On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 6:36:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at
least in the sense you are talking about.

You say that like it's a good thing. It mostly just shows that we
have an unacceptably high murder rate from guns period that lowers
the percent that are mass shootings.




The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3 or 4 gang
bangers having a turf battle on some urban street corner. Even with
that it still pales in comparison to the single thug taking one in the
ear over some kind of drug beef.

That's true, but far too often it's not limited to just gang bangers
killing each other. Many times innocent bystanders are killed in
drive-bys and the like.




The police are even reluctant to attribute as many murders to the drug
war as are happening because it further points out their dismal
failure in that war.