Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Democrat Wants To Buy Your Guns" video.

  1. Mauris, exactly. The AR 15 ban is a Trojan Horse for a gun ban in my opinion. If you ban that gun you set the grounds, legally, to ban other guns. So when another mass shooting happens with a mini Ruger 14 (for all intents and purposes the same gun as the AR 15), or with a hand gun there will be more guns being banned.
    4
  2. As a gun rights supporter I don't support a buy back program, but I do support a trade program for gangs where gang members trade their Uzis and machine guns for sniper rifles. Why? That will eliminate innocent bystanders during a drive by. Gang members can snipe each other out instead.
    4
  3. Not true. If you look at the gun murder rate prior to the gun buy back in Australia it was dropping to begin with. Also, Australia still has around 60 to 80 percent of their guns in circulation.
    2
  4. The slippery slope argument is legit. We have enough laws on the books. Say you were to pass this law and another mass shooting happens, then what? More laws? The VA Tech shooter used two hand guns and killed around 30 people. As for the military argument, the federal government cannot use the military to enforce domestic law with consent of the governor. If they did they would be attacking the state where other states would feel threaten causing a civil war splitting our country and military. The tyranny argument is us fighting the state and local governments which is easily manageable if necessary.
    2
  5. Carlos, you can take away the Uzis and give them a sniper rifle. They still have guns, they are just controlling the bullet more.
    2
  6. oolong2, I agree. It was more of a joke.
    2
  7. Carakav, the murder rate in Australia was dropping prior to the gun buy back program. Also, with the buy back program 60 to 80 percent of the guns are still in circulation.
    1
  8. Ktoto, Australia had no shooting problems to begin with.
    1
  9. matthew, the point is that in Chicago less people have guns and thus the criminals run wild with them. Only the criminals have guns.
    1
  10. pengiuns forall 1. In Australia gun murders were dropping prior to the gun buyback. They had one major shooting and overreacted. Remove that shooting and next major shooting prior to the gun buyback resulted in 10 deaths, in 1972. 2. He is not being dense. Depending on how you define it you can get one a day or only around 4 a year. They define a mass shooting as "three or more people getting hurt" to get one a day. That is very shallow. That means I can beat two guys with a bat and shoot a third in the leg and that can mean a mass shooting. 3. Again, you are incorrect in Australia. That program only removed around 20% of the guns to begin with 4. Huh? 5. The point is that if you ban "assault weapons" and you had another mass shooting with hand guns, do you push to ban those as well? Where is the stopping point? 6. There is some truth there. And I would agree there is more to it than just guns. So there, you have one point correct 7. The AR 15 is hardly used in "mass shootings" as well, as in less than 2% of them 8. Many guns were designed for military use. My 1917 Enfield was used in WWI. So that should be banned by that standard. It is a bolt action gun that hold 5 rounds. Do you want to ban those guns as well? Define "high capacity" magazine.
    1
  11. DeadFishFactory, I get your reasoning but gun shops will just raise prices. Demand would go up increasing prices.
    1
  12. They don't, they want to buy them from you. Completely different, try not to get confused with the leftist talk.
    1
  13. jrad410, how many mass shootings did Australia have before the guy buy back?
    1
  14. get gud, what was the list prior to Port Author? You can't truncate the data at your convenience. That one day is simply and extreme outlier. Please learn statistics. It is a 100 level college course and is taught in many high schools.
    1
  15. oolong2, if it passes in CA that means it can legally pass in other states. Also, there is no clear definition for "assault weapon". In reality an "assault weapon" is, by definition, an weapon you can use to assault someone. That can mean every gun if you want to split hairs.
    1
  16. oolong2, also this proves that they are going after our guns. They cry "common sense gun reform" but then say they are not going after guns. However, in this case they are and they call this the "common sense gun reform".
    1
  17. mistymorning195, there is a wide range of 500K to 3 million because it is hard to measure this stat. You are going off of potential. Saying someone were to go into a building with a gun and the building had 50 people in it. He shoots one and a legal firearm carrier shot the man stopping more deaths. From there you potentially save 49 people. Also, you have to factor in the deterrent. The fact there is a gun in the area is a deterrent to stop a shooter. You can't measure that as well. " The fact is that there are less homicides and suicides in other western countries where people don’t own as many guns " They have less murders all together. For example, our murder rate is 5 times higher than that of the UK. If you remove all gun murders from the US the US still has a murder rate that is twice as high in the UK. Even with the removal of all gun murders the murder rate in the US is still higher than many of those countries. That is an issue of culture, not guns.
    1
  18. Define "common sense gun regulations". To many this buyback is "common sense".
    1
  19. Why not apply the 1st amendment to the internet and TVs? Also, during that time you had weapons like the Belton flintlock, it wasn't just muskets.
    1
  20. Also, muskets meant buying powder separate that makes building bombs easier.
    1
  21. A OK, Australia's gun murder rate was dropping prior to the gun buy back program that only took, at most, 40% of guns out of circulation. Australia is a poor example as the stats do not support your case.Also, it shows what happens when we make knee jerk reactions.
    1