We don't care

Gun control solves all problems. Broken leg? BAM GUN CONTROL. WAZAM, no more broken leg. Uncooked ramen......GUN CONTROL. It even works on college finals and other stressors.

Broken leg? Break the other too, and with a bulldozer.
Uncooked ramen? Send a carton to Antartica.

As for edumacashuns, ain't nobody need none o'dhat.

Not sure how that relates to the meme. But upvote for hollow Earth and lizard people (btw, they're called Reptoids).

Submit this ^

Yes ban assault weapons, even though the vast majority of gun crime is committed with a handgun

making it harder is the point. And the mentally disturbed don't have that kind of foresight or connections to underground markets to illegally acquire assault rifles. So I think you are definitely missing the point.

Wasn't Cruz what you would consider mentally disturbed? Yet he had the foresight to purchase the weapon to do the crime, and the clever idea to pull the fire alarm to get the kids out of their classrooms.

It's not that clever, and if it was illegal for him to purchase such a deadly weapon, he would have probably killed a lot less people with the handgun he would have purchased from the same place.

It's a lose-lose situation

Thank you for telling the truth. If guns are the reason there are shootings, then my pencil is the reason I get bad grades. It’s not the guns, it’s the idiots that have them in their hand.

don't let idiots hold onto weapons made for mass murder.

Drugs are illegal but the idiots stil SOMEHOE whet those. So even if we make guns illegal I assure u they will still get them. All we’ve done is taken them away so people cant defend themselves

Sry for the bad spelling but I accidentally posted it before I could prof read. But are car the cause of wrecks? Should we take away those too? And if they do succeed in somehow taking the guns from them...there are other weapons they can kill with.

Cars aren't designed to kill a lot of people. AR's are designed to be really deadly. You can still have handguns, so you can protect yourself, but it doesn't have to be such a deadly weapon to accomplish self protection.

Also drugs are addicting which is why people can't help themselves. Guns aren't an addictive substance that can be abused by overdosing.

I'm down for legalizing drugs. People should have the right to harm themselves however they want. It would also radically reduce gang activity as they won't be able to fund their activities as easily. Comparing drug law to gun law is bogus. Apples and Oranges.

How about this, let’s say you and your brother both have your own phone. Your brother gets caught by your mom looking at porn (sry for bringing THAT up) so he gets his phone taken away. But she also takes YOURS away because since she can’t trust him with it, she might not be able to trust you with it. I know u don’t view things my way and we could go back and forth for the rest of our lives, but I really don’t want to do that, you seem like a nice person for the most part. So can we just agree to disagree?

That would be a fair comparison if your brother looking at porn killed himself or another person through the action of looking at porn. But since I'm not looking at a handgun ban, it's still not a fair comparison. Your brother would need to kill a lot of people in a short time by looking at porn. Not sure how he does that, but it would have to be a normal outcome of looking at porn in a certain way. Because AR's are made for killing, that is their purpose. I understand your point, but when we are talking about a machine made for killing lots of people, the examples start to fall through. I understand the right to bear arms, which is why I won't touch handguns, or even semi-auto handguns, as long as the keep their mag size relatively small; but it is something we should try and prevent. Kids shouldn't be able to by that amount of power to immediately abuse on whoever they wish.

So your saying that hand guns are toys and they aren’t made to harm? What I’m trying to say is you shouldn’t have a gun if u are mentally unstable or have a history. And if u mess up, then THAT PERSON shouldn’t have one. But you shouldn’t punish everyone just because there are some people that are loonatics or mentally aren’t right.

They are, but not as deadly as other weapons. it's not a punishment to ban these super deadly weapons. we have a right to bear arms. That was made before any semi or auto weapon existed. That is why I don't consider ban on the handguns. I'm respecting the amendment. But it is taking it to far, if you think it implies carrying weapons that can single handily massacre.

Sorry, it's just sad that all that's ever done is "thoughts and prayers"

The question is, what WILL solve the problem.
If I actually believed banning guns would stop it, I would be all for it. I sincerely believe a gun ban would not help and would leave good people (women with abusive ex stalkers for example) helpless.
Mental health measures might help, BUT most if not all of these shooters were already on psych meds, which means that they were ALREADY getting "help".
Banning people who have mental problems from getting guns would violate medical privacy laws and place a punishment/stigma on those who seek mental help (which would make many less likely to seek help). Also many people develop mental issues like anxiety and depression due to things like abusive ex stalkers, which is a valid reason for needing a gun.

why don't people realize the difference between handguns and assault rifles?

They don't want to know. They are ignorant and that ignorance drives their irrational fear.

Well confiscating all guns worked in Australia. So it's worth a try, surly the children's lives are worth it to try.

You do realize America has 300 million more firearms over an enormous amount of land. If you think it wouldn't cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives you might be clueless about the whole situation.

Pretty sure the actual amount is closer to 600 million.

Why would it cost millions of lives?

Do you think people would throw down their guns and walk away? There's no way middle America isn't putting up a fight.

Then let them.
Again, you take action, or you keep giving thoughts and prayers to the school shooting victims. Your choice.

I'll do even better... I'll raise my children to respect life and not bully people for being different.

You absolutely sure that all guns were confiscated?

No but what difference does it make? Harder legal guns means harder illegal guns and less gun crime.

Honestly, harder legal guns will lead to easier illegal guns because there would be a higher demand.

Can you point to any real world example of a 1st world country where this is the case?

Not offhand, and I don't really have time to look it up right now.

those aren't assault weapons, thats just a clever name coined by anti gun politicians. these "assault weapons" aren't even automatic. without the automatic fire these things are just a bunch of glorified hunting rifles. even if you ban assault rifles then hooray! oh yeah they only make up 3 percent of all gun related homicides.

Ok tell you what, you and me, you take a 30cal bolt action, I will take the above 'glorified hunting rifle', we will go to a field and fight to the death. let me know when you are ready.

yeah you can fire slightly faster with an AR 15. Heres the thing, you can do the exact same thing with a hand gun.

Fine, you get a smith and wesson revolver any caliber and I will take the "glorified hunting rifle" let me know when you are ready

44 magnum semiautomatic revolver.

I'm gonna play devil's advocate a bit. What if we just banned assualt rifles?

"Assault" rifles are not functionally any different than regular rifles. The difference is purely cosmetic. The media seems to have convinced people that the "assault" rifles available to the general populace are the exact same fully automatic weapons used by the military. They are not. They are regular rifles wearing a costume.
In order to ban "assault" rifles, you have to clearly define what one is, and would consist of cosmetic features, not functional ones. It would be like the government banning red cars because they are, somehow, more dangerous than other cars.

So do legal AR-15s. They are only semi automatic. Fully automatic ones are illegal. Now, banning bump stocks (which make semi automatic weapons function like fully automatic weapons) would be a reasonable discussion. But as far as I can gather from my discussions here, many people are so misinformed about what is legally available and what current gun laws actually are, that a reasonable discussion is virtually impossible. Most people think that the guns used. In these shootings are something that they aren't and recommend duplicating regulations that already exist.

I don't think you even know what semi automatic means, it's just a word that sounds scary to you. So lets start with some definitions so you can know what the hell you are talking about.
Fully automatic: gun will continue firing so long as you hold the trigger down
Semi automatic: one trigger pull releases one bullet, but there is no need to cock the gun in between firings
Assault rifle: Any gun that looks scary, but works the same as any other hunting rifle
Bump stock: an outside modification that allows semi automatic weapons to behave in similar manner to fully automatic fully automatic weapons.

These are admittedly, simplified definitions, but for the sake of discussion they will do.
Most handguns and rifles currently on the market are semi automatic.

Because that 14th bullet is the one that kills people, right? Find someone who owns a semi-auto rifle, 22 rimfire or bigger, and go shooting with them. See how enjoyable it is, see how they can manage to have fun without killing anyone, and you'll finally be able to understand how the 99.99% of gun owners feel when you post uninformed opinions.

Semi-autos are used fairly commonly, because unless you're a pro marksman, a bolt-action will not be enough to take down a criminal, especially an armed one.

Shotguns can cause a lot of collateral damage depending on your range from the target.

Ignorance, huh? Fine.

