No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept. Originally Posted by txdot-guyExcept for that’s not the case, nor is it even logistically feasible.
But but but ... someone in the 18th century figured we needed muskets!Love this argument. If that’s true, wouldn’t it follow that people shouldn’t be able to express their views on the internet?
No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept. Originally Posted by txdot-guy
Except for that’s not the case, nor is it even logistically feasible. Originally Posted by JacuzzmeYou are absolutely correct. It's entirely unfeasible. It's also illegal because of the second amendment. But I would say (in my opinion) that by removing a lot of the guns in the country (US has 120.5 firearms per 100 residents) and by limiting the deadliness of the guns by caliber and magazine capacity we can limit the unintended consequences to the public. However this takes compromise and a federal law to accomplish and I don't think the hold the NRA has on some of the more conservative factions in this country would let that happen.
No guns = No mass shootings. Fewer guns = fewer mass shootings. A fairly simple concept. Originally Posted by txdot-guy
Since the mainstream media and democrat activists (but I repeat myself) won't tell you then I will. Another attempted mass shooting but this was stopped by a 22-year-old man with a CCW..
But today the news is saying that the mall where the event took place had their own personal edict against carrying concealed in effect. Besides risking that felony the hero was risking was risking collateral casualty in the background, which would have earned manslaughter charges for him. The most immediate concern was, of course, taking on a semi-auto rifle with a HANDGUN. When I was 22 I MIGHT have been that brave/rash. Of course the idiot press won't tell us what weapon he used, there's a hell of a difference in accuracy between a service type handgun and a micro 9. Also an optic would increase its range, but maybe 22 year old eyes negates that consideration.
Just like back in May, when a woman took on a man with an AR platform and won. Of course, we include police offices (on duty or not) but the lying left doesn't want you to know just how often people use weapons to defend themselves or their property. This is just a couple of cases of possible mass causalities and not property crimes. Like the man who had four tough guys try to push in on his door for nefarious purposes. The homeowner was knocked down (that's battery you know) but he was able to get to his feet and retrieve his AK platform. He drove the four away and, boy, did they run. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn