Passing another new law will somehow make a difference because.....?

The point maybe that some people would be caught before they become criminals, i.e. start shooting at people. Now they are not criminals until it's too late to stop them.

That's from the movie MIB

either have it enforced better, or make it easier for US to enforce it

because the law is designed to prevent people from having certain types of guns available to them as readily.

But in the end, if you're going to for example start a shootout or rob a bank armed, would you care and be like, "Well first Micheal, you can't use that this state doesn't allow it, and we are going to have to turn back this bank has a 'NO GUN" sign."

The point is the robber will need to take extra steps to acquire the gun. And those steps make it more possible to catch the perp before the tragedy takes place. He might not be smart enough to pull it off and end up having to use a handgun for the heist.

Because they can't take a weapon from someone who has passed a background check like they do now.

Yeah, prevent law abiding people from having certain types of guns, the criminals will still get them as they always do.

because law abiding citizens absolutely need those assault rifles.

Who appointed you God of what people need?

don't have to be God to know a law abiding citizen doesn't need to kill 10+ people with a single clip. If they just want to shoot guns, than their are plenty of less deadly options they can practice their shooting with. Why don't you explain why they need it?

If ten + pepole try to get thru my door then i need to kill ten+ pepole. We've all seen how the town gets burned down when pepole don't like the way things are . So the ability to protect my family falls to me , not God, not the state, not the police, then I should be able to choose the tool best suited for the task at hand . Not somebody that's live in a protected bubble like our politicians, and media heads, or the uninformed/misinformed. I should have a pistol for every time I leave the house , I should have a rifle with sufficient capacity and stopping power to hold what I love and care for most in this world from coming to harm. Right ? Or should I delegate my family's safety to pepole that don't care like I do. Hope this helps explain why they need it .

That ridiculous, If the world was in such a state and that was their strategy, they would attack you with 50+ people. All you will do is kill some of them, and your family will still not be protected. If it's the government, they'll just drone your ass. We don't live in a world where you have to worry about 10+ people knocking your door down, and if we did it would be more.

Do you remember the LA riots? The blacks swarmed and burned businesses to the ground. The only businesses that survived at ground zero were the ones owned by Asians...not because the Blacks respected the Asians but because the Asians were on the rooftops of their businesses with Ruger Mini-14's and AR-15's. The blacks knew they would be shot if they attempted to burn or loot those places so they went to easier targets...even burning down businesses owned by other blacks. Mob mentality does not discriminate... unless the mob knows it will get gunned down trying to attack. Then it seeks an easier target.

you can still protect yourself with guns, and any gun will deter an angry hysterical mob that isn't invested enough to stake their lives. But to do that you wouldn't need semi-automatics because if your having to kill that many people at once, something big is happening like the collapse of the government. When that happens, your better off joining some in group, rather than trying to fight them off, when they are potentially thousands strong.

You think if those Asians were on the rooftops with flintlocks or handguns would have deterred those rioters? Yes, Semi-auto's are deadly and a deterrent precisely because they can kill more of "The Mob" who is attacking. So the Mob will attack those who are les defended. Semi-auto... the Mob will pass. When they see 30 of their own drop because of a semi-auto they will pass. When they see 6 drop because of a revolver some will still attack because they don't think they will be one of the 6 and they they know he has to reload...so rush him. The Japanese had plans to invade the Oregon coast during WW2..they called it off because they knew Americans were armed. Yamamoto said that there would be an American behind every blade of grass with a rifle. You should be thanking American rifle owners because if not for them you would be dead, or a subject /slave and speaking Japanese

a hysterical angry mob isn't going to play Russian Roulette with their lives for some stuff. No one wants to be the one shot and they aren't going to risk just because they know a few of them will get through. I'm not sure you realize the commitment one makes, if they decide to attack someone with a gun. And I don't know want to take rifles away, just their semi-automatic ability.

Yea your right. That's why me and my neighbors need semi automatic detachable magazine rifles . And we should be left alone as to what will best serve our needs . So just to count that would be 24 pepole ( on my little street) still against the 50+ .still out numbered, hang on that will change shortly. So 24 rifles × 30 rounds =720 rounds , multiply by however many magazines one has ( on average 2) so 1440 rounds down range , in about 1 minute . I'll take my chances . And the government ain't droning shit , ask how chi min , or them goat farmers in Afghanistan they will tell you being scared of the US is like being scared of the girl scouts. And we do live in a world that we do need to worry about that .

until your neighbors are a part of the many invaders because they realized it was smarter to join the huge gang mob than to try and fight them. 50 is just the first wave and they are just as armed as well. Good luck with that. Who are you, John Wick? It's ludicrous to think this type of defense would work now a days. Sure you will kill some people, but that's not going to protect your family.