I'm fine with removing AKs. I don't really see the point to full-auto outside of military use.

I'm perfectly fine with banning AKs. There's literal no reason for full auto rifles outside of military use.

semi autos too. Its a done deal. so whine all you want.

Because chanting the same thing over and over again makes it more true. You have yet to realize that he could've used many other things to kill 17 children. This was a smart kid. He could probably use anything and kill 17 children.

Because facts don't change no matter how obtuse you are?

Keep clicking your ruby heels together, Dorothy, that weren't confetti he killed them with.

Very brave of jack_henoff to leave me no way to reply to his meme, right?

That's Lee Harvey Oswald for you un educated folks...

Ok fine. What about just banning automatic weapons.

Automatic weapons are exceedingly difficult to own because of the licensing involved.

Ok. Thanks.

Alright, my friend now says "then how did the Florida shooter get an AR-15 legally?"

The AR-15 is NOT a fully automatic weapon. It is a semi automatic. Same as most rifles and handguns. The difference between a typical AR-15 and a hunting rifle is how it looks.

Do you mean fully automatic or semi automatic? Do you even know the difference? Do you even know what the current legal restrictions are? Because it sound to me like you're suggesting a law that is ALREADY on the books and being enforced.

I'm just repeating stuff a friend says, but if I'm personally trying to make a devil's advocate argument I'd probably only ban fully automatic because most semi-auto guns have small clips (usually 7-16 rounds)

Don't just repeat what other people say? It makes you look as foolish as them.

I'm advocating for him online. I agree with nothing he says.

There is no easy fix. Liberal gun grabbers don't care about the victims, they only want everyone to be unarmed and helpless so they have to depend on big government to save them.

You got to be kidding. Please be a troll

No, I'm not kidding. Democrats want everyone to be victims so they will look to government to solve all of their problems.

And guns are related to that preposterous idea... how? You go defending yourself with guns on a daily basis?

Preposterous? Not if you look at the facts and what eight years of an ultra-liberal president did to our nation. Do I have to defend myself with a gun daily? No. But I was recently in a situation where having a gun made a difference and probably saved my life. So yeah, it does happen.

yeah and you can keep that handgun. Most liberals only want to make it less possible to kill a lot of people at once. tighter restriction on semi-auto's and large clip sizes. They are fine with guns that are practical for protection, but all that deadly force is unnecessary and unpractical, unless you are killing a lot of people at once.

I own four AR-15s with bump stocks, two Bulgarian AK-47s, and a Dragunov sniper rifle. Oh, and during the winter months my carry handgun is a semi-automatic...

the semi-automatic handgun is probably fine as long it doesn't have a large clip. But obviously the rest of it needs to go. You don't need war weapons designed for killing. You'll probably never use them for defense, and if you did you are already in big trouble.

None of my modern weapons use clips, with the exception of my M1 Garand. Everything else that is semi-automatic is fed by a magazine. There is a difference, you know. And yes, many of my handguns do have extended capacity magazines. I won't apologize for that.

Furthermore, they aren't going anywhere. I bought them legally and can use them for whatever legal purpose I choose. I don't intended to use my rifkes for self-defense, but if put in that situation I will use whatever is closest to me to protect myself and my family. I also will not apologize for that.

Don't take this as an insult, but you really should look at the other side of the argument and try to understand that there are some people who own "scary" guns and have no intention of hitting others with them.

I understand but that doesn't mean it will always stay that way. They could be stolen, like often happens to people who own these guns. The people who steal them could have the intention to use them to their full potential. And the fact you can get them legally, especially the bump stocks, means that anyone can. That means mentally unstable people will continue to easily acquire them and use them on innocent people. Aren't you the one who is refusing to look at the other side of the argument? What do you really need those guns for, if you aren't going to use them for their explicit purpose of killing many people in a small amount of time?

Our history has had a successful assassination (Abraham Lincoln) and an assassination attempt (Ronald Regan) and we have not banned guns. And the White House and House of Representatives are not gun free zones. In fact, they are protected by security armed with GUNS. So no, it is not likely to happen. These shooters select targets that they KNOW are helpless. They never shoot people who even MIGHT shoot back.