychotropic drugs? That's the bigest changes I've seen since I was a kid. Why go after guns? They aren't the problem.

 

You don't know how to keep guns out of people's hands because you can't. Think prohibition. How'd that turn out?

You want to tell me how to know when someone is going to go off kilter? I wish we could, but you can't normally tell when someone is mentally ill. Sometimes you can and sure, I'm all for keeping guns away from people like that. Problem is, we have an anti-gun crowd with the mindset that wants all guns off the street and God forbid they get their hand in determining how to go about finding who is ill and who isn't. Again, the treatment for some of these people seem to cause more problems than doing them any good. Yet we keep throwing psychotropic drugs down their gullets.

 

You want to know why we have a problem with what's being asked. I'll spell it out for you. It isn't you or Hellcats that worry us, it's the anti-gun leftist politicians and their blind minions that do want to take our rights away, all the while telling us they don't want to do that as they wink and nod. They are the most disingenuous crowd of liars that use every trick, misinformation and fear tactics available to them to trick the populous into yielding and bowing to their agenda. It's as simple as that.

 

I see what you're saying and thank you for addressing it. It helps me get a better understanding of where you're coming from, and helps me understand what your ultimate fears for your rights are all about, and how some could take it to the extreme to remove those rights from you, and how you want to prevent that from happening.

1. What? You said people who should have guns can get them like it happens so we shouldn't do anything about it.

30,000 people a year dead to gun violence

100,000 injured a year to gun violence

Sorry that worries me.

 

2. Why do people need assault weapons that are semiautomatic and carry large magazines? Sorry I'll stay on point.

1. My point is they can. We already do something about it. It's called gun laws. Look them up, there are a lot of them. Remember prohibition? How about drugs, totally illegal, right? Any of this sinking in?

Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.

Sorry, that worries me more. Don't hear me crying for a ban on any vehicles though, do you?

 

2. Why do you need anything you own that isn't what I consider a necessity? Why do you care if I own what you consider an "assault weapon"? Why do you care how many rounds it takes? What's the percentage of people killed yearly by "assault weapons"? Again, define assault weapon.

So....because I choose to not own a gun, I am, by default, NOT a practical thinking woman?

No, it's not the gun thing. :lol2:

Assault weapons is a made up term by the left. But your statement on them not having a use is false. But even if it were true it's irrelevant to the point it is a right.

 

A right doesn't need to have a practical use. Hate speech is legal not because its practical it's legal because in a free society we allow all speech.

 

This post just made one of my eye sockets shut as I winced with the overwhelming feeling that this is such a weak comment.

 

Where do we draw the line with what is our right to own weapons? It might sound extreme but isn't it my right, by your definition then, to own a nuclear bomb or whatever destructive device I wanted to?

 

You can split hairs all that you want that automatic weapons have a practical use in our culture and as you say, even if they didn't it's still our right to have them.

 

Seriously man... guessing that you are civilized...is that really the world you want to live in?

This post just made one of my eye sockets shut as I winced with the overwhelming feeling that this is such a weak comment.

 

Where do we draw the line with what is our right to own weapons? It might sound extreme but isn't it my right, by your definition then, to own a nuclear bomb or whatever destructive device I wanted to?

 

You can split hairs all that you want that automatic weapons have a practical use in our culture and as you say, even if they didn't it's still our right to have them.

 

Seriously man... guessing that you are civilized...is that really the world you want to live in?

Not to speak for LB, but come on. The line has been drawn on what you can own. For instance, if someone wants to own an actual assault weapon you have to get a Class 3 Firearms License. It's a process, it costs and the ATF crawls up your rear end with a microscope.

 

A nuke? Come on. :lol2:

Not to speak for LB, but come on. The line has been drawn on what you can own. For instance, if someone wants to own an actual assault weapon you have to get a Class 3 Firearms License. It's a process, it costs and the ATF crawls up your rear end with a microscope.

 

A nuke? Come on. :lol2:

 

I realize that the nuke comment is extreme and a laugh, but I'm still thinking that the whole "It's my rights", and "automatic weapons do have a use in our culture" thing and "Even if they don't it's still my right" is a principle being so held close to even when it defies logic, and too can get a bit extreme.

