In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
The place for discussion on the NFL
The place for discussion on college baseball
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
But none of those items are intended to cause harm. Guns have one purpose and they do it very effectively. Too effectively.
My main point is that if someone is crazy enough to get a gun and use it to kill people (specifically children) then they aren't going to care if the gun is more or less illegal to own. They will obtain it anyway they can to go and murder little kids. That's my overall logic.
I do agree that we don't need to be selling certain types of weapons that people in the military use and we could tighten up some of the gun laws. I just don't think it's going to stop someone from shooting up children. I don't know what the solution is though.
Your argument is invalid, you can't have a mass murder with nails. It doesn't happen. 22 kids were injured in China during a knife invasion, none were killed.
Yeah - you are spot on - it is almost impossible to control
We're not sure if they will get a gun illegally. Statistics show that the people committing these mass shootings obtain the guns legally because they do not have criminal histories. Maybe they try to obtain a gun illegally, but that's just guesswork right now.
My point is to not prevent responsible law abiding gun owners from obtaining guns legally, but to stop unstable, insane people from obtaining guns illegally. It's a hindrance to law abiding citizens, but just like we have TSA checks before boarding a plane, we need to take the same precautions in order to obtain a gun.
When was the last one....
Pretty sure a shotgun is adequate for home defense.
This post was edited by Roflcopter118 19 months ago
on twitter @Sir_Roflcopter
Nope. None of the weapons used were prohibited by the FAWB
This post was edited by MooseKnuckleUGA 19 months ago
I didn't say they weren't dangerous and that bad things didn't happen. But they were still a lot less dangerous than today. That is just a fact.
And BTW for those of you praising the British gun ban...gun crime has gone up in Britain since their ban. So not the model to follow.
That's because of the major mafia days. From my lifetime (I have the worst memory of all time) there has not been a mass murder in 23 years caused by a weapon banned by the gov.
Are pysh evals plausible or are they just as wasteful as drug testing welfare recipients? Or are you guys suggesting the prospective buyer pays it themselves?
I'd say make the buyer pay for it. No reason for it to be some state sponsored psychiatrist or anything. But maybe I'm being naive in thinking doctors have more respect for their professions than to just wave a guy on to make a quick buck for said test.
I think so, too, but you know that argument will be coming shortly.
That's my point. There is not a weapon used considered under the FAWB that has been used in a long time
I like that, I feel bad for my friends who smoke because I see how much cigs are taxed these days but major tobacco companies are forced to 'donate' money towards cancer research and such. As an owner of multiple guns I would have no problem paying a little extra on ammunition if it kept guns out of the hands of these shitdiots.
You simply google every mass murder of late and look at the weapons used. There have been zero weapons used under the prohibited weapons according to the ban that I know of.
Btw. Sort of drunk.
Guns dont kill you idiot. The person behind them do. By your logic I suppose spoons make people fat, cars kill, knives kill.
Look at the description of the "assault weapons ban" and compare the weapons. I know for a fact the aurora incident did not consist of that description. I'm on my phone and don't have the time to look up the other instances.
I have a bushmaster ar15 and is does not fall under the caregory of the ban.
What about hollow point and armor piercing ammunition?
Does it have: pistol grip, suppressor, automatic capability, and etc? Google the federal bans on weapons and compare. I've already compared the weapons used in the latest incidents and none are prohibited.
I'm not. I've compared my weapons with the FAWB and none of them have fallen under the criteria. I have multiple ar15s, pistols, shotguns, and huntin rifles and none have been. My ar is the most comparable and all it has that is mentioned is a telescopic stock. I have a pistol grip but 1) it doesn't change anything and 2) is not comfortable to me, so it's not attached. If you wiki the federal weapons ban, none of the weapons used in the last 5 years have fallen under that category
Because I've read the criteria for the FWAB.
The point of arguing about this is people are just going to be more adamant on changing shit that should not be changed
I've read the characteristics of every weapon used since aurora. None of them have been used. LOOK AT THE CHARACTERISTICS. I'm not offended.
I know it's wiki but...
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports