Gun control - where do YOU draw the line in light of all thsse shootings?

I might've made another thread about this but it's that age old question yet again (and one that I didn't invent myself): should guns be banned from civilian ownership? Here's all I can see from my observations that liberals seem to think (that has no basis in reality anyways):

>banning guns will take away mass murder!
9/11 happens -  the worst act of mass murder and terrorism in world history (2,996 dead and over 37,000 wounded). Only required utility knives/multitool knives, cans of pepper gas and fake suicide vests they assembled onboard + the commercial aircraft itself).
>limiting guns to 10-round capacities will stop mass murder! Oh, and add all those restrictioms and licenzing procedures!
Columbine happens. They purchased their guns illegally through a straw purchase, effectively making a mockery out of Clint's very own gun reform and gun grab of the '90s; didn't use assault weapons either. Eric's weapons were a hideous Hi-Point 9mm carbine that used 10 rounds, a pump-action shotgun with a feed of 8 rounds, while Dylan used an Intratec AB-10 - Which the lamestream media erroneously referred to as a "Tec-9" even when this was a modified version of the original one to comply with the '94 AWB, with "AB" meaning "After Ban" and "10" denoting 10-rounds.  And Joe Biden's favorite - a shitty side-by-side double barrel 12 gauge! Doh. And yet it was still the deadliest massacre at a secondary school in US history until Parkland nearly 20 years later.)
>banning "assault rifles" will stop mass shootings!
Virginia Tech happens. Also, as an added bonus, ome of the two pistols Cho used was a shitty 10-round .22 caliber handgun (the other held 15 rounds). Was anybody able to stop him in the process of reloading (which only takes a split zecond to do)? Despite this, it was still the deadliest mass shooting in US history until Orlando nearly 10 years later and Las Vegas a year after the former, and the fact that not a single AR was needed.

Name me one thing liberals were right about guns for. I'll wait.

>civilian gun ownership won't stop mass shootings!
Sure thing; buddy. Go to a police station, a shooting range, a gun show, or even a church in Texas like that Kinnunen retard tried and see what happens. I'll wait.

Doors should also be banned globally.

(I stubbed my toe a while back and now I am vehemently against doors and any other type of covering).

the way i see it, banning all guns is the opinion of someone who has no idea what they're talking about. the second amendment exists and it secures the right for US citizens to own firearms, i don't think there is any taking that away.

however, i do think certain limits would help PREVENT mass murder. for instance, raising the age for all guns, especially rifles. in 2022, we had two incidents within a week of each other of freshly 18 year olds buying AR-15s and easily massacring dozens of people. (referencing buffalo and uvalde.) how can kids who can't buy a drink, legally buy a weapon that can end so many lives so quickly? it doesn't make sense to me.

i don't think any restriction would END gun violence. that's not a realistic way of looking at it. i really think there are things we can do to help keep guns from getting into the wrong hands, like raising the age, increasing background checks, expanding red flag laws, etc. i personally believe in an AR ban but i know that's a lot more controversial.

tellecat wrote:

the way i see it, banning all guns is the opinion of someone who has no idea what they're talking about. the second amendment exists and it secures the right for US citizens to own firearms, i don't think there is any taking that away.

however, i do think certain limits would help PREVENT mass murder. for instance, raising the age for all guns, especially rifles. in 2022, we had two incidents within a week of each other of freshly 18 year olds buying AR-15s and easily massacring dozens of people. (referencing buffalo and uvalde.) how can kids who can't buy a drink, legally buy a weapon that can end so many lives so quickly? it doesn't make sense to me.

i don't think any restriction would END gun violence. that's not a realistic way of looking at it. i really think there are things we can do to help keep guns from getting into the wrong hands, like raising the age, increasing background checks, expanding red flag laws, etc. i personally believe in an AR ban but i know that's a lot more controversial.

P much this. A liberal trying to lecture Republicans on guns is like a kindergartener trying to teach calculus to a fucking NASA scientist it is so absurd.

QStrange wrote:

tellecat wrote:

the way i see it, banning all guns is the opinion of someone who has no idea what they're talking about. the second amendment exists and it secures the right for US citizens to own firearms, i don't think there is any taking that away.

however, i do think certain limits would help PREVENT mass murder. for instance, raising the age for all guns, especially rifles. in 2022, we had two incidents within a week of each other of freshly 18 year olds buying AR-15s and easily massacring dozens of people. (referencing buffalo and uvalde.) how can kids who can't buy a drink, legally buy a weapon that can end so many lives so quickly? it doesn't make sense to me.

i don't think any restriction would END gun violence. that's not a realistic way of looking at it. i really think there are things we can do to help keep guns from getting into the wrong hands, like raising the age, increasing background checks, expanding red flag laws, etc. i personally believe in an AR ban but i know that's a lot more controversial.

P much this. A liberal trying to lecture Republicans on guns is like a kindergartener trying to teach calculus to a fucking NASA scientist it is so absurd.

im explaining my point of view. you didn't respond to anything i said

It's not the guns fault, I think if someone is going to kill another person they'd do it regardless if they had a gun or not. maybe if they really really wanted to use one, taking away guns could prevent that specific instance. but that depends on person to person. but in the end it's the perpetrator who's at fault, not the weapon they use.

I am not in a position to decide that but people will resort to the very bottom of the barrel even using rocks/ stones instead like in medieval stoning or in all these backwards savage Muslim and Indian Countries

It doesn't matter if we implement gun control the issue is beyond repair. There are to many guns scattered around in the U.S. The biggest offender of gun crime is gang members which they get most of their guns illegally and out of country. California has some of the strictest gun laws yet quite a few of their cities are in top 10 of highest death rate by gun. I think we should up the age for gun ownership and make gun training be something you have to do in order to get a gun. I dont think everyone should be able to own a gun either.