Originally Posted by andrewwynn

I'm just starting off with facts to get a baseline of discussion. I think for example not letting the average Joe have access to automatic guns is a perfectly acceptable trade off of freedom and civility. Taking the side of outlawing even semi automatic rifles is a non starter it's not going to happen so what else do ya got is what I'm saying.

My last post was saying that we collectively dodged a big bullet with this Vegas shooter because you can be sure he expected 10x the actual causalities. I was also saying that he did not choose an effective way to cause mass casualty on a crowd of 22,000 which worked out very good for just shy of 21,500 people who though terrified, were not directly hit. I contend that the hype of AR-15 caused him to choose a less effective option and say for example the gun control side had their way and forced him to use a dozen or two m1 collector rifles that more would have died, it's impossible to prevent madman and they will figure out whatever it takes to do their evil bidding. We can on only do our best to catch them in the act of getting ready or invent faster ways to respond such as pin point triangulation of a gun report, the technology which already exists and is installed on college campuses around the USA.

I can not think of a single law that would have stopped this guy, only change the exact particulars in which the assault was carried out. I'm not saying remotely that we should just give up, I already said a perfect example above: they dropped the ball with the bump stock but people can achieve the same effect with a belt loop: you can't stop "that sort of thing" you can impede it though.

A lock is designed to keep an honest person honest. That philosophy will go a long way to keep some guns out of the wrong hands but it's very limited in its power. Not to say we shouldn't try.

At least 100-200x as much lead is put down range for sport not hunting so it's a very ignorant argument to say what's the point of a semi auto gun for hunting: the point is I can save $700-1600 by using the same gun for both.

With 100,000,000 gun owners and 300,000,000 guns in America, the statistics are incredibly in favor of the law abiding owner causing very little harm. Similar to an airline crash: very rare but a lot of people will die at once when they crash. Regardless both are very very low risk, both are very sensational when they go badly.

A lot more people will die from infections at a hospital than a bullet every year, the media hypes gun violence because it sells. The song "dirty laundry" makes the perfect case.

"Assault rifle" is a made up term of the progressive left to demonize the other side. The most common rifle sold is a sporting semi automatic rifle that is perfect for both target and hunting. Painting a gun black does not change the function of the gun. The weapon also has a very small bullet that reduces it's range and stopping power, anybody using that term for a normal average gun is showing either their bias or ignorance. Just because the lie is told a lot by the media and leftists doesn't make it any more true.