It's because gun nuts can't debate on the substance of allowing portable massacre machines but they sure can pwn the libs who don't know the difference between gas impingement and short stroke piston systems

Because supporting assault rifles exposes the self defense and hunting arguments as a crock.

I agree, lol Constitution.

Steering the argument to semantics about the various properties of different guns is a great deflection tactic, and it gives the pro-gun people something to feel superior about, their greater knowledge of firearms.

LOL gun nuts. Find some other toys to play with.

If American is so unique from Scandinavia or Australia, why are we even mewing about Republicans getting shot? Maybe America is so unique that Republicans are just supposed to get shot and Democratic rhetoric is supposed to continue to be hyperbolic and overheated leading to more Republicans getting shot. That's just the way it goes, ship has sailed, thoughts and prayers. Why are even pausing to think about the lives of Republicans, unless we can imagine a world where their lives matter?

Perhaps, but do you think those gang victims are going to find themselves any less dead if the gangs were forced to use ****ty guns, or even no guns at all? The point is that a vast majority of the gun violence in this country is going to occur regardless of regulation.

One-off crazy people committing mass shootings is a drop in the bucket, and if they can't do it with guns, they'll just find another way to punish those who they feel need punishing. Maybe Batman movie guy uses a bomb, and the baseball shooter uses a bolt-action rifle from the trunk of his car like the DC snipers. Instead of one old dude with a ****ed up hip, you have a hidden sniper getting several free shots off before anyone knows what's happening. Who knows how many dead congressmen in that case.

Why are people arguing with literally the stupidest person to ever set foot in these forums?

If you can't get your hands on an AR-15 style weapon, yeah you might look up how to build a bomb online but you might not, who knows? Some will go to greater lengths, some won't.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have stricter laws about those weapons.

I don't own any firearms, fwiw. But I support those who want to own them, and I'm not so naive to think that getting rid of the larger ones will noticeably affect violence in America.

The problem with gun nuts like you is that you are afraid of any changes that aren't 100% effective on day one. Baby steps dude.

Do they censor this part of the internet everywhere that they ban guns?

It's just bull**** meaningless rhetoric. He doesn't believe it any more than we do. The truth is there are solutions on the table and he just won't vote for politicians that will implement them.

Like most meaningful issues, they refuse to engage on any real level whatsoever.

Why blame Democratic rhetoric? This tragedy was obviously the result of President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers projecting weakness. Republicans just need to start talking tougher and stop emboldening future attackers. BTW, this is also hyperbole.

I'm not a gun nut. I've shot a gun twice in my life. 20ish years ago when I took hunter's safety, and a few months after that when I went hunting with my uncle, was bored out of my mind, and used my rifle to shoot at a tiny sapling while sitting in the woods.

"Baby steps" is just a way for you to feel better about your end-game position, which is unattainable in the US without a massive culture shift. You'd be better off making the case that the presence of guns has some effect on the mindset of the population and arguing for removal from that standpoint. But don't couch it in bull**** language about limiting TYPES of guns will reduce violence.

And now we're back to why it's idiotic to compare the US to "everywhere that they ban guns."

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

The US homicide rate is many times that of Sweden. Do you think that's just because of gun laws? If so, I would vehemently disagree.

Inso is right in that merely banning guns might not have the desired effect because the causes of violence don't start with guns, they start with mental health, socio economic conditions etc. The problem is to alleviate those issues involve funding mental health issues, reducing poverty, treating guns as a public safety issue even if you don't ban them, etc. Otherwise you start running into weird explanations like (certain) Americans are genetically predisposed to violence and there's nothing you can do, there's some preset amount of violence that each country has and nothing can stop it, etc

Maybe it's not about projecting weakness, maybe it's about projecting a desire to murder twenty million Americans. I mean, that's the GOP plan after all, a complete and utter violent class war against the poor. I'm sure that's too un-PC for most people to hear though, y'know, the reality of desired conservative policies.

Oh, I am very interested on your thoughts as to what would be more effective than banning guns to get our murder rate to be more like Sweden.

Well yeah but that's just another tactic for people like inso. Does he vote for or against mental health care, education, other resources going to people who need it?

That is most certainly true. I was reflecting the claims that PC talk projects weakness and emboldens attackers.

Why not? Scalise brought a softball to an AR-15 fight and he's going to survive. Probably.

Judging by the **** I read today it seems like most leftists would rather have a civil war than have Trump as president.

For some reason, a bunch of americans aren't fans nor think it's a good idea for the country to bow down to dear leader. We've completely forgotten what being american means.

I totally agree. That's what I've read too.