I have no problems with people owning guns, as many as they want. But there are some guns that the general public not only doesn't need, they shouldn't have. AR-15, AK-47 and bump stocks are simply things the general public has no NEED of. The argument that people NEED these things to protect themselves is nothing more than an excuse to own one. For home defense, you are much better off with one of these anyway. Also, if someone INSISTS they MUST have an AR-15? Get a Remington .223 bolt action. Same round, just no semi-auto or high capacity magazine. If you need an AR-15 to go hunting, you must be a shit hunter.
So if you say that you need a tactical nuke to protect yourself, you should get one? That's fucking stupid. You do not NEED a SPECIFIC weapon to protect yourself, skirting the CoC [ph] like the radicalized rightists that think that everyone is about to murder them any second. Build a bunker, go sit in it if you feel so unsafe, or better yet...MOVE away from the crime ridden shithole you live in.
Oh yea..
.
Guns are rarely used in self-defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. [ 16 ] In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide"). [ 17 ] Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. [ 16 ]
I'm with Our great President on that one. Not only is it a machine gun, but it leaves the police outgunned. Sorry, the general public cant have assault weapons.
I'm with Our great President on that one. Not only is it a machine gun, but it leaves the police outgunned. Sorry, the general public cant have assault weapons.
Exactly!
BTW, IIRC, police Depts. across the country also agree-- nutso citizens carrying weapons of war such as these put the lives of law enforcement personnel at risk.
Lately the White House has seemed to have reversed ther traditional Republican position re: law enforcement. Continuing attacks on law enforcement-- vs the FBI. And Trump's refusal to support a ban on these sorts of machine guns which in the hands of citizens are a serious threats to the lives of police officers. (Heck, I be he even ends up opposing somehting a small as raising the age of purchase from 18 to 21.
(But then again, its obvious Trump is an NRA poodle-- they say "jump" and he says "how high").
I don't believe in taking the right of the citizen to own guns for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense.
But I do believe than an AR-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense.
Ron Reagan was such a typical socialistic left-wing librul-- yuk!!!
(/sarc)
I have no problems with people owning guns, as many as they want. But there are some guns that the general public not only doesn't need, they shouldn't have. AR-15, AK-47 and bump stocks are simply things the general public has no NEED of. The argument that people NEED these things to protect themselves is nothing more than an excuse to own one. For home defense, you are much better off with one of these anyway. Also, if someone INSISTS they MUST have an AR-15? Get a Remington .223 bolt action. Same round, just no semi-auto or high capacity magazine. If you need an AR-15 to go hunting, you must be a shit hunter.
So if you say that you need a tactical nuke to protect yourself, you should get one? That's fucking stupid. You do not NEED a SPECIFIC weapon to protect yourself, skirting the CoC [ph] like the radicalized rightists that think that everyone is about to murder them any second. Build a bunker, go sit in it if you feel so unsafe, or better yet...MOVE away from the crime ridden shithole you live in.
Oh yea..
.
Guns are rarely used in self-defense. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behavior. [ 16 ] In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide"). [ 17 ] Of the 84,495,500 property crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.12% of victims (103,000) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm. [ 16 ]
I agree, good thing I didn't call you stupid. But I suggest you drop it.
I'm with Our great President on that one. Not only is it a machine gun, but it leaves the police outgunned. Sorry, the general public cant have assault weapons.
Totally agree, well said.
Exactly!
BTW, IIRC, police Depts. across the country also agree-- nutso citizens carrying weapons of war such as these put the lives of law enforcement personnel at risk.
Lately the White House has seemed to have reversed ther traditional Republican position re: law enforcement. Continuing attacks on law enforcement-- vs the FBI. And Trump's refusal to support a ban on these sorts of machine guns which in the hands of citizens are a serious threats to the lives of police officers. (Heck, I be he even ends up opposing somehting a small as raising the age of purchase from 18 to 21.
(But then again, its obvious Trump is an NRA poodle-- they say "jump" and he says "how high").
Yep, 30 million dollars buys a lot of, "cooperation", in DC.