I have guns for home defense and very very few on the left want to ban all guns. And by the way, a shotgun would have been more than effective in those articles. You don't need an urban combat weapon to defend your home from criminals. Nor do you need flash bangs or trip mines.

What's an "urban combat weapon" and who's asking for flashbangs and mines?

Also, who are you to tell anyone what weapon they need for home defense? If I want to use an AR pistol for home defense, it's my prerogative. If I want to use a blunderbuss, again it's my prerogative. It's also my prerogative if I even want to own a gun.

Actually, no it's not. You don't get to own any gun you want. That's according to the Supreme Court. The government can put limits on it and it does.

And don't play stupid. You know exactly what kind of weapons were designed for combat in urban environments, especially as a gun nut.

Aw shucks, is that what I'm missing? Thanks for that nugget of enlightenment. Perhaps stepping off your opinionated ivory tower may bear fruit for you too. Didn't say it would effect share price, didn't say it would bring Delta to it's knees did I? I said it will effect Delta to some measure and I've not read anyone say anything more extreme. For the record, I am neck deep in my extended network of those who think differently and we have productive conversations. Both approaches to a serious public safety issue have some measure of merit but neither would likely pass public or legislative muster undiluted. Thanks for the advice, but I'm just fine and very refreshed.

Vast majority of Americans want more regulations controlling guns. Regurgitation of NRA talking points don't cut it anymore. Elected officials with A ratings from the NRA will pay the price in November.

The Supreme Court has said there can be limits, but has not, as of now, defined those limits. The closest they have come is to say we have a right to guns that are in “common use”.

Where is the outrage?

2 high schoolers killed and one severely injured by a drunk driver.

Alleged drunk driver kills high school students from Nevada Union in Grass Valley | The Sacramento Bee

Where is the outrage?

29 people killed every day in the U.S.by drunk drivers.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/s...apon-myth.html

From the piece,

"The continuing focus on "assault weapons" stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots."


Facts are facts.

According to Heller, which is what I presume you're referring to referencing the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment protects the weapons "in common use." AR-15 fits that definition to a T with millions of such rifles in civilian hands for all sorts of use.

No, I really don't know what your idea of "weapons designed for combat in urban environments" is. You may want to stop and re-read what you wrote.

I guess you're only allowed to be outraged by the most deadly things, then. We could stop funding prostate cancer research and having prostate awareness events because heart disease kills more people. Where is the outrage?!

Yep. Classic “Butwhatabout” fallacy.

Let’s get rid of all safety FAR’s because heart disease kills more people than aircraft crashes.