If It Worked For The USSR Why Not The USA?

@ladycae Like I said you should be old enough to know better.

@ladycae you are right no one is saying get rid of all the guns... But that's exactly what a lot of people in Washington DC you want to do to this country!

Reading what all you say reminds me that all the wrong people are having children!

@Snuffy1957 Oh they will. It's inevitable.

@katielass Sheep are always in need of shepherds. The Leftists in your country are sheep and their shepherds are the mainstream media and popular culture without which they would be lost. Look at their postings here...zombies could produce more lucid arguments.

@Abrienda Exactly. They're pathetic and I'm glad they will have to learn the hard way.

@Sunny57
"If those same people did not have guns they would use knives or bombs"

That's an incorrect assumption to make, for many reasons. Yes, there are some who would totally use knives or bombs to kill, but there are many who wouldn't if they lost their guns. Why? Because all humans, including the both of you, work under a Reward vs Risk balance. We are more inclined to do any wrong behavior if the Reward is real high and/or the Risk is too low.

Simple example 1: You are more likely to cheat on a homework assignment at home, rather than in class.
Example 2: You are more likely to kill, if you have reason to believe you can get away freely than if you cannot.

With that said, to killers, the REWARD is the amount of people they kill and the RISK is their chances of getting caught. If killers lost their access to guns, they could very well turn to knives, as they are very easy to obtain... however... that would both INCREASE THE RISK and DECREASE THE REWARD. You cannot kill as many people with a knife than with a gun. If you stabbed someone in public, you'd have to start chasing after every person to stab more and that, of course, is a huge pain in the ass for the killer. Just with this fact, alone, is enough to deter any potential criminals from pursuing such actions. It wouldn't be worth the effort to them.

On the other hand, a gun is simple. You almost have complete control with killing others with a gun because it was MADE to kill others. It wasn't made to protect. A bulletproof vest was made to protect, a gun was made to kill, and so it is best at doing so. It will result in more kills than a knife, less risk from being caught by the police... Hell, you can fight back against the police with a gun lol. And even if someone were to kill many with a knife, the outcome compared to a gun massacre means you have essentially saved more people from harm in having the criminals do their killing through knives than with guns, cuz again guns > knives. It's why a majority of people use guns for their criminal acts, it's more reliable in every way.

All in all, guns > any other weapon. Even bombs. With some bombs, you have to plant secretly. And after it's secretly planted, you have to make sure no one becomes aware of it, while still being in an area where it can hurt many citizens. You can kill many with it, sure, but it's greatly dependent on location, scouting a layout, as well as secrecy. A gun... you just roll out and start shooting lol.

@Abrienda
What are you even trying to say lol.

@SW-User I never said they wanted to repeal your 2nd Amendment. There are ways to make gun ownership in your country virtually impossible without doing that and you know it. So not only do you set up a false argument you are also being disingenuous which is a nice way of saying intellectually deceitful.

@Abrienda Then what did you insinuate when you said "why not just turn them in" in your post and "you are more in touch with what they feel than Obama, Cuomo and Feinstein whom they elected" in your comment? Cuz if I agree with Obama, Cuomo, and Feinstein's point on gun control, then I don't see how you can joke I'm more in touch with citizens compared to them.

"There are ways to make gun ownership in your country virtually impossible without doing that and you know it" You are being very vague with that statement and assuming I know something when you have no reason to know if I know. I know this because I don't know what you think I know lmao. Sunny is being a lot more specific in his comment than you are :/

How was the argument above false?

Carrying an RPG is not a right. Is it? I'm not taking any way anyone's right to carry arms. The arms can be limited. (Really)

I see no advantage to their being an attachment to turn a semi-auto into a (poor man's) automatic rifle. Just get rid of it. People can make their own and mod them... just don't allow them to be sold. Done.

The AR-15 is the traditional line in the sand and that's why I mentioned it in my reply. If they were all melted, we would still be a safe nation. Out of of the 12 rifles in the last hunting cabin I was in (before I moved across the country) none were AR style rifles. When we were flipping through the Field and Stream in the cabin, everybody chuckled at the thought of who would bring the first AR. They aren't for hunting... they are people killers. I don't think that stigma will ever change.

@SW-User So...from bumpstocks to RPG's? It is hard to take you serious.

You simply don't get it. What makes you think it would stop at AR 15's? When magically all AR 15's dissappear you think that will end mass shootings? Of course it won't and ANOTHER type of weapon is used at a mass shooting, what then? Ban it,too?

Of course you do not worry about that...you have said you don't care if someone else's gun rights are violated so long as yours are not. And you believe what you are willing to see happen to others will never happen to you.

You are engaged in what is called magical thinking. The problem with that is reality eventually breaks in.

Good luck then. You wlll need it.

You, sir, are the idiot.

I own guns. I don't think they should be taken away. How old are you that you forget the earliest parts of these conversations?

The RPG and AR-15 are examples of a limitation. We can limit what is carried without destroying the 2nd amendment. Bear arms.

I know it's hard when you're old and frail but please remember that stating your argument louder or repeatedly doesn't help you win it.

Thanks.

@TexChik Yes but it isn't really about the type of weapons is it but about governments using its power to disarm is people the better to suppress them.

@Abrienda @TexChik There is no rational reason, not so ever, to disarm responsible gun owners. It is just a political game.

@Miram that goes without saying . The libs don’t expect a win on the issue , they just want the issue