confusedNRA

When a person makes a statement, "All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." They've lost all credibility, and in my opinion aren't really deserving of a well thought out rebuttal due to their obvious lack of experience in this field.

Let's take this statement, "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people."

Right, guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people, hence it's a tool like any other. My guns that I have, have yet to jump themselves out of my house and shoot someone, they require an operator to use. So that statement you seem to have such a problem with, is 100% factually true, guns don't kill people by themselves, they make it easier for people to do so. I don't really see what sort of counter to that is even needed, when obviously it's the operator of the guns that are the problem, not the guns themselves.

If you live in america, you are more than welcome to leave if the laws bother you that much. It's a fundamental right for an individual to own their own weapon. Instead of sitting on the internet making snarky comments to people, perhaps your time would be better spent researching new countries to move to?

And if you already don't live in america, why so much attitude?

I don't mean to come off as insulting, but you do understand how incredibly easy it is to make your own ammo right?

Dye casting lead is peanuts, considering the low boiling point of lead makes for easy casts.

There is so much ammo already out there, new brass probably won't even need to be created, simply reusing all old brass that's out there would more than suffice for the needs of even a large squad.

So we have lead, and we have brass covered. Next is the explosive primer. That would probably be the weakest link in the chain, in that your average basement redneck won't be creating his own primer anytime soon, but it is possible. The problem is how little primer is actually needed per round; and you have guys that have put away in storage literally pounds of primer.

It might be possible, but I'm sure if it ever got to that point, it would be trivial to order primer online, just like how one can order not-quite-legal-drugs online and have them delivered right to your front door.

In this modern world, I don't think it is possible to regulate things like it used to be. Anyway, anything can happen, and thanks for reading.

Yes, and if there were no knives, maybe there would have been zero deaths. But for some reason a call to ban knives is never heard.

Calling for a ban on guns due to what is relatively a statistical anomaly, is kneejerk at best, and encroaching on individual rights at worst.

"It borders on insanity when we look at the type of weaponry we allow our citizens to purchase..."

"The nra is a terrorist organization."

Wow. Just plain wow. It's probably pointless to respond to your post, considering the emotions you are displaying regarding this topic, you probably won't even listen to a single thing, no matter, at least others who see this reply might understand just how perturbed you really are.

It is a founding principal of america for individuals to maintain and own weapons. Let's just start right there. Since there are many countries with the kind of gun laws you apparently want, I'd suggest moving to them. Reason being, is owning your own weapon isn't a passing fad, it's a mentality that will not be broken by you or anybody else. The best course of action for you, might be to leave america for other countries that place safety above an individuals freedom.

" the answer to preventing what happened in Connecticut from happening again is extremely strong gun control regulation."

Well then I'm sure are glad you are here to tell us the answer. I really would like to hear this, because Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control regulation in the country. The guns the kid used in the shooting were stolen from his mother. Exactly what sort of legislation on the books, beside from a complete ban altogether, would have helped?

I'm personally insulted by your insinuations that the nra is a terrorist organization, and I'm insulted by your blanket statements regarding gun ownership.

"but at least it prevents tragedies of this sort from occurring."

Yes, lets impede on the freedom of a majority, because a minority are unable to handle something. That is possibly the worst logic a person could use. That somehow everybody should be punished because a statistical fraction of users are unstable.

You sir, are part of the problem.

You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon.

Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post.

"automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings."

Could you please extrapolate how semi-automatic weapons are apparently "not regulated". This I'd really love to hear, considering how difficult it is to obtain one. I understand this does indeed differ from state to state, but to make the blanket statement, "semi-automatics are not regulated" is so unbelievably wrong, it shout outs to the reader to not reply to your post because there is a level of understanding you clearly don't have.

"All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse." A statement like this could only come from someone who doesn't actually understand a damn thing about guns.

I think you have a lot of reading to do.