1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

I think that's partly true, but it also highlights the contradiction.

Hunters have historically formed a significant part of the NRA's support base, and it's fair to say the NRA has been hugely influential in preventing stricter gun laws.

What I don't understand is why hunting is constantly used to justify opposition to almost every form of gun regulation. Hunting explains bolt-action rifles and shotguns. It doesn't explain the broader political fight over every category of weapon and accessory.

And as for automatic weapons, civilians already have very limited access to those (as TedG correctly implied). The real debate has been about semi-automatic firearms for decades.

The bigger question is: if the primary argument is hunting, why does the political agenda extend so far beyond hunting?

And if we're seriously arguing that a bolt-action rifle is needed so citizens can stand up to a modern government, then people making that argument are the very people who should be kept as far away from guns as possible. Then we're also right back to the absurd discussion about rocket launchers and Apache helicopters.

Now.... Let's face it, outside of hunting, farming, pest control, collecting and shooting sports, the only truly honest argument for gun ownership is often simply: "I like guns"

And that's fine. It's a far more honest position than many of the tortured justifications that get wheeled out.

People enjoy cars that are faster than any legal speed limit, watches that are more expensive than necessary, boats they don't need and guitars they can barely play. Humans like things.

What I find comical are the increasingly strained attempts to justify gun ownership through arguments that don't stand up to even basic scrutiny. If your reason is "I enjoy owning and shooting firearms", fair enough. At least that's honest.

It's the pseudo-historical, pseudo-military and often logically inconsistent excuses that tend to fall apart the moment they are examined.

Semi-automatic have been in mass production for well over 100 years.

The argument to own guns is that we have the right to own guns. Anyone that wants one, that has not had that right stripped from them, can have one. People that don't want them, don't have to have them.

It is worth noting that gun regulations only really apply to law-abiding citizens. And the regulations disproportionately hut low-income law-abiding citizens.

Regulations are a slippery slope.

When I was a kid in California, anyone could walk into a sporting goods store, hardware store, or department store and buy a rifle or shotgun, and all the ammo you wanted. Anyone 18 or older could buy a handgun.

I do not remember any shootings.

But it's the guns don't cha know.

It amazes me how many non-Americans want to take guns away from Americans.

You let your governments take yours, so you want to take ours, what is that about?

If Americans want to give up the right to own guns, they can have that right revoked. Where are all the leftist politicians running to amend the Constitution?

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Semi-automatic have been in mass production for well over 100 years.

The argument to own guns is that we have the right to own guns. Anyone that wants one, that has not had that right stripped from them, can have one. People that don't want them, don't have to have them.

It is worth noting that gun regulations only really apply to law-abiding citizens. And the regulations disproportionately hut low-income law-abiding citizens.

Regulations are a slippery slope.

When I was a kid in California, anyone could walk into a sporting goods store, hardware store, or department store and buy a rifle or shotgun, and all the ammo you wanted. Anyone 18 or older could buy a handgun.

I do not remember any shootings.

But it's the guns don't cha know.

You're conflating rights, anecdotes and policy outcomes.

Yes, semi-automatic firearms have existed for over 100 years. So have plenty of things that are regulated. Age isn't an argument.

"The right to own guns" also isn't the same as "there should be no restrictions on guns".

Every constitutional right has limits. The debate is where those limits should be.

And "I don't remember any shootings" isn't evidence - It doesn't mean they didn't happen. It means you remember your childhood, your first barbie & ken set. Personal nostalgia isn't crime data.

Additionally, California's population in 1960 was about half what it is today. News was local, there was no internet, no 24-hour news cycle, and mass shootings weren't tracked in the way they are now.

But... here are a few.. (not all - just an example few).

• 1965 - The Rose-Mar College of Beauty shooting

• 1966 - The University of Texas Tower shooting (not California, but demonstrates that mass shootings were occurring in the era often portrayed as more peaceful).

• 1972 - The Chowchilla-area motel shootings (multiple-victim mass murder case in California).

• 1976 - The California State University, Fullerton massacre.

• 1976 - The Computer Learning Center shooting.

The bigger problem is that your argument ignores international comparisons. If gun availability has little impact, why do comparable developed countries with stricter gun laws consistently experience far fewer gun deaths and mass shootings than the US ?

At some point, the outcomes matter.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It amazes me how many non-Americans want to take guns away from Americans.

You let your governments take yours, so you want to take ours, what is that about?

If Americans want to give up the right to own guns, they can have that right revoked. Where are all the leftist politicians running to amend the Constitution?

Nobody is trying to "take guns away from Americans". Most non-Americans are simply looking at the outcomes and asking why the US experiences levels of gun violence and mass shootings that are outliers among developed nations - from the outside looking in, its insanity.

And "you let your government take your guns" isn't really accurate. In many countries, voters supported stricter gun laws through the democratic process.

As for the Constitution, it has been amended 27 times. The fact that something is constitutional doesn't make it immune from criticism or debate.

The question isn't whether Americans have the right to own guns. The question is whether the current interpretation of that right produces the best outcomes - it clearly doesn't.

22 minutes ago, atpeace said:

You must not have any friends that are NRA supporters. If you did, you would know how they would respond to why they are opposed to "all" gun regulation. I've been at a couple meetings and remember nothing about them but I do remember members constantly preaching outside of the meeting they will fight all restrictions and if they give in to any restriction, then the game is over. This attitude has worked for them.

Even the normal NRA people support more comprehensive gun laws. The bump stocks, armor piercing ammo, conversion kits and silencers are not among their gear in a duck blind. They are in favor of registration and waiting periods, and against the gun show loopholes. They follow the law and everyone else should too. Nobody is trying to take away the guns, but the vast majority want better clarity and organization.

6 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Even the normal NRA people support more comprehensive gun laws. The bump stocks, armor piercing ammo, conversion kits and silencers are not among their gear in a duck blind.

The Second Amendment is not focused on hunting.

6 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

The Second Amendment is not focused on hunting.

But the NRA traditionally is. Now they focus more on being the gun manufacturers lobby.

26 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Even the normal NRA people support more comprehensive gun laws. The bump stocks, armor piercing ammo, conversion kits and silencers are not among their gear in a duck blind. They are in favor of registration and waiting periods, and against the gun show loopholes. They follow the law and everyone else should too. Nobody is trying to take away the guns, but the vast majority want better clarity and organization.

It has been 40 years so my memories are outdated :) You think most the members would be in favor prohibiting bump stocks? Maybe that is the case but surprising to me.

When the 2nd was written the most powerful guns were muskets, in the hands of individuals as well as the govt militia. If the govt got out of hand, it was a pretty fair fight.

The Founders could not imagine AR-15s or Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles. Along the way from 1789 until today, limits still have been put on ownership and possession. Fully automatic weapons are allowed, but require a special license. Bazookas, however, are not allowed. Nor are A-10 Warthogs with GAU8 cannons firing depleted uranium bullets. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg et al can afford to commission their own carrier group with F-18s, Tomahawks, Cruise missiles...even Trident subs with missiles carrying multiple nuclear warheads. Obviously that would not be allowed.

For some reason, Congress did not draw the line at what are essentially weapons of war, even if only semi-auto, like AR-15s. Those are not hunting rifles, but they are now the weapon of choice for mass shootings (Sandy Hook, Sunderland, Pittsburgh synagogue, El Paso Walmart, Parkland School, Las Vegas, Aurora movie theater, etc.). Anyone attending a gun show can buy 100 round mags for those, though "only" 30 is the norm. A Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle has the stopping power from 2000 yards that a .44 Magnum has point blank. Pony up ~$11,000, and it's yours.

The weaponry the govt now has is rather far from muskets, however, so advantage govt, even an authoritarian one. An AR-15 is no match for an A-10 Warthog. Red Dawn is fantasy for the bubba demographic.

The preppers and MAGAs waiting for the 'civil war' are delusional, too. Most are like the image posted in this thread: obese and out of shape. They are turkey shoot material, whether by an authoritarian govt or a "lefty". Note that in the time of Trump, many lefties have armed up.

Sadly, it's too late for the US to go Australia or Japan. There are 500 million or more guns in private hands, including preppers and "militia" whackos. School shootings, Walmart shootings and other "going postal" incidents are part of American life now. Those who argue schools should have armed guards are delusional. The guards at many schools waited outside, doing nothing. Besides, a guy with a 9mm handgun is at a distinct disadvantage to a guy with an AR-15. To have guards armed with AR-15s in elementary schools is silly and scary and not exactly conducive to learning.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

Selfie?

..... the unavoidable conclusion is that HappyExpat57 and Yellowtail were once in the same room.... 🍆🍆🔫

11 minutes ago, Wingate said:

The weaponry the govt now has is rather far from muskets, however, so advantage govt, even an authoritarian one. An AR-15 is no match for an A-10 Warthog. Red Dawn is fantasy for the bubba demographic.

The Vietnamese and the mujahideen would like to speak with you.

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

At some point, the outcomes matte

Outcomes dont trump a constitutional right based on natural law

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

Fully automatic weapons are allowed, but require a special license

Its not a license, its a tax

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

Bazookas, however, are not allowed

Yes they are, if a tax is paid

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

Nor are A-10 Warthogs with GAU8 cannons firing depleted uranium bullets

Dillon Aero will sell you a MiniGun for $250,000, plus tax. GAU8s have never been made for civilian use.

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

A Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle has the stopping power from 2000 yards that a .44 Magnum has point blank. Pony up ~$11,000, and it's your

How many crimes are committed with such a 30 pound weapon every year in the USA

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

An AR-15 is no match for an A-10 Warthog. Red Dawn is fantasy for the bubba demographic

Unless it was a jihadi shooting down an American plane, then you would cheer.

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

Most are like the image posted in this thread: obese and out of shape

Each of uss fat boys only need to shoot one or two.

Tell us how many murders are committed in the USA every year with AR-15s

95% of the people advocating the second amendment as the right for everyone to own a gun don't understand the amendment.

Exact wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Regulated militia meaning an authority says yes, you can own a firearm as you are part of this military necessity. The second amendment does not say everyone can own a gun. This is where all these right to bear arms types are completely off the rails.

9 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Abridged from the original article.

[Opinion: If guns were outlawed, only criminals would have guns. And then there are guns manufactured by Colt to market to criminals.

For those not in the know, Jesús Malverde, is the patron saint of Mexican narcos, a sort of Robin Hood figure the way cartels picture themselves.

So who’s going to buy a limited edition Jesús Malverde shooter???

If I were a druglord selling blow for a living (and fast-boating it across the Caribbean), I’d have to have one of these babies.

Colts have been shooting human beings on both sides of the law since 1855. Colt armed the Civil War (both sides) and sold Colt Derringers for more polite duels.

Colt invented semi-automatics for WWI as well as the Thompson tommy-gun. Those were water-colled for WWII. Then came Vietnam and the M-16.

Colt made a real killing off every American war.

Jesús Christ! Sold out...]

SK Guns 2025 Gun Of The Year: Jesús Malverde

Eric B

The Firearm Blog: 17 Dec 2025

This is the gun of the year. This limited run of 300 Colt 1911 pistols chambered in .38 Super, each themed around Jesús Malverde, a well-known folk figure from the Mexican state of Sinaloa.

The 2025 edition is built on a polished Colt 1911 platform and combines multiple finishes, including 24-karat gold, .999 silver plating and a deep Colt Royal Blue. Presentation-grade black pearl Kirinite grips complete the package, each set with a gold peso medallion.

The imagery is tied to Malverde’s reputation for redistributing wealth to the poor, along with national flowers and butterfly motifs. On top of the slide, a portrait of Malverde is bordered by floral patterns, a banner reading “Bandido Generoso” and a rosary design.

The left side includes a silver-plated skull and butterfly elements said to symbolize remembrance of the deceased, with candles representing prayer and a variety of traditional Mexican flowers. These are framed with selective 24-karat gold borders and accompanied by a deep-engraved scroll pattern.

According to tradition, Malverde was a laborer who later turned to banditry, gaining a reputation for taking from wealthy landowners and supporting poor communities.

Considering the high-end look and limited availability, the price may not seem too steep at $2,700.

That's nothing.

That Gun of the Year looks extremely TACKY....

I have always preferred Goldfinger's Gun of the Century...

I just wish I had bought it when the price was right.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by GammaGlobulin

Why did Ted Bundy shun guns?

A gun ban would not have stopped Ted.

And, one might wonder:

If Ted had been more interested in guns, and gun-related hobbies, then he might have joined the NRA, and become a model citizen.

