I disagree with your policy, but understand the reasons behind it. I think ultimately it is much more important to systematically eliminate access to guns than to tackle any incidentals on the way.

From 96 to 2006 the murder rate dropped almost 20% in australia. Whats sad is that you aren’t going to correct your repeated false claims, nor will you google this and understand the truth.

Oh fine, be an asshole. You have that right. Just expect to be called on it.

What a petty and totally ineffective buy-back policy. Def not voting for you, lol.

I don’t think a voluntary buy-back program will bear much fruit

I’ll give a shit about ableist terms when people stop dying because a bunch of retards are being made into useful idiots (idiot was originally what you would call an ableist term, btw).

Free speech is popular.

There is no evidence to suggest this is true. The best case we have is Australia, which sustained its murder rate 

All available data shows that banning guns doesn’t make fewer people die.

From 96 to 2006 the murder rate in Australia fell 20%. Account for increasing population, dummy!

From 96 to 2006 the murder rate in Australia fell 20%. Account for increasing population, dummy!

Australia banned guns and their murder rate didn’t change.

Their overall murder rate was not affected.

Australia banned guns and their murder rate didn’t change.

LOL so this is just a political statement, new angle to get gun control - gun control advocates start doing mass shootings to demonstrate how we need gun control. Not the wackiest conspiracy theory I’ve ever heard.

You buried the lede here... Trump just admitted there was a mass shooting at Sandy Hook. This is pretty big. What next, climate change is real? Vaccinations are good?

The raw reality is that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide, and 97% of the other 1/3 are single and double homicides. Mass-shootings make up for about 1% of gun deaths.

*sigh* I should’ve been more careful with my phrasing, but I’d figured the parenthetic phrase following “banning guns” made clear that I was talking about a 100% seizure and destruction plan.

Here is your entire post, please explain how you gave a “full-throated call for gun control” versus a lukewarm regurgitation of things we might try to do, like background checks, and then explain to me how what I said - that the exact opposite of your first line and thesis (banning guns WILL absolutely work):

First line of your OP: