Nice dodge. Feel free to actually answer the question any time.

It's strange how everyone on here understands that making drugs illegal doesn't diminish the demand for the product (in fact their usage has only increased as laws against them have increased) yet don't see the same parallel with guns. You can't uninvent guns just like you can't uninvent drugs.

I personally dislike guns and would rather live in a world where they didn't exist, but they do. I have some close friends from a country with some of the strictest gun control laws on earth and I asked them how long they think it would take me to get an illegal handgun in the capital city. While they love their gun restrictions and make fun of America, the general consensus was not more than a few hours if I really wanted one. And again, this is in a incredibly controlled country with strict laws and regulations.

It is really annoying that so many people have opened their eyes on drug laws and their failures, but still don't get the practical applications of that example on other laws. Guns will generally exist where there is a demand for them and problems from guns will generally exist where there is a lot of demand for violent crime. Regardless of your opinions on guns, you need to get out of this box you are stuck in about which guns should be legal and how you should control them, because frankly, you cannot. If people want automatic weapons, they will acquire them regardless of legal status. It isn't splitting the atom to make a gun (pretty sure man could make a gun before he could switch on a lightbulb).

My guess is you've smoked weed. Legal status matter much to you then? My guess is you had a beer before you were 21. Legal status matter to you then? You get my point...

Yeah, there are no countries that have successfully banned guns.

Also another dodge, which is standard. David Gregory just said that they asked 31 pro gun senators to come on Meet the Press this morning and none would.

Correct. There are many countries that don't have gun violence or high gun demand. You need to be incredibly naive to believe it is the laws themselves that prevent gun ownership.

Does the US have a gun problem? Maybe so. Is it the result of laws? Nope. If I had to guess, I would blame large income inequality and rough living conditions in some cities for the prevalence of guns used for violence as well as a culture of guns more strongly embedded than many other places. If you look at murder rates in places with a vibrant middle class and strong economy, you will almost never find them very high.

Sad you can't actually respond to the point. Why do drug laws fail at preventing demand (and usage) but gun laws magically will not?

Oh wow! What a shock that a politician would not want to discuss something incredibly emotionally sensitive at the moment when he can be perceived as heartless by the ignorant fools of the world! Ironically, I probably dislike these same politicians as much as you do but I certainly won't make lame attacks on them like this. Has it ever occurred to you that not endorsing laws against something isn't a sign of support of that thing? I have virtually no experience with drugs. I think heroin is likely one of the most dangerous substances people voluntarily use. Do you really have to be so thick as to assume I actually approve of its usage simply because I don't believe in criminalizing it? There are tons of things I feel are abhorrent but practically speaking, if there is a demand there will be a supply, and morally speaking, I have no right to tell an individual what they can and cannot do with themselves. The law becomes justified (although still isn't a large preventative action) when an individual encroaches on the freedom of innocent third party. Hence, guns, knives, fists, you name it can all be legal, while using any of those things to harm someone certainly should be illegal. But again don't fool yourself into believing it is murder laws that somehow stop murder etc etc. They are justified in their existence, but they are not the savior you want to believe. Have a strong economy and a vibrant middle class is probably your first best line of defense against a lot of violent crime. There are certainly other cultural and societal things that can influence it, but it's a great starting point. Oh, and as you can see in this film (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...taboo-1276607/) it is the same do gooder law loving attitude used toward drugs that has caused an INSANE amount of gun violence in this world. Creating a black market will increase violence, not decrease it.

Because drugs have different demand. You can make a good living as a drug dealer because you have repeat customers who are addicted to your product. Very few people are addicted to guns, and very few people would keep coming back week after week. The demand structure is completely different if you think about it for two seconds. This is why countries have successfully banned guns. I know this can seem like "magic" to some people.

Now you can tell me why guns that fire 6 rounds per second should be legal.

LOL

Can anyone explain why these things that do this should be legal?

Ummm, these things don't do that.

Nice dodge bro!!

You can replace 6 with 3. You're the king of "I know more about guns, so I'm right!"

Then again, we know your answer is something like "we need these guns to protect us from evil government jackbooted thugs." I was looking for something a little less laughable.

Ok. Any gun other than a bolt action rifle can fire 3 rounds per second in the hands of the right individual.

Why does the rounds per second scare you by the way?

Do you think the 3 rounds happen on a single trigger pull?

Can some gun advocate give a rational reason why should a civilian need to:
Own more then one gun?
Own a handgun that has a magazine capacity of more then 9 rounds?
Own a long gun that has a capacity of more then 5 rounds?

Pretty important to note that lots of guns can fire 2-3 rounds per second accurately, but not all of them fire .223 fragmenting rounds that one can't even try to argue have a purpose other than destroying human flesh and bone. Why that is legal is the pertinent question I think 13ball would like answered, but I don't want to speak for him.

How long, in your estimation, would it take to fire multiple rounds into six adults and twenty children with a Bushmaster versus a bolt action rifle?

Graphic needs to be updated, Illinois law got overturned in court.

A Bushmaster would probably be about even, assuming the person is intelligent enough to operate it.

Now, with a bolt action rifle it's possible to accomplish this and never be found, so time isn't an issue.

I'm just gonna put down "too sacred to actually answer."

I'm curious as to what you are basing your statements on .223's on here, since many find them a rather inferior round.

I know it's frustrating when reality crashes in on the "all I need to know about guns I learned from Hollywood" mindset.

lol. You are a giant strawman. Addiction demand tho! You cannot rationally respond to my posts, you just go around screaming at everyone 'but you didn't address mine!'. you are your own worst enemy. drug laws fail at preventing drugs. murder laws fail at preventing murder. why would gun laws succeed at preventing gun ownership? i bet you were never an alcoholic yet you drank before you were 21. So addiction wasn't the reason you broke the law, simple demand was. Nothing is different for gun ownership in a society where they are banned in any way. Naive...

The pothead (I mean this figuratively) screaming tight gun control just doesn't see the box they are stuck in and the irony of their position.

You mean "frangible ammunition". These rounds are not made of lead, and are primarily used for training(afaik), whether for environmental or health reasons, because they contain no lead.

So, yeah, another good effort itt.

With that logic we don't need any laws at all, cause they will be broken anyway.

Ikes, serious question:

You are a smart guy and I'm fairly certain you don't own guns, never have, and don't intend to anytime soon (these two things are obviously related, for those playing at home). I doubt you hunt or masturbate at night to naked pictures of Charlton Heston, either.

Why are you supporting the gun nuts? What is your dog in this fight?

Damn it Joey, I was trying to let HIM figure out why he had an irrational fear of indoor range ammo.

I explained the difference between the demand for guns and the demand for drugs in a very logical way. You are the one who is now not responding to arguments. I mean your actual response was "addiction demand tho!" and you are complaining about me "screaming at everyone" and making terrible arguments about how underage drinking proves that guns can't be banned. JFC.

sorry dbj im ****in up the game dawg

ps new location sucks

But you're not even trying to "educate" me. You seem to be saying that a bolt action rifle would be just as efficient at killing as the Bushmaster this kid used. I think that's bull****.

But your posts are cryptic and full of non-sequitors. We both know why.