re: What would we accomplish with a sweeping ban on firearms?

quote:

---

Each party has their boogymen

---

Only one party consistently wants place more limits on citizens by passing new legislation.

quote:

---

Maybe, just maybe they don't try to ban all guns because they don't want too. You think every hunter is a member of the Republican party? You think every concealed carry license holder is a member of the Republican party?

---

A lot of them would love to ban all guns. You are flat out lying if you claim otherwise. Even if the others don't want to ban all guns, I still don't want them messing with the 2nd amendment at all. I don't even own a gun, but should I decide to buy one, I should be able to buy what I think I want or need.

quote:

---

The only proposed legislation from anyone in response to Las Vegas is a federal ban on bump stocks.

---

Not true. i don;t have time to go into details at the moment. Perhaps someone else will. If not, I will later. In the meantime, I will say just banning bump stocks (if that were actually done) would not prevent deaths.

quote:

---

Nobody thinks that would have prevented what happened in Vegas but not having a bump stock on his weapons would have lowered the number killed and injured.

---

There is no way to prove this. It's an assumption at best. It's not how you should frame your argument.

She was talking about assault weapons. Not your 12 gauge or your 9mm pistol.

Context is important.

What happened when we had a sweeping ban on alcohol?

quote:

---

There is no way to prove this. It's an assumption at best. It's not how you should frame your argument.

---

Oh come on. He was able to fire an enormous about of rounds in a really short amount of time which was the only reason he was able to kill and injure so many.

The assumption that he couldn't have done that without some modification to the firearms he had is beyond reasonable argument.

quote:

---

The bottom line, people will undoubtedly refuse to participate.

---

For the sake of discussion, lets assume for a moment that an all out ban is implemented and all firearms owned by private citizens are confiscated and destroyed. And lets say in this example that while not happy about the ban, 99.9% of law abiding citizens comply fully with this ban and turn in their firearms.

The end result is that the the general public that has never committed a crime with their firearm has been disarmed. At this point only three groups within our country have firearms...

State/Local Govt
Federal Govt
And Criminals...

Think about the implications...

quote:

---

You made a statement of fact. You didn't provide any evidence to support your fact. There is no way to know if the lack of a bump stock would have led to fewer lives especially since a rubber band or a belt loop can be substituted for a bump stock.

You are big on being factual, no?

---

Assumption beyond reasonable doubt are good enough to send people to prison everyday. I think they are good enough here.

There are "home made" bump stock options that I'm assuming aren't going to work as well as a product manufactured for the sole purpose of turning a semi-auto into a full auto firearm.

quote:

---

There are "home made" bump stock options that I'm assuming aren't going to work as well as a product manufactured for the sole purpose of turning a semi-auto into a full auto firearm.

---

I'm glad to see you admit that you have no idea.

You should probably watch a few video examples of firing a semi-auto rifle using "home made" bump stock options.

I'm sure you are fine with defining when reasonable is equal to factual.

You still have no proof that the lack of a bump stock would have led to fewer deaths. If you have that proof, share it so I can apologize and change my view on the matter.

quote:

---

You still have no proof that the lack of a bump stock would have led to fewer deaths. If you have that proof, share it so I can apologize and change my view on the matter.

---

I'm sure you are aware that you are asking the impossible and that's why you are doing it. Of course there was no way to prove it unless there is another shooting from an elevated position into a crowd of 30,000 with unmodified semi-automatic weapons. There is a thing called logic and that anyone not closed minded can use to make the easy assumption that few rounds fired would have equals fewer people hit.