Gun Policy in the USA

And this has what to do with mass shootings?

I think this is what most anti-gun/pro-gun control/common sense gun laws(whatever they prefer to be called) folks really want. They actually want to go back in time to before the invention of firearms.

No, it’s not. If the discussion is about how to reduce mass shootings then it doesn’t matter since we are looking at one thing in isolation.

If it’s a fantasy, why not outlaw them outright? Why stop at raising the age and other things of that level? The Vegas shooter was in his 60’s. If guns are a pipe dream defense against tyranny, then save lives and outlaw them.

No, it’s not. It’s a thread about Gun Policy in the USA.

You can say what you want because we are in America, it doesn’t mean it makes sense.

But regulating who can buy what is not outlawing guns.

Because I believe they have a use that makes sense in the real world.

Which just so happens to appear after a mass school shooting.

To shoot targets? That’s worth more than the thousands that will still die?

It is a thread about Gun Policy, period. Why be so stubborn? The title and the op placed no limits.

There are basically two things you can shoot: targets or nothing (the air for example).

It’s irrelevant to the the question of what you call ‘2A’. The question being why is it there and the answer being in case there is a need to revolt or to deal with hostile actors the government cannot help with or are acting on the behalf of.

OK, and?

So, why allow thousands of victims over target, or nothing, shooting…

…What? You just got done trying to make it as if we couldn’t bring things into perspective by talking about gun homicides/homicide in general…As if we were hijacking the discussion, first of all. I pointed out that the thread is about gun policy, period.

Uh, no, it isn’t irrelevant because that wasn’t the point of saying it. It was in response to the idea that since deaths by mass shootings are statistically “insignificant” we shouldn’t worry too much about them and not be, in one poster’s words, guilty of hysteria. The threat of some tyrannical government taking over is not that great either yet people are sure hysterical about the possibility. Who has more reason to be concerned?

I can tell you what will not solve any problems is scapegoating an AR-15 in hopes singling that one
will stop tragedies from occurring.

You don’t know what target means. Sorry, I too am guilty of assuming.

OK. How does it change my opinion on you fighting off a platoon of Rangers?

You know damn well I’m talking about shooting a stationary, inanimate target. That really needed pointing out? Stop trolling.