Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor


They can't find stats to back up there claims. They are simply banging the drum of there party. Both parties want one thing control. It's not enough to live there own lives, they want to control others as well.

Senior Contributor

Re: That sounds like M.A.D, Knapper

I don't know what "liberals/progressives" thought "at one time." If you get more specific, say the policy of a particular president, then I can help you with an answer. More important, I believe the danger from a firearm as opposed to a nuclear weapon is not logically a good comparison - sort of like the difference between a real gun and a rock in my tongue and cheek post before.


Re: John

   How very true it's all about having power over others and the evidence is such thinking creates evil.  For instance, drug prohibition has created huge profits for criminals,and put countless people in danger around the world.  

bruce MN

Well known Southern Baptist Pastor

At time like these, many people of faith turn to their clergymen for counsul and inspiration:



Veteran Advisor

Re: Yes, I do think 20 people ...

l'll ask again.  How many times has one of those "criminals" that a ban on assault weapons won't take them out of their hands have ever gone into a school or theater or workplace and shot up the people and the place?

BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: Yes, I do think 20 people ...

I don`t understand your question, Schurrbart.  Do you mean that "school shooters are just computer geeks that gone bad, not a heroin addicted, bank robbing criminal"?  Well, what I`m saying is, if Lanza`s mom didn`t have a "Bush Master" and instead she had Remmington pump 870`s, Lanza would have used the 870`s and there would be every bit as many dead, maybe more because 870`s jam less than a "assault" rifle.  I don`t know if Don and GTO are thinking this far ahead in this "chess game" by playing dumb and not answering, knowing that if they also called for banning 870 Remmingtons at this time their gun ban wouldn`t get as much support.  I`m just pointing out their hypocrisy, this isn`t about "saving kiddies" it`s about government control.  So, what`s your gun control proposal Schurrbart?  If you don`t say "ban all assault weapons and clips over 10 rounds"  Pelosi, Schummer, Reid, 0bama, Biden, etal will throw it out the window.  Banning ALL semi`s is their FIRST non-negotiable step. 

Senior Contributor

Re: The wisdom of the gun nuts

There is absolutely no proof that any of you liberals have provided that show that reducing gun ownership of any kind will reduce senseless violence in this country.  Your response will be that it couldn't hurt.  How do you know that?  Chicago and Washington DC have the strictest gun laws in the country but both cities have the highest gun crimes rates too.   

dairy mom
Senior Contributor

Re: The wisdom of the gun nuts

Apparently in Australia where gun control is working you have to have a good reason for needing any particular gun. They enacted gun control after a mass shooting and haven't had another one since.  Self defense is never a good reason in their system.

I read that in an article about when the Australian prime minister or something visited a few years ago.  The article also said that he thought Americans were not capable of meaningful gun control.  Too much of the "wild west' (my words) mentality.

Senior Contributor

And on the flip side....

I can't point to a study in the US that shows that. I could dig up some from Europe if you wish. They have been at it a while.


Also, can you provide us with statistics that show more guns make us more safe and reduce violence?


While we are on the subject, a lot of conservatives in their lust to reduce government in any way possible point towards closing or rather selling off National Forests, BLM properties and other public lands where hunting is allowed. Many states have passed laws that forbid hunting on private property without written permission from the owner. If conservatives did succeed in closing off most all public lands where hunting is allowed, then all that would be left is private land and leases. It would wind up that only those that can pay to hunt or have vast lands to lease would be able to hunt. If this major justification for owning firearms for hunting is assaulted in this way, does not a big part of the reason to own firearms (hunting) disappear or become greatly reduced? What is left as a reason to own a firearm? Do we want to be like Europe where only the wealthy can hunt? Would personal protection become the last bear thread as a reason for woning a firearm? Think about that before you answer.


PS - I think La Pierre had some points about videos and movies and how they glorify gun violence, but I would use the National Guard, not volunteers or make the schools use their budgets for armed guards. I would also go ahead with the ban on assault weapons - don't have a use for one and a pistol or shot gun is fine for me to protect myself and my home/family.


Re: And on the flip side....

John provided links to a Harvard study numerous times.