You better hope nothing like that happens, your delusions will get everyone you love killed.

In that kind of situation, you'd have a much better chance of protecting your family with reason, compromise, retorts, and charisma.

There are all kinds of possible reasons someone might need one. You have to have the arrogance of a false God to think you know what's best for other people when you want to reduce their personal liberties. I am not full of myself as you, I can envision many reasons. For example, you have equipment on your land that requires checking but is also is home to feral pigs.

that's not a reason. A rifle is much better for hunting and clearing out an invasive species. Laws are supposed to decide what is best for people. It's not a false god, it's the government. It's very stupid to compare all laws to a false god. There is no good reason for a law abiding citizen to have assault rifles. Furthermore, having these weapons encroaches on other's liberties because they are used to kill many people in a small amount of time.

I'm sorry, I didn't originally suggest a reason , because I knew you'd do this kind of BS equivocation. Fact is, there are plenty of reasons, justr because you can't envision any, doesn't mean you are right. And again you are wrong, HAVING these guns encroaches on no one's liberties. While they CAN be used incorrectly, if every one of these WERE used to kill one person in the US, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Guns don't kill, people kill. I have plenty of guns, and they never went off and killed anyone.

just having it, means it can be taken by someone who plans to encroach on others liberties. If they really want it and can't find it anywhere else, they will get it from those that have them. If I'm wrong at least give me one good reason that can't be solved with another type of gun. IF i'm wrong, then this should be easy for you.

you are forgetting these weapons are designed to kill people. That is their purpose. They were designed in time's of war to be used against others, so you can not deny this very true fact. This is why their existence encroaches on others liberties, regardless of how it is used. The chance exist that it will be used in that manner, no matter how well you keep your guns.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were insane. Carry on.

I guess all of Australia is insane. Add Japan to that list of countries that didn't start a revolution after taking their guns. What are they a bunch of subservient hacks of a society? Better go over there and slaughter them, won't be opposed since they don't have guns right?

What are these menacing " certain types" of guns?

anything that can efficiently kill many people in small amount of time. Basically anything that isn't a handgun, shotgun, or rifle.

Your ignorance of firearms is glaring in this last comment. More people are killed via handguns than rifles of any sort. The capacity to kill more via shotgun is plain to see. With a semi-auto, it's one shot per victim. If the killers in these last shootings had used a shotgun they could have killed multiple people with one shot. Or..they could just have just driven a truck into a crowd of people if an AR-15, handgun, or shotgun were not available. We should ban trucks...or maybe just the semi-automatic ones.

They have to be close together, and you have to be close to them or get lucky for a shotgun to kill multiple targets, and they have to be reloaded after unloading a small clip. I want to see a truck get into those classrooms. No one is talking about banning all firearms. That would be the most logical thing to do, but we do have to respect the constitution to some degree. When they wrote that in they didn't have a clue about how deadly guns would become in the future. You mentioning how handguns are responsible for more deaths is whataboutery and honestly doesn't make guns look good in general.

Once AI is good enough to drive it will be mandatory and you won't be allowed to legally drive on public roads.

Again your ignorance shows. "Clip"..what is a clip? it's a term the left wing and Hollywood have taught you. Your ignorance of guns reveals why you are biased. You have allowed yourself to be "educated" by the media and the gun haters. My comment about how handguns just proves the point. It's a stigma the media has fed you and you regurgitate it. More kids are killed by swimming pools than handguns. Are you for banning pools?

clip, magazine, same difference. Your talking about a study that refers to accidental deaths. If you include homicide of kids via guns, that statistic no longer holds water. pun not intended. I'm not educated by the media, please stop it. Just because you maybe read one book on the subject you think you know it all, but that's your biased "education" because it takes much more than that to be an expert at anything. Even I don't claim to be an expert, but throwing liberal media bias out there this quickly just shows your indoctrination and prejudice that rejects any ideas that don't align with your own, no matter how much evidence is found to the contrary.