Not just about money, but about short-term profits for specific people.

A "responsible" gun owner would not bring a weapon of war into a peaceful civilian population. And people are not talking about taking away rifles or handguns. Neither of those can kill 17 teachers and students in 7 minutes.

Oh Stephanie. Your profile, you sell children for food? Really. Yes republicans are for not having women's rights and for having guns. Those are the main 2 issues. Oh yes except giving great tax advantages to the wealthy and deceiving the red necks. That would be you Stephanie, unless you make over 1,000.000. A year

This May Be person is a complete idiot. Their society comment is so stupid it doesn't deserve a response. And they clearly Don't Know Jack schitt about handguns, to suggest that you couldn't kill 17 people with a pistol? Really? WTF kinda pistol have you ever seen a revolver? A well-trained person could do a lot more damage with a pistol than the average person could with a AR-15.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

@May Be - An AR-15 is not a weapon of war, although it looks like some of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Fracas Paul, thank you for proving my point. As that article clearly states, assault rifles are "selective fire" weapons (do you think Joyce--or most of the people commenting here--know what "selective fire" means?) whose ownership is already heavily restricted by present laws. No mass shooting in the US has ever been committed with an "assault rifle". Sensible debate about firearm regulation in the US is hampered by people's (often willfull) ignorance of the very subject they feel so passionately about.