If only......

2 hours ago, Priorexpat said:

95% of the people advocating the second amendment as the right for everyone to own a gun don't understand the amendment.

Exact wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Regulated militia meaning an authority says yes, you can own a firearm as you are part of this military necessity. The second amendment does not say everyone can own a gun. This is where all these right to bear arms types are completely off the rails.

The Supreme Court disagrees. You lose.

3 hours ago, Priorexpat said:

95% of the people advocating the second amendment as the right for everyone to own a gun don't understand the amendment.

Exact wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Regulated militia meaning an authority says yes, you can own a firearm as you are part of this military necessity. The second amendment does not say everyone can own a gun. This is where all these right to bear arms types are completely off the rails.

District of Columbia v. Heller

7 hours ago, Wingate said:

When the 2nd was written the most powerful guns were muskets, in the hands of individuals as well as the govt militia. If the govt got out of hand, it was a pretty fair fight.

The Founders could not imagine AR-15s or Barrett .50 cal sniper rifles. Along the way from 1789 until today, limits still have been put on ownership and possession. Fully automatic weapons are allowed, but require a special license. Bazookas, however, are not allowed. Nor are A-10 Warthogs with GAU8 cannons firing depleted uranium bullets. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg et al can afford to commission their own carrier group with F-18s, Tomahawks, Cruise missiles...even Trident subs with missiles carrying multiple nuclear warheads. Obviously that would not be allowed.

For some reason, Congress did not draw the line at what are essentially weapons of war, even if only semi-auto, like AR-15s. Those are not hunting rifles, but they are now the weapon of choice for mass shootings (Sandy Hook, Sunderland, Pittsburgh synagogue, El Paso Walmart, Parkland School, Las Vegas, Aurora movie theater, etc.). Anyone attending a gun show can buy 100 round mags for those, though "only" 30 is the norm. A Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle has the stopping power from 2000 yards that a .44 Magnum has point blank. Pony up ~$11,000, and it's yours.

The weaponry the govt now has is rather far from muskets, however, so advantage govt, even an authoritarian one. An AR-15 is no match for an A-10 Warthog. Red Dawn is fantasy for the bubba demographic.

The preppers and MAGAs waiting for the 'civil war' are delusional, too. Most are like the image posted in this thread: obese and out of shape. They are turkey shoot material, whether by an authoritarian govt or a "lefty". Note that in the time of Trump, many lefties have armed up.

Sadly, it's too late for the US to go Australia or Japan. There are 500 million or more guns in private hands, including preppers and "militia" whackos. School shootings, Walmart shootings and other "going postal" incidents are part of American life now. Those who argue schools should have armed guards are delusional. The guards at many schools waited outside, doing nothing. Besides, a guy with a 9mm handgun is at a distinct disadvantage to a guy with an AR-15. To have guards armed with AR-15s in elementary schools is silly and scary and not exactly conducive to learning.

AR-15's are hunting rifles. That they shouldn't have large magazines is a definite. Limit them to the smallest capacity and they're the same as all other semi-automatic hunting rifles.

A Barrett .50 caliber has never been used in any citizen shootings, and only a couple in the US own them. Target shooters who aren't the ones doing the shooting.

No guards were waiting outside the schools in the shootings. They were police and sheriff members, cowards who didn't do their jobs.

Having an armed guard along with metal detectors at all schools would stop all shootings, at least until the population figured out how to stop the disturbed ones from trying to shoot innocent people. Having an AR-15 isn't scary to most US children, as there are plenty of gun owners around they already know about, and it would make them feel safer, knowing someone has their backs. Crazies who know they will be going to a school with an armed guard already there will think twice before trying anything. Yes, this won't stop all shootings in other places, but there aren't any other ways to curb this, as they'll never take American's guns away, so what I suggested next will definitely help, if they're put in place immediately.

Limiting magazines, the usual background checks, no under 21 purchases, mandatory gun safes, psychologicals before purchases, and no unlicensed gun sales without those background checks will help this matter out immensely.

Thailand, naming just one country, has had mass shootings for decades but many never hear about them. Yes, the US has a problem with certain individuals who are disturbed, thinking shooting innocents will somehow help their thinking, but this all still starts at home. Responsible gun owners, which means anyone with a gun should be, aren't the ones that are the problem. It's irresponsible gun owners who let others access their legal guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Thailand

4 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Why did Ted Bundy shun guns?

