Q. How much money has been and will be spent in total on the Farook and Shaheed (whatever her name was) San Bernadino shootings?
compared with
Q. How much would it have cost to have had huge metal detectors and guards at the front of the building?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...ings-in-the-US
Partisan politics is the obvious answer to why Congress has for 20 years blocked the Centers for Disease Control from using public funds to study gun violence, worried that the data will be used for gun control advocacy. But even deeper is a long-running distrust between the NRA and gun control advocates about each other’s true intentions.
One symptom of the lack of systematic study is that there is currently no common standard for tracking mass shootings. Most news reports this week, including this one, have cited crowdsourced data from two online tracking sites that rely on news reports, in conjunction with studies such as the Harvard one and an FBI report on “active shooter” situation
The NRA rebuffs even the most minor check on guns on the idea that it’s part of a disarmament end game rather than an effort to save lives. The other side reflexively paints the gun lobby as a puppet for culpable weapons manufacturers, indeed as co-conspirators to violence, rather than as a politically active firearms safety organization.
That means any movement on research funding will require both sides to ease up their rhetoric and open their eyes to the emerging facts.
Q. How much money has been and will be spent in total on the Farook and Shaheed (whatever her name was) San Bernadino shootings?
compared with
Q. How much would it have cost to have had huge metal detectors and guards at the front of the building?
How about $200B+ for the total annual cost of gun violence?
Ban assault rifles and have mandatory buy back and destroy them all.
Penalty for ownership of banned assault rifle: 5 years prison.
Have buy back of hand guns (no bill of sale required, no questions asked), and destroy them all.
Die in a fire got
Have buy back on 2nd amendment, and destroy it
Say your delusional plan actually went into action, who would be left with firearms?
The police boutons trusts so much.
The police wouldn't need guns, everyone participated in the mandatory buyback.
yep. only a ing idiot would think that bad guys mandatory sell back their guns...
Did I say "mandatory" for hand guns?
They are responsible for 99% of murders here why wouldn't you?
You can't even propose a well thought out delusional plan for s sake![]()
Under your delusional plan I'd still get to keep my ranch rifle right?
![]()
you can suck whatever satisfies your sickness
Would I not have to turn this in under your mandatory plan?
buyback doesnt make sense when they output more guns then what is bought back...
u need harsher laws like, u commit a crime, all 3 line of generation gets diluted in prison
mandatory only for assault rifles
What makes this one any less lethal?
I happily claim ignorance of all your dildoes
Fine by me
LOL turn in your scary .223 AR-15, but you can keep the 30.06 that's more dangerous in the hands of a good shooter.
Should shotguns be force bought back too?
Last edited by baseline bum; 12-05-2015 at 11:53 PM.
apparently everyone but the military since assault rifles are for the military. The ones for civilians that look similar aren't assault rifles.
And that semi-auto Ruger ranch rifle that holds the same 30 round magazines and fires just as fast, you can keep that since it doesn't have that collapsible stock, the pistol grip, and that vertical grip thingy.
except that's not how it works. let them amend the cons ution and i'll be all for following it
I would agree with banning assault rifles, though I think Shazbot has them and assault weapons confused.
The accepted terminology has specific meaning. The assault rifle classification is limited to "full automatic rifles" whereas assault weapons are ones that just look mean.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)