 

I get the rights thing, but when it becomes so primary so much to ignore other peripheral issues regarding this topic, then I'm not sure everyone here is being completely realistic as it feels they want to hold so tight to their rights that they're unwilling to discuss some realities in the process.

 

I get that there's a fear of giving in to a sector who could ultimately aim at taking your rights away altogether and that's a legitimate concern, however I still can't get past the feeling that some are folding their arms over their chest tightly and saying "it's all about my rights, and it's the principle of the thing, and that's all that matters".

 

Sure those things matter, but it's not all that matters.

 

1. What? You said people who should have guns can get them like it happens so we shouldn't do anything about it.

30,000 people a year dead to gun violence

100,000 injured a year to gun violence

Sorry that worries me.

 

2. Why do people need assault weapons that are semiautomatic and carry large magazines? Sorry I'll stay on point.

 

I don't often wade into these discussions anymore but how do you define an assault weapon?

 

Is anything that is semi-auto inherently an assault weapon? Does it have to do with internal or external mags? Is it cosmetic?

 

Elaborate please. I am willing to concede certain things in regards to the gun control discussion. I am fine with mandatory background checks in all gun sales (although to be fair both times I purchased at a gun show they did one right there and the one time my wife got one at a pawn shop they did one too), but what else are you wanting there?

 

This post just made one of my eye sockets shut as I winced with the overwhelming feeling that this is such a weak comment.

 

Where do we draw the line with what is our right to own weapons? It might sound extreme but isn't it my right, by your definition then, to own a nuclear bomb or whatever destructive device I wanted to?

 

You can split hairs all that you want that automatic weapons have a practical use in our culture and as you say, even if they didn't it's still our right to have them.

 

Seriously man... guessing that you are civilized...is that really the world you want to live in?

 

Automatic weapons aren't available to the average person without serious permits, extensive background checks, a special federal license and permission from local law enforcement.

 

None of that is cheap.

I realize that the nuke comment is extreme and a laugh, but I'm still thinking that the whole "It's my rights", and "automatic weapons do have a use in our culture" thing and "Even if they don't it's still my right" is a principle being so held close to even when it defies logic, and too can get a bit extreme.

 

I get the rights thing, but when it becomes so primary so much to ignore other peripheral issues regarding this topic, then I'm not sure everyone here is being completely realistic as it feels they want to hold so tight to their rights that they're unwilling to discuss some realities in the process.

 

I get that there's a fear of giving in to a sector who could ultimately aim at taking your rights away altogether and that's a legitimate concern, however I still can't get past the feeling that some are folding their arms over their chest tightly and saying "it's all about my rights, and it's the principle of the thing, and that's all that matters".

 

Sure those things matter, but it's not all that matters.

Let me ease your concern a little. Think of the last time you heard of someone killed with an actual assault weapon in civilian USA. How often in your lifetime do you think it's occurred?

I don't often wade into these discussions anymore but how do you define an assault weapon?

I've yet to get an answer from him.

Automatic weapons aren't available to the average person without serious permits, extensive background checks, a special federal license and permission from local law enforcement.

 

None of that is cheap.

 

Thank God for that...

 

Let me ease your concern a little. Think of the last time you heard of someone killed with an actual assault weapon in civilian USA. How often in your lifetime do you think it's occurred?

 

...and thank God for that too...

I've yet to get an answer from him.

 

Let's go with this one. It worked before. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

I don't often wade into these discussions anymore but how do you define an assault weapon?

 

Is anything that is semi-auto inherently an assault weapon? Does it have to do with internal or external mags? Is it cosmetic?

 

Elaborate please. I am willing to concede certain things in regards to the gun control discussion. I am fine with mandatory background checks in all gun sales (although to be fair both times I purchased at a gun show they did one right there and the one time my wife got one at a pawn shop they did one too), but what else are you wanting there?

 

Earlier post on the assault weapons.

 

I hope you're not saying you shouldn't have passed. There are loopholes and failures throughout our government that's what I'm saying. Sellers can't do a whole lot more other than run the check for through the database. Like i said earlier we can use technology to do a lot of amazing things surely we can determine if somebody who has violent tendencies or is on some type of drug can buy a gun or not.