A gun ban would not have stopped Ted.

And, one might wonder:

If Ted had been more interested in guns, and gun-related hobbies, then he might have joined the NRA, and become a model citizen.

If only......

There are people like him walking around every country right now. They don't need guns. What they needed was parents who taught them respect for others, as he targeted women, believing his real mother was his sister, his grandparents were his parents, and developing hatred towards his own family started that hatred towards all women.

Then his loss of his first real girlfriend hurt his weak ego more.

He then went into watching violent pornography, which has women further looking like objects. He killed at least 35 women with no need for guns, and most serial killers don't use guns, wanting hands on instead. People who want to kill others don't need guns. Guns do make it easier, so keeping them out of the hands of the disturbed is the real problem.

5 hours ago, Priorexpat said:

95% of the people advocating the second amendment as the right for everyone to own a gun don't understand the amendment.

Exact wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Regulated militia meaning an authority says yes, you can own a firearm as you are part of this military necessity. The second amendment does not say everyone can own a gun. This is where all these right to bear arms types are completely off the rails.

Which still means nothing as it isn't legal gun owners, who are again, hunters, target shooters and self defense owners, that are doing almost all of the shootings, but individuals that are obtaining them illegally, taking them from legal owners who aren't locking them away, thefts from the same, suicides and gang members that comprise the majority of them. Owning guns for legal means isn't the problem.

In Thailand alone, where gun ownership is limited to locals, legally, they're used almost daily in intentional homicides, actually more than the US per capita. Illegal guns here also account for many shootings, of innocents also, many of them family members. The same problem here as exists in the US. Mentally disturbed people killing others, along with the suicides and gang shootings.

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You're conflating rights, anecdotes and policy outcomes.

Yes, semi-automatic firearms have existed for over 100 years. So have plenty of things that are regulated. Age isn't an argument.

"The right to own guns" also isn't the same as "there should be no restrictions on guns".

Every constitutional right has limits. The debate is where those limits should be.

And "I don't remember any shootings" isn't evidence - It doesn't mean they didn't happen. It means you remember your childhood, your first barbie & ken set. Personal nostalgia isn't crime data.

Additionally, California's population in 1960 was about half what it is today. News was local, there was no internet, no 24-hour news cycle, and mass shootings weren't tracked in the way they are now.

But... here are a few.. (not all - just an example few).

• 1965 - The Rose-Mar College of Beauty shooting

• 1966 - The University of Texas Tower shooting (not California, but demonstrates that mass shootings were occurring in the era often portrayed as more peaceful).

• 1972 - The Chowchilla-area motel shootings (multiple-victim mass murder case in California).

• 1976 - The California State University, Fullerton massacre.

• 1976 - The Computer Learning Center shooting.

The bigger problem is that your argument ignores international comparisons. If gun availability has little impact, why do comparable developed countries with stricter gun laws consistently experience far fewer gun deaths and mass shootings than the US ?

At some point, the outcomes matter.

I did not say there were no shootings, I said that I don not remember any shootings as a kid, meaning in my limited frame of reference. Kids in the same situation now, cannot say the same.

But guns were in more homes, and were easier to get, and yet there were fewer shootings.

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Nobody is trying to "take guns away from Americans". Most non-Americans are simply looking at the outcomes and asking why the US experiences levels of gun violence and mass shootings that are outliers among developed nations - from the outside looking in, its insanity.

What is it to them?

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

And "you let your government take your guns" isn't really accurate. In many countries, voters supported stricter gun laws through the democratic process.

Which can be done in the US if it is what Americans want.

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

As for the Constitution, it has been amended 27 times. The fact that something is constitutional doesn't make it immune from criticism or debate.

Yes, if Americans do not want Americans to have the right to have guns, the Constitution is easily amended.

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The question isn't whether Americans have the right to own guns. The question is whether the current interpretation of that right produces the best outcomes - it clearly doesn't.

Not to worry, when the left takes the White House back, they will pack the change the interpretation of a number of rights, including those specified in the first and second amendment.

What I find most interesting about the gun argument, is how all the focus seems to be on the scary looking "assault" rifles, while handguns are largely ignored. I think something less than 3% of firearm deaths are long-gun related.

3 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

There are people like him walking around every country right now. They don't need guns. What they needed was parents who taught them respect for others, as he targeted women, believing his real mother was his sister, his grandparents were his parents, and developing hatred towards his own family started that hatred towards all women.

Then his loss of his first real girlfriend hurt his weak ego more.

He then went into watching violent pornography, which has women further looking like objects. He killed at least 35 women with no need for guns, and most serial killers don't use guns, wanting hands on instead. People who want to kill others don't need guns. Guns do make it easier, so keeping them out of the hands of the disturbed is the real problem.

If you're going to put a thumbs down, and aren't the usual troll, explain if you think I'm wrong about Bundy or anything else here

5 hours ago, TedG said:

District of Columbia v. Heller

Doesn't matter, that's not how the 2nd was written.

6 hours ago, Yagoda said:

The Supreme Court disagrees. You lose.

Doesn't matter, that's not how the 2nd was written.

4 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

There are people like him walking around every country right now. They don't need guns. What they needed was parents who taught them respect for others, as he targeted women, believing his real mother was his sister, his grandparents were his parents, and developing hatred towards his own family started that hatred towards all women.

Then his loss of his first real girlfriend hurt his weak ego more.

He then went into watching violent pornography, which has women further looking like objects. He killed at least 35 women with no need for guns, and most serial killers don't use guns, wanting hands on instead. People who want to kill others don't need guns. Guns do make it easier, so keeping them out of the hands of the disturbed is the real problem.

As I have recently posted a Topic on TV warning against the objectification of women, I guess I have not much to worry about.

9 hours ago, Priorexpat said:

Exact wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

You seem to have a misconception of the sentence.

A well regulated militia is community oriented, not government or state.

Being necessary to secure a free state, as in we the people, not the government.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The operative word here is infringed, as in keeping the government in check against a tyrannical government.

Thousands of protesters in Iran were murdered by a tyrannical government, imagine if that country had the luxury of the Right to bear arms, it would be a completely different situation there.

The anti-second amendment crowd are some of the most ignorant people on the face of the earth and lack any depth of understanding and appreciation of how freedom exists and how it got here.

The Left in the US futilely toys around with the idea of stealing the birth right of the Second Amendment from the citizens, ain’t gonna happen.

States that pass anti-second amendment laws can’t get all the local sheriffs on board, these anti American politicians and their attempts to steal from the citizens are largely ignored by local law enforcement agencies.

The idea of stealing the Right to Bear Arms of a US citizen and making it stick on the books is utterly absurd and way too late in history.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

What I find most interesting about the gun argument, is how all the focus seems to be on the scary looking "assault" rifles, while handguns are largely ignored. I think something less than 3% of firearm deaths are long-gun related.

Did this not occur to you?

The most frequent victims of assault rifles in the United States are people targeted in high-casualty public mass shootings. Because assault weapons are designed to inflict maximum casualties in a short amount of time, the primary victims are everyday civilians in public spaces, notably children, students, and marginalized communities

Limiting access to assault rifles is one of the easiest ways to reduce such deaths. Assault rifles are the weapon of choice for such shootings. Assault rifles are not that practical for hunting or home defense... there are better choices.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by gamb00ler

14 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Did this not occur to you?

The most frequent victims of assault rifles in the United States are people targeted in high-casualty public mass shootings. Because assault weapons are designed to inflict maximum casualties in a short amount of time, the primary victims are everyday civilians in public spaces, notably children, students, and marginalized communities

Limiting access to assault rifles is one of the easiest ways to reduce such deaths. Assault rifles are the weapon of choice for such shootings. Assault rifles are not that practical for hunting or home defense... there are better choices.

Why do you, people, keep repeating the same BS.

Assault Weapons, if you actually knew what one is, is not readily available, or affordable to most folks, and nobody for decades has used one in the USA in any mass shooting.

Most murders are by handguns, not long rifles.

It's real simple. As long as govts are corrupt, and criminals are well armed, many people choose to arm themselves. It's not rocket science, and the 2nd Amendment, simply allows that.

Just accept ... THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE

Edited June 4Jun 4 by KhunLA